In a must-watch interview posted October 7, Elon Musk sat down to talk with Tucker Carlson for nearly two hours. Along with discussing topics ranging from the promise and peril of artificial intelligence to the potentially catastrophic collapse in birthrates throughout the developed world, they spent a lot of time on politics.

Even looking back through history, it is hard to find industrialists that match Musk’s accomplishments. He is the founder and CEO of the leading companies in aerospace, electric vehicles, and satellite communications. He is also behind companies poised to deliver groundbreaking innovations in AI, tunneling, and medicine. And, of course, he bought Twitter, reduced headcount by 80 percent while improving site function, and restored free speech to the internet. Now he’s backing Donald Trump for president.

It’s almost pathetic to watch NPC “experts” on PBS and elsewhere in the ubiquitous pro-Harris mediasphere attempt to disparage Musk’s achievements. Someone with such a rare blend of engineering genius and operating savvy across virtually any business domain he chooses to enter ought to be someone to be taken seriously. Defying the overwhelming institutional support for Kamala Harris, Musk has chosen to support Trump.

Rather than dismissing Musk’s decision as the whims of someone who they falsely characterize as an overrated, potentially dangerous eccentric, critics of Musk ought to be asking why he decided to risk his reputation and his fortune to endorse Trump. In his own words:

“I formed America Pac to support core values that I believe in which are very obvious centrist positions which is that in America we want safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending – tell me where I’m going ‘far right’ here – we want to have the right to self protection, we should respect the constitution and not try to break the constitution, it’s there for a reason, and we should stop lawfare…the right to free speech, if we don’t have free speech we don’t have democracy because people cannot make an informed vote… Those are my ‘controversial’ views.”

Musk also discussed the Democrats’ long-term strategy, which he believes is connected to immigration. Pointing out that most of the massive migrations of recent years are into swing states, he explained how within five years of getting a green card, immigrants can become citizens and vote. While he acknowledged that many immigrants may not agree with Democrats on social issues, he suggested that their priority is to bring to America their relatives who are still living overseas, and that, along with the many public benefits promised by Democrats, will make them both loyal and beholden to the Democratic Party well into the future. And as he correctly pointed out, if the handful of swing states in America become reliably Democratic, America becomes a one-party state.

As if these aren’t enough reasons to vote Republican, Musk turned to the problem of overregulation by Democrats, a topic he has brought up repeatedly. He compared the situation to a football game, where it’s necessary to have referees, but if the referees outnumber the players, the game grinds to a halt. That’s an apt metaphor for what Democrats are going to do to America, to the extent they haven’t already. And to illustrate both points—the one-party state and the crippling impact of overregulation—Musk used the one-party, overregulated state of California as an example.

How many times do Americans in the rest of the country have to be warned? We don’t want America to turn into California. The one-party state exists to serve special interests, an alliance of public sector unions, and politically connected, monopolistic, and heavily subsidized corporations. This alliance is destroying the middle class, destroying small businesses, deliberately creating scarcity and high prices, and cultivating a growing underclass of households dependent on government assistance. To justify the scam, and with the complicity of the communications media online and offline, they’ve hired the finest behavioral psychologists on earth to foment fear and anxiety over the “climate crisis” and the “equity” crisis.

The only reason California still functions is because it has the best weather on earth. Productive people stay because they love the terrain and the temperature. That’s it. If California’s one-party rule was imposed in North Dakota, turning it into an unaffordable, corrupt, over-regulated swamp, that state would be empty in months.

Kamala Harris is a product of the one-party machine in California, but that machine is part of a larger blob. California is merely the place where the blob has completely consolidated its power. Musk described Harris therefore as completely interchangeable, a figurehead. The blob, of course, has many names. “Deep state” is another description, perhaps a bit more literal. Musk estimated the oligarchy that actually runs the Democratic Party today consists of around 100 people who each possess either incredible wealth, enormous influence, or both.

Understanding the motivations of these ultra-elites is confounding. But it may be as simple as the timeless urge of megalomaniacs to dominate the world. An August 28 interview that Tucker Carlson conducted with Mike Benz, a former US State Department official with extensive insider knowledge of US foreign policy, seems to bear this out. Benz claims that many of the mainstream ideological pieties of the last several decades were just tactics to spread American hegemony.

For example, “free trade” was the moral cover for multinational corporations to invest in single commodity production, displacing and destroying the ability of developing nations to grow their own food or build a diverse manufacturing sector. Similarly, “free speech” was encouraged throughout the world by the U.S. intelligence apparatus until, as Benz puts it, we had “the rise of citizen-backed voices that eclipsed CIA-backed media. Now we have programs at the State Department whose job it is to pressure foreign governments to enact censorship laws.”

This is what Kamala Harris represents. Should America dominate the world? Or more to the point, if America is going to remain the preeminent leader and example to the world, what sort of example is it going to set? Under Trump, a pluralistic economic system that embraces innovation and competition both commercially and politically, all over the world, is more likely to flourish. That doesn’t preclude America from maintaining a strategic military supremacy. It might even make it easier to maintain, as fewer forever wars are fought.

Under Harris, and the blob for which she is merely a marionette, America will be a coercive force, attempting to roll up and own entire nations the way corporations do mergers and acquisitions, all the while spewing the supposed moral imperatives of “equity” and “climate.” No wonder Kamala Harris is Dick Cheney’s wet dream.

You decide.