Elon Musk’s Hunt on Migrants: Can Belfast Hold Him Accountable?

Elon Musk is a product of a state organized as a permanent hunt of humans. Apartheid South Africa ran on pass laws, racial registries, and a security apparatus whose daily work was pursuing a racialized population through the streets.

He did not observe from outside. He did not change late in life. His maternal grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, chose it very intentionally and arguably helped lead it that way.

Haldeman fled Canada after being arrested as an enemy of the state, a supporter of Hitler, and went to help build apartheid South Africa, and by the family’s own account was “fanatical” in support of apartheid and sympathetic to Nazism.

The man apparently most heavily influencing Elon Musk from his early life was a conspiracy theorist with a thesis: that apartheid South Africa was destined to lead “White Christian Civilization” against an International Conspiracy of Jewish bankers controlling, in his phrase, the hordes of colored people. Great replacement doctrine, written down a generation before the term existed.

The family posture toward their vision of the hunted is on record in Errol’s own words. Flying private aircraft over the territory, he described the people below as wild humans among the wild animals and the many things that can kill you. That is the worldview Musk absorbed before he could advocate for it himself. The hunted are not people. They are fauna, a danger to be managed from above.

And then in 1988 when apartheid was faltering, under pressure from USAID and other external actors, Elon Musk was saddled up with bags of cash from his family’s ill-gotten fortunes and left first for Canada on his mother’s citizenship, reaching the United States in 1992, where he is reported to have worked without authorization. PayPal turned apartheid wealth into untraceable American tech equity and kept the human hunting framework intact.

When anyone today asks what Musk does on social media, the honest answer is that he reproduces the social logic he has always adhered to, the logic behind his abrupt migration in 1988. Identify a population. Mark it as threat. Point the crowd and say, hunt.

The pattern is consistent because the ideology is inherited, not improvised. He amplified the great replacement directly, telling its proponents in 2023 that they had spoken the actual truth.

He campaigned for the AfD, told Germans to set down what he framed as excessive past guilt, platformed Alice Weidel, and used the largest megaphone on earth to push a party under Verfassungsschutz observation closer to power. And the rhyme is hard to miss. His grandfather fled Canada for South Africa, to help lead apartheid, after his own movement was banned and he was arrested for running it.

The AFD (Nazi Party) rally in Germany was headlined by Elon Musk

We have to admit that the sequence in Belfast is far from novel conduct. It is a pattern, the second performance of a script Musk already ran in the same country, with the same frontman, Tommy Robinson, nearly two years earlier.

July 2024, Southport, three were murdered. A false claim spread that the killer was a Muslim asylum seeker. Musk engaged Tommy Robinson, then posted to a clip of the spreading violence that civil war is inevitable. Across the riots he posted 46 times and generated 808 million impressions, and Amnesty concluded his platform played a central role in the Southport violence; CCDH concluded no individual did more harm than Musk in Belfast.

no individual played a bigger role in spreading this content on X than Musk himself

It was the sixth time since October that Elon Musk had forecast civil war in Europe. The result of his provocation was exactly what we all know results from it, mobs targeting Muslim and migrant communities, arson at hotels housing asylum seekers.

June 2026, Belfast. A stabbing. The same Tommy Robinson issues the call. Musk amplifies with the identical grammar he used in 2024, the two-exclamation-mark endorsement: protest repeatedly and loudly. He reposts material reading millions must go and writes about murderous migrants beheading people. The result on the ground this time was unmistakably the South African hunt logic of masked men going door to door, “Foreigners get out,” burning homes they believed housed immigrants.

Door to door. That is the literal act of hunting. Not metaphor. Men moving through a city looking for members of a marked category to find and burn out. A hunt for migrants is the thing that physically happened in the street, and Musk’s amplification stood upstream of it for the second time in the same jurisdiction. A man who sounds the same call at the same target twice is no innocent bystander to the hunt he summons. The crowd heard him, and the crowd hunts.

Or to put it another way, we have no evidence he has ever said do not hunt, or called upon people to stop the hunt, even when he’s being accused of being the one instrumental in calls for it. The calls for calm came from the police service, the victim’s family, and politicians across the parties, never from Elon Musk.

Source: Irish Examiner

Software Talmud, Safety as Grief

I read an essay called “Software Talmud #00: Anatomy of Automation” about software development that felt like a hall of mirrors.

It is a pile of quotations that argue against making piles. I found that amusing, to say the least.

It invokes the Talmud, which it defines as the wonderful codification of thousands of teachers, a pile of beauty, telling you that the best component of all is the one that was never added. Ok, I’m laughing. This is a man speaking who says nobody should be speaking. A hammer that says smash hammers. Alan Watts the “philosophical entertainer” used to give a “stop talking” lecture to audiences expected to listen to only him talking, rather than be in dialogue.

