I dismiss people who call legitimate political differences in the public square of ideas “Nazi’s” as unserious people. Non reflective lefties are not serious people.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially dismissed it as “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm.”
However, in response to Musk posting a series of Nazi puns to social media on Thursday, the ADL hit out at “inappropriate and highly offensive jokes that trivialize the Holocaust.”
It’s Friday, the new Galloway article is out and … wait for it … it’s filled with all the exact same cliches and recycled catch phrases that he uses in every single article
Oh, and he’s bitching about Trump and Musk again. (see: Every Single Time Galloway writes about anything)
Good to see the Musk Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. You're going to drive yourself mad trying to prove how unstable/ dangerous/ evil he is, while he goes from strength to strength.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) viewed the concentration of private economic power as a grave threat to democracy, labeling the era's oligarchs as "economic royalists" and "malefactors of great wealth". He argued that this elite class created a new form of tyranny by trying to dominate both the economy and the government.
Key Perspectives and Actions Against Oligarchy:
"Economic Royalists" Warning: In his 1936 campaign, FDR decried "economic royalists" who created new dynasties and a new despotism, using their corporate power to manipulate the government.
"Government by Organized Money": Roosevelt famously declared that "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob," stating that the economic elite were "unanimous in their hate" for him.
The Second Bill of Rights: FDR proposed this to provide a democratic firewall against oligarchy, arguing that economic security was essential, as markets do not produce justice alone.
Anti-Monopoly Stance: He warned that the growth of private power could become stronger than the democratic state itself, which he deemed a form of fascism.
Concrete Action: His administration, particularly the New Deal, focused on regulating Wall Street, strengthening labor unions, and using tax policy to break up concentrated wealth.
FDR's approach focused on redistributing economic power to protect the "weak against the strong," believing that government's duty is to the public good rather than the privileged few.
Like the vampire Lestat, or AT&T, you can chop these forces of power into bits, set them on fire, and scatter the remains, but they will find a way to reassemble and regain their influence. Never assume the job is done.
The argument that modern “chokepoints” represent an existential failure of globalization is overstated, selectively framed, and ultimately misses how global systems actually function. What the author calls fragility is, in many cases, the natural outcome of efficiency, scale, and comparative advantage—the very forces that have driven unprecedented global prosperity.
Take the Strait of Hormuz, the centerpiece of the article’s alarmism. It is misleading to frame this passage as a vulnerable “artery” controlled by a single actor. The Strait is not sovereign territory belonging to Iran or any single nation—it is an international transit waterway governed by established maritime law, specifically the principle of transit passage under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This means that all nations have the legal right to pass through it for commerce and navigation. Any attempt to “close” it is not just a regional disruption—it is an act against the entire global community, triggering immediate multinational response. In reality, this is not a chokepoint controlled by one party, but a shared global corridor backed by overwhelming economic and military incentives to keep it open.
The same flawed framing applies to the discussion of corporate and technological concentration. The dominance of companies like SpaceX or major cloud providers is not evidence of systemic failure—it is evidence of market success. These firms achieved scale because they outperformed competitors in innovation, cost, and execution. Suggesting that their success is inherently dangerous ignores the competitive dynamics that constantly threaten incumbents. Today’s leader can quickly become tomorrow’s laggard—just ask former tech giants that once seemed untouchable.
Moreover, concentration often enhances reliability rather than undermines it. Large-scale infrastructure providers invest billions into redundancy, cybersecurity, and uptime—far more than fragmented systems ever could. The idea that decentralization automatically produces resilience is not supported by history; in many cases, it produces inefficiency, higher costs, and weaker systems.
The article also overreaches in its critique of U.S. governance. The evolution of executive power is not the creation of a “chokepoint,” but a response to the realities of a complex, fast-moving global environment. Congress has, over decades, delegated authority intentionally to enable quicker decision-making in trade and national security. That is not a breakdown of the system—it is the system adapting.
Finally, the portrayal of global supply chains—particularly semiconductors and Taiwan—as reckless dependencies ignores ongoing, large-scale efforts to diversify production. The United States, Europe, and allies are already investing heavily to expand domestic capacity. Markets and governments alike recognize concentration risks and are actively addressing them. This is not negligence; it is dynamic adjustment in real time.
