Elon Musk and Bill Gates don’t like one another. Two roosters fighting over who controls a trash dump.
Charlie Chaplin wouldn’t have invented a better comedy: two multi-billionaires duking it out. And neither would have William Shakespeare, to name but the most deserving giants of drama.
The world is watching in amazement.
And trying to figure out who of the two rich guys has shown more chutzpah.
Nothing beats a farce like that.
Of course, as a proper comedy should, this one has tragic undertones. Both Charles Chaplin and William Shakespeare mastered it, and that’s what has made them great.
It’s this uncanny combination of laughter through tears that has made Chaplin and Shakespeare immortal.
Neither Elon Musk, he of the electric cars and space exploration, and the new owner of Twitter, nor Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft and the guy who wants to paint our blue planet green, while murdering those whom he finds superfluous, will ever achieve this status.
But they’re trying their darndest.
It’s only about money
Bill Gates sees himself as the greatest environmental philanthropist this planet has ever seen. The frightfully unfortunate thing is, so does Elon Musk see himself as the greatest environmental philanthropist this planet has ever seen.
Gates sent a message to Musk the other day. It said that he wished to “discuss philanthropy possibilities.”
What he meant, of course, was that he wished to get a contribution from Musk for some of his new hare-brained projects.
Musk asked Gates: “Do you still have a half billion dollar short position against Tesla?”
For average Marys and Joes: you still owe me half-a-billion that you had promised to send my company’s way.
Gates replied that he “simply forgot to close his position out,” and repeated his original message about “philanthropy possibilities.” He tried to make it look as if he just hadn’t heard Musk’s question. So, Musk, with the elegance of a hippo in a china store, reminded him: “Sorry, but I cannot take your philanthropy on climate change seriously when you have a massive, short position against Tesla, the company doing the most to solve climate change.”
This resembles statements such as, “My Dad’s stronger than yours,” or “Just watch out, I know two karate kicks, one of them definitely deadly, and I can’t recall which of the two it is.”
Electric cars run on energy that has to come from somewhere. A power plant comes to mind. Or a battery, and that battery consists of metals that have to be mined somewhere, with chemicals (also made somewhere) added. Not only that: even the longest-lasting battery is only rechargeable so many times. Where will you store those that cannot by re-used? To be more practical: what are you going to do with them?
It doesn’t matter much that you’ll need to answer these questions, say, a decade later (nobody knows for sure). You’ll have to find an answer one day.
At the moment, there exists no reliable answer to any of these questions, meaning that nobody in their right mind can say a single word about their impact on climate change (and environment in general).
The only thing we know for sure is that all that talk about electric vehicles’ curative effect on climate change and environment is just so much hot air.
And so are Musk’s statements about freedom of expression that he is going to return to his new toy, Twitter.
It’s all in jest
Of course, Musk’s been expressing freely his utter disdain for Gates and most of that he had stood for. Not much has been sacred, from the vaccines to meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, with a divorce coming shortly after the revelation of Gates’s friendship with the world’s now-best-known paedophile.
But not even Elon Musk would tread into the minefield of Gates’s Malthusianism and eugenics obsession. He did dispute the 18th-to-19th century English priest’s views about the world’s overpopulation, but he wouldn’t touch the theory that followed: people who (in the eyes of the powers-that-be) can’t contribute to proper growth and development of humanity as a species should be removed so as not to foul up our genetic pool.
Musk found an alibi for limiting the freedom of expression: Twitter under his command would respect and obey individual countries’ laws. In fact, Musk has coined a brand new definition: “By ‘free speech’, I simply mean that which matches the law.”
“If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect,” Musk explained, finishing this mental slalom with flourish: “Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”
The multitudes of Hollywood village idiots who had been tearing their expensive coiffures over the idea that Elon Musk will own Twitter, and therefore they will quit using it, can sleep peacefully: Gates and Musk are of the same cloth.
Most of the media are happy: the insults these two giants of mental exercise limited to counting their coin make for piquant headlines and juicy stories. Most audiences are happy, too: look, even these two guys show signs that they may be human, that they put their trousers one leg at a time, just of most of us do, also, that they have feelings.
Sheer nonsense. All of it.
What we are witnessing is but a fight between two roosters over who of them will control a trash dump. And not a word about who’s going to pay for the damages once the dust settles.