What If Some of the Pieces Are Real?

By Julie Bolejack

I came across something recently that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about.

It was written by Dr. Philip Low, an award-winning computational neuroscientist and founder of NeuroVigil. Low is also someone who knew Elon Musk personally for years. Musk invested in his company and served as an adviser.

Low has now made an extraordinary allegation.

Actually, a series of extraordinary allegations.

His thesis, stripped to its essentials, is that many events we’ve been watching unfold—the Trump administration’s fixation on Canada, Greenland and Panama; tariffs; attacks on government agencies; Elon Musk’s role in government; the weakening of traditional alliances; JD Vance’s relationships with nationalist movements in Europe; and Musk’s reported communications with Vladimir Putin—aren’t separate events.

Low believes they are pieces of a much larger plan.

And the conclusion he reaches is breathtaking.

He alleges that Elon Musk is essentially Donald Trump’s Russian handler and that Musk, Trump, Vance and Putin are part of an effort that ultimately threatens American democracy, NATO, Europe and even the territorial sovereignty of Canada, Mexico, Greenland and Panama.

Low goes further still.

He connects this to the old technocracy movement—the idea that society should be governed by technical experts rather than traditional democratic institutions—and to Musk’s own grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, who was involved with Technocracy Incorporated in Canada.

Low believes Musk ultimately envisions some version of a North American “Technate.”

That’s an enormous claim.

So before anybody starts building a bunker in the backyard, we need to do something increasingly rare in American political life.

Separate what we know from what we suspect.

Some of the pieces are real

This is why I don’t think Low’s thesis should simply be laughed away.

Donald Trump’s territorial rhetoric has been extraordinary for an American president.

He repeatedly talked about Canada becoming the 51st state. He questioned the legitimacy of the border between our countries. He expressed interest in acquiring Greenland. He threatened action concerning the Panama Canal.

At one point, Trump specifically declined to rule out military force involving Greenland and Panama.

Those aren’t internet rumors. Those things happened.

And today, relations between Canada and the United States remain deeply strained. Just this weekend, another serious round of tariffs escalated the confrontation between the two countries after trade negotiations broke down.

That doesn’t prove an invasion is coming.

It does demonstrate something important, though:

The pressure being exerted on Canada is real.

And economic coercion between two countries that have spent generations as extraordinarily close allies deserves our attention.

Then there is Elon Musk and Russia.

One of the more disturbing elements of Low’s argument rests on reporting that Musk maintained communications with Vladimir Putin.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2024 that Musk had been in regular contact with Putin since late 2022, discussing personal matters, business and geopolitics. The Kremlin disputed the extent of those contacts.

Think about why that matters.

Musk isn’t simply a billionaire who owns a social-media company.

SpaceX is deeply intertwined with the American government and national-security establishment. Starlink became enormously important to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion.

That means a private citizen possessed unusual influence over communications infrastructure being used in an active war involving Russia—while reportedly communicating with Russia’s president.

Does that prove Musk is working for Putin?

No.

Does it warrant serious scrutiny?

Absolutely.

Those are different statements.

Then came DOGE and USAID

Low also points to Musk’s role in the Trump administration and the dismantling of USAID.

Again, there are documented facts here worth examining.

Musk and DOGE became involved in sweeping changes across the federal government. DOGE personnel sought access to sensitive government systems. USAID was dramatically dismantled, despite enormous questions about whether the executive branch had the authority to effectively eliminate an agency created by Congress.

Low believes something more sinister occurred—that USAID was targeted partly because of information involving Musk and Starlink.

I haven’t found credible public evidence establishing that.

That distinction matters.

But I don’t need Low’s larger theory to be concerned about the underlying situation.

A billionaire whose companies receive billions of dollars in federal contracts having enormous influence over agencies that regulate, investigate or interact with his businesses presents conflicts of interest that should concern Americans regardless of political party.

And then there is Europe

Low argues that Musk and Vance have worked to strengthen nationalist political movements in Europe as part of an effort to weaken the European Union and NATO.

Again, part of this is documented.

Musk publicly supported Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party, the AfD.

Vice President JD Vance met with AfD leader Alice Weidel during the 2025 Munich Security Conference.

At the same time, the Trump administration’s relationship with Ukraine and America’s traditional European allies changed dramatically.