The broader issue with the article is tone and perspective. It treats interdependence as weakness rather than strength. Yet globalization has lifted billions out of poverty, accelerated technological progress, and created a level of economic integration that makes large-scale conflict less likely, not more.
Bottom line: These so-called chokepoints are not signs of systemic failure—they are the structural backbone of a highly optimized global economy. They carry risk, yes, but they also reflect coordination, specialization, and scale. The real danger is not that these systems exist—it’s misunderstanding how resilient they actually are.
The irony is that US Government subsidized Elon Musks's companies. He is no genius - money begets money and he knows to hire brilliant engineers. Unless there is a limit on income, you get billionaires like Elon and others. Most folks can barely make a living, and here we have billionaires celebrated which probably includes you. The standard answer is that they create jobs! It was dumb for governments to privatize most things that makes no sense. Sadly, unfettered capitalism will never care for the welfare of its citizens. Rethinking capitalism where it benefits all, can make decisions at local level, and everyone can make a decent living would be the right thing. It is not an ideal! There is plenty of resources and it is a distribution problem. Frankly, everyone who wants to work should be employed and not maintain the artificial under employment so that people feare for their livelihood.
The war gamed attack on Iran, resulting in closure of the Strait of Hormuz was correct. The current closure was not an intelligence; it is another Presidential failure of the Trump administration.
Another chokepoint that we’re not addressing sufficiently: just 3 telecommunications companies for our voice and data messaging. These companies have already been compromised by our adversaries who are inside their systems, “living off the land.” In addition to standing-by for later disruptions, our adversaries are perhaps collecting encrypted information for later decryption by quantum computers when that tech is ready.
My take on the protest.. I absolutely love to see so many people exercising free speech. Can I ask you people… Why can’t you come together for no reason other than community? I wish I could see this in parks and neighborhoods every weekend. Maybe that is what’s actually dividing us.
The global supply chain is built on a single point failure and it always has been. The single point is trust… Globalization was never the problem. The problem is trust… Trust between countries, business’s, groups of people… Trust that mutual needs can and will be met… Trust that we are here for no reason than to benefit humanity..
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially dismissed it as “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm.”
However, in response to Musk posting a series of Nazi puns to social media on Thursday, the ADL hit out at “inappropriate and highly offensive jokes that trivialize the Holocaust.”
Dude, it’s a wave. Google how many politicians (including many democrats) have images of waves that look like nazi salutes from the just the right angle etc etc.
There are enough actually meaty arguments to use to criticize Elon. Using this hand gesture thing sprinkled in with actual solid arguments just weakens those valid arguments as this isn’t a serious thing. That’s my point.
The speaker argues that this current war (U.S./Israel vs Iran context) is fundamentally different from past wars—it’s not Iraq 2.0, not neocon-driven, and not bound by old geopolitical rules.
👉 His claim:
We’ve entered a new type of war—a “civilizational + technological + space-based (orbital)” conflict—and most critics are wrong because they’re using outdated frameworks to judge it.
🧠 2. Key Arguments (Structured)
A. “This is NOT neocon war (Iraq-style)”
Old wars = spreading democracy via global institutions (UN, NATO, IMF)
This war = ignores global institutions entirely
Focus is now:
Civilizational alliances
National interest
Strategic power (not ideology)
👉 Translation:
This is not about “nation-building”—it’s about security and dominance
B. “Trump isn’t being controlled by Israel”
Old argument: U.S. policy bends to Israeli interests
His rebuttal:
The Abraham Accords changed everything
Arab states (Saudi, UAE, etc.) now align with Israel against Iran
👉 Translation:
Supporting Israel now = supporting a regional coalition, not just one country
C. “No boots on the ground needed anymore”
Critics say regime change requires invasion
He argues:
Technology replaced that need:
AI targeting
Drones
Real-time satellite intelligence
👉 Key claim:
Modern war = remote, automated, precision-based
Ground invasions are becoming obsolete
D. “Iran can’t just rebuild anymore”
Old thinking: bomb → enemy rebuilds later
New reality:
24/7 satellite surveillance
AI tracking movements instantly
No more “hidden rebuilding”
👉 Translation:
You can now continuously suppress a nation’s capabilities without occupying it
🌍 3. What He’s REALLY Saying (Subtext / Angle)
This is important—you’ll appreciate this given how you analyze markets and geopolitics:
He’s framing the world as:
Multipolar
Civilization-based blocs
Not “rules-based global order”
He strongly believes:
The liberal international system is dead
War is now:
Religious (civilizational identity)
Technological (AI, drones)
Space-driven (satellites, Starlink)
👉 This is ideological framing—not just analysis
It leans heavily toward a pro-Trump, pro-intervention justification
⚔️ 4. Conclusion
His bottom line:
Critics of the war are wrong—not because their concerns are invalid—
But because they are using old models (Iraq, neocons, Israel lobby, ground war logic)
👉 His final claim:
This is a completely new era of warfare
Civilizational alliances
Tech-dominated combat
Space-based surveillance
Continuous control without occupation
👉 He frames it as a “civilizational (even religious) conflict”
Broadly: Western/Abrahamic alliance vs Iranian-led bloc
💡 Straight Talk (My Analytical Layer)
✔️ Tech (AI, drones, satellites) is absolutely changing warfare
✔️ Middle East alliances have shifted (huge point)
Brilliant, thank you.
