I'll try to explain it as objectively as possible.

In his recent talk with Tucker, he starts out defending the blob, and he later expounds on it in 1.5 hour talk. The central proposition is "no blob, no pencils". Meaning that pencils consist of a large number of materials, many of which come from different countries, and if one of those countries decides to do an export ban, then you do not have pencils. So you need a blob to put pressure of those countries, or destabilize them, or corrupt judges and labor unions, or coup them, in order to be able to have pencils. That is, he says, necessary for American prosperity and safety. He says he does not want MAGA to preside over the 'demise of the American empire'. At the same time, he completely backs what is being done by Trump et al. right now, and he disagrees with methods that are at odds with what he views as 'American values'.

I get a bit annoyed by this argument. Every country in the world has pencils, and no blob. For the materials, there is perfect competition, so even if Malaysia puts an export ban on, nothing will happen. Also, while putting diplomatic pressure may be legitimate, corrupting judges and labor unions (which he seemed to explicitly endorse) are not in my view.

Thoughts? Is he having second thoughts? Did they get to him? Is he playing devil's advocate to prevent people from going overboard in his view? Was he always a double agent (no, he wasn't)?