In the middle is an example of a thing built and then discarded after finding something else already solved the problem. Yet the rest of the piece expands, rather than reduces, the reader’s commitment to it. Haha, good one.

All that being said, it lands on a very somber note. It wraps up like a memorial from Efron Amber Licht to his grandfather and great-uncle, who changed their names so decades later in 1960s America they could write about engineering. These sage engineers indeed solved problems that we seem to forget, in the same way our grandparents paid for comforts they wanted us to enjoy today.

The whole piece is arguing that you can’t trust subtraction until you’ve done the expensive work of deciding what the system is even for, and his own family is the case his writing never resolves, a cut he calls a good one and grieves anyway.

My suspicion is that the discrimination his grandparents suffered, and the freedom the simple name change bought, sit at the kind of distance he can’t see from where he sits. It’s like learning how to dye your hair blond in Germany in 2026 if you expect kids to treat you as a human instead of a threat.

Here’s the problem: He mourns from behind the very protection that he’s mourning. He inherited the freedom and reaches back for the nostalgia of a thing that, kept, would have cost him the freedom he now enjoys.

His elders chose to survive so that he could mourn what they gave up for him. They did exactly what their book preaches. First decide what the system is for, like staying alive and employable in a country with restricted covenants and quotas, then start the cuts to fit in. They got the purpose right. The grandson who second-guesses that decision raises the question whether he ever faced the kind of system they did.

And I get a fixation with reducing work before you speed it up with tools. That’s a simple formula, perhaps too simple, missing context. Everyone learns measure twice, cut once, right? Ooops, that’s actually a lesson to increase the work before you automate. Well, surely we’ve all heard waste not, want not. Damnit, that’s thrift inside a job already accepted, not a reason to skip the job. Fine, look before you leap. Nope, that’s caution about how you act, not whether to do the act. A stitch in time saves nine? That’s just measure twice in a different coat, with more effort now to prevent the work you know is coming. Hmmm. I’m still not finding myself on the same page as this essay. Every proverb I reach for slows down and works harder, sharpens the axe and steadies the hand. Not one of them is a reduction, asks whether the work was ever a good idea in the first place. Well, maybe he means what Einstein said, as simple as possible, but not simpler.

The Sad Story of ZAP Electric Cars

Remember that one time in America an electric car inventor got pushed out of his own company by a wealthy charlatan, who went on to lying to investors all the way to bankruptcy?

Like so many others, he thought electric vehicles (EVs) were the obvious answer to pollution and expensive fossil fuels. In 1992, McGreen founded ZAP (Zero Air Pollution) Power Systems. But he needed more capital. […] Starr argued that ZAP could cut costs by outsourcing production to Asia. McGreen was committed to quality. Starr, however, had masterminded adding three directors to ZAP’s board. Late in 1999, Starr, his wife and his three new board members voted Jim McGreen out as president and CEO, putting Gary Starr in charge.

…Starr axed 80 of ZAP’s 100 California workers and outsourced to Taiwan. Almost immediately, cheap Asian copies– selling for a quarter of the “real thing”– flooded the market. With annual revenue falling below $5m, ZAP filed for Chapter 11 with a suspended Nasdaq share price of 21 cents.

Somehow, Starr emerged from Chapter 11 as board chairman. He brought in used-car dealer Steve Schneider. Between them, they gained controlling interest of Zap. Issuing stock as payment, ZAP went on a buying spree and learned the power of the press release to impress new investors.

[…] ZAP claims 644 hp, 0- 60 in 4.8 seconds and 155 mph, performance comparable to a Porsche Cayenne Turbo. Even less believably, ZAP claims a 350 mile range and a ten-minute recharge.

“This is vaporware,” responds auto industry analyst Aaron Bragman, of Global Insight. “The claims they’ve made just don’t jive with the current state of technology.”

That report is from April, 2008. Sounds so very familiar, but can’t quite put my finger on it.

flyingpenguin.com reaches 7,000 posts

We have reached 7,000 posts since 1995, which got me thinking…

I may forever remain unpopular, unwelcome to EFF slush parties in their mansion, or unable to win a coveted Forbes 100 under 100, but I hope my history professors will be proud and my gravestone will at least say “he blogged a lot“.

Wanted to take this moment to say thank you to my mother, father and the other four or five website readers over the decades. You all know who you are because I don’t track. Some highlights, if they exist at all:

…nevermind, cassandra-isms don’t feel like a celebration. at least I can say self-hosted has been far more fun and durable than Twitter.

Source: Twitter