If you can’t see Elons racism you’re purposely and planned incompetent.
Elon’s living in your head rent free.
I stopped when you went to the “Nazi Salute meme” you are a left wing clown for trying to push that.
I dismiss people who call legitimate political differences in the public square of ideas “Nazi’s” as unserious people. Non reflective lefties are not serious people.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially dismissed it as “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm.”
However, in response to Musk posting a series of Nazi puns to social media on Thursday, the ADL hit out at “inappropriate and highly offensive jokes that trivialize the Holocaust.”
The ADL is a hate group and only the most gullible fools still believe their propaganda these days.
It’s Friday, the new Galloway article is out and … wait for it … it’s filled with all the exact same cliches and recycled catch phrases that he uses in every single article
Oh, and he’s bitching about Trump and Musk again. (see: Every Single Time Galloway writes about anything)
Must be a Friday.
Good to see the Musk Derangement Syndrome is alive and well. You're going to drive yourself mad trying to prove how unstable/ dangerous/ evil he is, while he goes from strength to strength.
Hey look, Galloway is being jealous again of people that are more successful than him.
Must be a Friday.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) viewed the concentration of private economic power as a grave threat to democracy, labeling the era's oligarchs as "economic royalists" and "malefactors of great wealth". He argued that this elite class created a new form of tyranny by trying to dominate both the economy and the government.
Key Perspectives and Actions Against Oligarchy:
"Economic Royalists" Warning: In his 1936 campaign, FDR decried "economic royalists" who created new dynasties and a new despotism, using their corporate power to manipulate the government.
"Government by Organized Money": Roosevelt famously declared that "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob," stating that the economic elite were "unanimous in their hate" for him.
The Second Bill of Rights: FDR proposed this to provide a democratic firewall against oligarchy, arguing that economic security was essential, as markets do not produce justice alone.
Anti-Monopoly Stance: He warned that the growth of private power could become stronger than the democratic state itself, which he deemed a form of fascism.
Concrete Action: His administration, particularly the New Deal, focused on regulating Wall Street, strengthening labor unions, and using tax policy to break up concentrated wealth.
FDR's approach focused on redistributing economic power to protect the "weak against the strong," believing that government's duty is to the public good rather than the privileged few.
Like the vampire Lestat, or AT&T, you can chop these forces of power into bits, set them on fire, and scatter the remains, but they will find a way to reassemble and regain their influence. Never assume the job is done.
"One man’s satellite network" Easy peas;y, nationalize Space X
The argument that modern “chokepoints” represent an existential failure of globalization is overstated, selectively framed, and ultimately misses how global systems actually function. What the author calls fragility is, in many cases, the natural outcome of efficiency, scale, and comparative advantage—the very forces that have driven unprecedented global prosperity.