None of that proves a secret Putin-Musk-Vance conspiracy.

But neither is the underlying geopolitical realignment imaginary.

Something significant has been happening.

The question is why.

Where Low loses me

This is where we have to be disciplined.

Low takes documented events and connects them into a single enormous theory.

Tariffs become preparation for invading Canada and Mexico.

Greenland policy becomes preparation for invasion.

Immigration detention becomes preparation for holding Canadians and British citizens as leverage.

Changes within intelligence agencies become an effort to conceal the conspiracy.

Pressure on universities and the press becomes preparation for martial law.

USAID’s dismantling becomes destruction of evidence.

European nationalism becomes part of Putin’s strategy.

And eventually everything points toward the same conclusion: a North American Technate controlled by Musk.

The problem is that a theory explaining many facts isn’t necessarily a theory proven by those facts.

That’s enormously important.

Once we decide what the pattern is, every new event can become another piece of evidence supporting it.

That is how confirmation bias works.

If the theory is that an invasion of Canada is planned, then tariffs look like preparation for invasion.

But tariffs can also simply be tariffs.

If the theory is that Musk is Putin’s agent, every interaction involving Russia looks like evidence.

But communication isn’t necessarily collaboration.

If the theory is that changes at intelligence agencies are designed to conceal a coup, every personnel change becomes evidence of the coup.

That’s circular reasoning unless independent evidence establishes the underlying conspiracy.

And at this point, I haven’t seen that evidence.

But here’s where I land

I’m not ready to accept Philip Low’s grand thesis.

But I’m also not willing to ignore the individual pieces simply because his ultimate conclusion goes far beyond what the evidence currently demonstrates.

That’s the trap I think we should avoid.

We don’t have to choose between:

“Everything he says is true.”

and

“Everything he says is crazy.”

There’s an enormous—and important—space between those positions.

Musk’s reported communications with Putin deserve scrutiny.

The relationship between Musk’s private business interests and his governmental influence deserves scrutiny.

The weakening of America’s relationship with NATO allies deserves scrutiny.

Political intervention by powerful American billionaires in European elections deserves scrutiny.

Trump’s repeated statements concerning Canada, Greenland and Panama deserve scrutiny.

The use of extraordinary executive powers such as the Alien Enemies Act deserves scrutiny. The administration invoked that 1798 law against alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua members, prompting major legal challenges over presidential authority and due process.

And efforts to weaken independent institutions—the press, universities, inspectors general, courts, intelligence agencies or congressional oversight—should concern us regardless of who occupies the White House.

Because democracies rarely disappear in one dramatic moment.

Institutions weaken.

Norms become optional.

Power becomes concentrated.

People become accustomed to things that would have been unimaginable a few years earlier.

And eventually the unimaginable starts feeling normal.

Watch the evidence

So I’m putting Philip Low’s thesis in a category I think we all need more often:

Unproven. But worth watching.

Not because every connection he draws is credible.

Some aren’t supported by evidence I can find.

But because several of the events underneath his theory are real—and consequential enough without embellishment.

I don’t need to believe that Elon Musk intends to become dictator of a continental Technate to ask why one extraordinarily powerful private citizen has had so much influence over American government, communications infrastructure, military technology, political discourse and international affairs.

I don’t need to believe America is preparing to invade Canada to be disturbed that an American president repeatedly talked about absorbing one of our closest allies.

And I don’t need proof of a secret Russian master plan to believe that reported communications between Vladimir Putin and an American defense contractor with enormous influence over the U.S. government deserve vigorous congressional, journalistic and national-security scrutiny.

Maybe Philip Low has connected dots that don’t actually connect.

Maybe history will prove that some of them did.

The responsible position isn’t panic.

And it certainly isn’t blind acceptance.

It’s attention.

Ask questions.

Demand evidence.

Support independent journalism.

Protect congressional oversight.

Defend institutions capable of investigating powerful people.

And perhaps most importantly, resist the temptation to stop paying attention simply because the story becomes complicated.

Because when power becomes extraordinarily concentrated, democracy depends upon citizens remaining extraordinarily curious.

We don’t have to know exactly what the picture is yet.

But we should keep watching the pieces.

Julie Bolejack, MBA

The Mindful Activist

Subscribe at julies-journal.ghost.io