Take the Strait of Hormuz, the centerpiece of the article’s alarmism. It is misleading to frame this passage as a vulnerable “artery” controlled by a single actor. The Strait is not sovereign territory belonging to Iran or any single nation—it is an international transit waterway governed by established maritime law, specifically the principle of transit passage under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This means that all nations have the legal right to pass through it for commerce and navigation. Any attempt to “close” it is not just a regional disruption—it is an act against the entire global community, triggering immediate multinational response. In reality, this is not a chokepoint controlled by one party, but a shared global corridor backed by overwhelming economic and military incentives to keep it open.
The same flawed framing applies to the discussion of corporate and technological concentration. The dominance of companies like SpaceX or major cloud providers is not evidence of systemic failure—it is evidence of market success. These firms achieved scale because they outperformed competitors in innovation, cost, and execution. Suggesting that their success is inherently dangerous ignores the competitive dynamics that constantly threaten incumbents. Today’s leader can quickly become tomorrow’s laggard—just ask former tech giants that once seemed untouchable.
Moreover, concentration often enhances reliability rather than undermines it. Large-scale infrastructure providers invest billions into redundancy, cybersecurity, and uptime—far more than fragmented systems ever could. The idea that decentralization automatically produces resilience is not supported by history; in many cases, it produces inefficiency, higher costs, and weaker systems.
The article also overreaches in its critique of U.S. governance. The evolution of executive power is not the creation of a “chokepoint,” but a response to the realities of a complex, fast-moving global environment. Congress has, over decades, delegated authority intentionally to enable quicker decision-making in trade and national security. That is not a breakdown of the system—it is the system adapting.
Finally, the portrayal of global supply chains—particularly semiconductors and Taiwan—as reckless dependencies ignores ongoing, large-scale efforts to diversify production. The United States, Europe, and allies are already investing heavily to expand domestic capacity. Markets and governments alike recognize concentration risks and are actively addressing them. This is not negligence; it is dynamic adjustment in real time.
The broader issue with the article is tone and perspective. It treats interdependence as weakness rather than strength. Yet globalization has lifted billions out of poverty, accelerated technological progress, and created a level of economic integration that makes large-scale conflict less likely, not more.
Bottom line: These so-called chokepoints are not signs of systemic failure—they are the structural backbone of a highly optimized global economy. They carry risk, yes, but they also reflect coordination, specialization, and scale. The real danger is not that these systems exist—it’s misunderstanding how resilient they actually are.
Nicely written. By which AI model?
I could say the same to Prof G's weekly newsletters ... ChinaGPT
Copying and pasting articles into AI and asking it to generate a counter argument. Not smart.
Your comment is very AI, not a human thinking. Because Ai isn't living the experience, and also it's there to fed you up with what you ask it.
CommieGPT
HaHa!
I would consider this as a Declaration of War.
“Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”
I remember Senator Byrd giving a very impassion speech against passage of this bill in which he mentioned sending our young men off to war.
The irony is that US Government subsidized Elon Musks's companies. He is no genius - money begets money and he knows to hire brilliant engineers. Unless there is a limit on income, you get billionaires like Elon and others. Most folks can barely make a living, and here we have billionaires celebrated which probably includes you. The standard answer is that they create jobs! It was dumb for governments to privatize most things that makes no sense. Sadly, unfettered capitalism will never care for the welfare of its citizens. Rethinking capitalism where it benefits all, can make decisions at local level, and everyone can make a decent living would be the right thing. It is not an ideal! There is plenty of resources and it is a distribution problem. Frankly, everyone who wants to work should be employed and not maintain the artificial under employment so that people feare for their livelihood.
The war gamed attack on Iran, resulting in closure of the Strait of Hormuz was correct. The current closure was not an intelligence; it is another Presidential failure of the Trump administration.
Another chokepoint that we’re not addressing sufficiently: just 3 telecommunications companies for our voice and data messaging. These companies have already been compromised by our adversaries who are inside their systems, “living off the land.” In addition to standing-by for later disruptions, our adversaries are perhaps collecting encrypted information for later decryption by quantum computers when that tech is ready.
The Prof G spitting facts…
My take on the protest.. I absolutely love to see so many people exercising free speech. Can I ask you people… Why can’t you come together for no reason other than community? I wish I could see this in parks and neighborhoods every weekend. Maybe that is what’s actually dividing us.
The global supply chain is built on a single point failure and it always has been. The single point is trust… Globalization was never the problem. The problem is trust… Trust between countries, business’s, groups of people… Trust that mutual needs can and will be met… Trust that we are here for no reason than to benefit humanity..
It’s unfortunate how much credibility your well argued piece lost due to the peddling of the ‘nazi salute’ bit.
Otherwise well written and solid points!
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially dismissed it as “an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm.”
However, in response to Musk posting a series of Nazi puns to social media on Thursday, the ADL hit out at “inappropriate and highly offensive jokes that trivialize the Holocaust.”
Dude, it’s a wave. Google how many politicians (including many democrats) have images of waves that look like nazi salutes from the just the right angle etc etc.
There are enough actually meaty arguments to use to criticize Elon. Using this hand gesture thing sprinkled in with actual solid arguments just weakens those valid arguments as this isn’t a serious thing. That’s my point.
Dr. Steve Turley ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQrTsq1Eg4
1. Core Thesis (Main Idea)
The speaker argues that this current war (U.S./Israel vs Iran context) is fundamentally different from past wars—it’s not Iraq 2.0, not neocon-driven, and not bound by old geopolitical rules.
👉 His claim:
We’ve entered a new type of war—a “civilizational + technological + space-based (orbital)” conflict—and most critics are wrong because they’re using outdated frameworks to judge it.
🧠 2. Key Arguments (Structured)
A. “This is NOT neocon war (Iraq-style)”
Old wars = spreading democracy via global institutions (UN, NATO, IMF)
This war = ignores global institutions entirely
Focus is now:
Civilizational alliances
National interest
Strategic power (not ideology)
👉 Translation:
This is not about “nation-building”—it’s about security and dominance
B. “Trump isn’t being controlled by Israel”
Old argument: U.S. policy bends to Israeli interests
His rebuttal:
The Abraham Accords changed everything
Arab states (Saudi, UAE, etc.) now align with Israel against Iran
👉 Translation:
Supporting Israel now = supporting a regional coalition, not just one country
C. “No boots on the ground needed anymore”
Critics say regime change requires invasion
He argues:
Technology replaced that need:
AI targeting
Drones
Real-time satellite intelligence
👉 Key claim:
Modern war = remote, automated, precision-based
Ground invasions are becoming obsolete
D. “Iran can’t just rebuild anymore”
Old thinking: bomb → enemy rebuilds later
New reality:
24/7 satellite surveillance
AI tracking movements instantly
No more “hidden rebuilding”
👉 Translation:
You can now continuously suppress a nation’s capabilities without occupying it
🌍 3. What He’s REALLY Saying (Subtext / Angle)
This is important—you’ll appreciate this given how you analyze markets and geopolitics:
He’s framing the world as:
Multipolar
Civilization-based blocs
Not “rules-based global order”
He strongly believes:
The liberal international system is dead
War is now:
Religious (civilizational identity)
Technological (AI, drones)
Space-driven (satellites, Starlink)
👉 This is ideological framing—not just analysis
It leans heavily toward a pro-Trump, pro-intervention justification
⚔️ 4. Conclusion
His bottom line:
Critics of the war are wrong—not because their concerns are invalid—
But because they are using old models (Iraq, neocons, Israel lobby, ground war logic)
👉 His final claim:
This is a completely new era of warfare
Civilizational alliances
Tech-dominated combat
Space-based surveillance
Continuous control without occupation
👉 He frames it as a “civilizational (even religious) conflict”
Broadly: Western/Abrahamic alliance vs Iranian-led bloc
💡 Straight Talk (My Analytical Layer)
✔️ Tech (AI, drones, satellites) is absolutely changing warfare
✔️ Middle East alliances have shifted (huge point)
✔️ U.S. is moving away from nation-building
Where he stretches:
❗ “No need for boots on ground” → overstated
❗ “Iran can’t rebuild” → historically proven false long-term
❗ “Totally new war” → partially true, but not a clean break
What this means strategically:
Warfare is becoming:
Cheaper (drones)
Persistent (surveillance)
Less politically costly (no troops)
👉 That changes incentives → more frequent conflicts become possible
🧭 Bottom Line for You
This video is essentially a justification narrative:
“This war is different, necessary, and critics don’t understand the new world.”
It’s intellectually structured, but also clearly framed to support the current strategy, not neutrally analyze it.