[If you appreciate my writing you can join my Substack where i am several articles ahead, but it has a free tier. Subscribe now Thanks.]
I watched the Elon Musk interview so the rest of you don’t have to. You’re welcome. It was a chore.
And I have thoughts.
My first impression is that Musk is a deeply deluded narrow-minded dogmatic man. Peppered with questions about DEI, Racism, Bigotry and Transhate he kept repeating the mantra that “I think people should only be judged based on their skills and integrity.”
He seemed almost totally unable to admit that that’s not how people are being judged today. It simply isn’t. We all might wish it were — but it’s not.
This is a familiar refrain I’ve heard many times. It’s the “Meritocracy Myth” that those who at the top of the heap financially or socially simply got there “on their own steam.” It ignores family connections, legacy admissions, chummy and buddy-buddy offers that come to people “in the right circles.”
This is particularly galling since Elon got his start in business on Third Base thanks to his Dad’s Emerald mine.
Errol Musk, father of Elon Musk, has long been a subject of interest because of rumors regarding his involvement in an emerald mine. The latest Elon Musk biography delved into the origins of these claims and reveals both the complex professional journey of Errol and Elon's perspective on the matter.
Errol Musk, an engineer, explored various fields, from building hotels and shopping centers to restoring vintage cars and planes. His diverse career also saw him serve on the Pretoria, South Africa, City Council and embrace a passion for flying, leading to his ownership of a twin-engine Cessna Golden Eagle.
[...]
The intrigue around Errol and emeralds began in 1986. While attempting to sell his Cessna Golden Eagle in Zambia, a Panamanian-Italian entrepreneur proposed a unique deal. Instead of money, Errol was offered a share of emeralds from three mines the entrepreneur owned. Navigating the political terrain in Zambia, especially regarding mine registration, posed challenges.
Errol felt that officially registering the mine could result in asset forfeiture because of local claims. According to the biography, he stated, "On trips overseas, I would sell emeralds to jewelers. It was a cloak-and-dagger thing because none of it was legal."
He embarked on the emerald venture anyway. In a few years, he claims to have made $210,000 from the business and purchased a gold convertible Rolls-Royce.
So, I would say that’s a significant “head start.” Similarly, Musk personally didn’t invent the technology behind Space X, Tesla or Starlink. He’s just a predatory investor who came in after the fact.
Tesla was founded way back in July 2003, around 20 years ago.
The company began its life as Tesla Motors, Inc., although it's now known as Tesla Inc.
And it was founded by two Americans: Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning.
The pair are both engineers born in California, and worked together on an e-book called Rocket eBook in the mid '90s.
After becoming worried about dependence on oil imports and global warming, the decided to set up an electric car company.
Eberhard served as its CEO until late 2007.
So not exactly a “Super Genius.” He had a hand up.
The GOP is trying to hang Hunter Biden on the basis that he had “special access and connections” simply because his father is Vice President. And the truth is — he did. What is happening now is the result of what has happened before, in our community, to our family, and to us.
He didn’t get it, he really didn’t.
As it turns out, Lemon asked him about that racial harassment at Tesla and he denied it. He says he lived in the Fremon Tesla plant for 3 years and he “never saw it.”
His company lost two lawsuits over this and was judged liable for $130 Million in damages so that’s pretty amazing.
- Tesla agreed Friday to settle a years-long racial discrimination lawsuit filed by a former elevator operator after two separate jury trials ended in the employee’s favor, according to court documents.
- The employee, who had been jointly employed by Tesla and two other firms between 2015 and 2016, alleged other employees directed racist epithets toward him and other Black employees, demeaned him and drew racist caricatures located in various places within the Fremont, California, factory where he worked. After reporting this conduct, the employee claimed he was demoted and, soon after, quit his position.
- A jury found that Tesla subjected the employee to a racially hostile work environment in 2021 and awarded more than $130 million in damages, which a federal judge reduced to approximately $15 million in 2022. The company successfully sought a retrial but lost again, with a new jury awarding the employee more than $3 million in damages.
The racial epithets and characters were literally written on the walls — but still he “didn’t see it.” Wow.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Speaking of discrimination — multiple times, repeatedly — Musk kept saying “we shouldn’t lower standards” when asked about his opposition to DEI.
This “lower standards” argument was challenged by Lemon repeatedly who said “That isn’t happening.” Ultimately he asks “Why would you think standards have to be lowered for a woman and black person — do you think White people are smarter and better?”
But Musk ducks that question and goes back to “don’t lower the standards” which no one is doing.
It’s like a Abbott and Costello routine. What’s the name of the guy on Third Base? “Lowered Standards.”
But at the same time — Musk says that he invited Don Lemon onto the platform in order to have a “variety of voices” from the Right — like Tucker Carlson — and the Left. They go through a back and forth over whether Lemon is “on the left” where he points out that people on the Left had previously ran him off Twitter [for his “pull up your pants” comments — and he deserved it.]
The idea that CNN is “on the left” is similarly hilarious considering how many Right-wing stances they take but that’s exactly how someone on the Right, like Musk, would view it.
But the bottom line is that Musk does understand the concept of “Diversity” — he specifically wants a diversity of ideas and thoughts on his platform. He just doesn’t believe in having a diversity of people (who may also have a diversity of ideas and thoughts..) And he thinks the only way that you can achieve that diversity of people is to “lower standards” to — I guess — let the stupid inferior people play. [Not that he specifically said that — just implied it really hard.]
Yeah, I don’t get that either.
Eventually, they got full into the issue of Racism and Musk again kept falling back on fallacious platitudes.
He was all about denial, all obfuscation.
Again, there is a huge racial wealth gap, a racial education gap and a racial employment gap in this country. That didn’t happen by accident. That situation was specifically built and constructed to be that way. It’s been maintained through Housing, Lending, Education and Hiring policy for the past 150 years after the Civil War.
He said at one point that “Slavery happened to everybody it’s just a matter of how far back you go!”
No, Racial chattel slavery didn't happen to “everybody.” There was nowhere on Earth — except in America and Egypt — where you could be born into Slavery based on your Race. Where being a Slave was a matter of who you are — not something you did like lose in a war or go into debt.
America did that. Specifically, Massachusetts did that in 1641.
|
In 1641, Massachusetts became the first colony to legally recognize slavery. Other states, such as Virginia, followed. In 1662, Virginia decided all children born in the colony to a slave mother would be enslaved. Slavery was not only a life-long condition; now it could be passed, like skin color, from generation to generation. |
Don’t get it twisted, “Slavery” was not the same everywhere or through all time. And frankly, it didn’t end here in America in 1865 — it continues on today. Just as the Black Codes, Debt Peonage, Convict Leasing, Jim Crow, Segregation, Seperate but Unequal, Voter Suppression and open discrimination continued for the next 100 years.
And now, Just because it’s possible to file a lawsuit against discrimination — as Musk obviously knows — doesn’t mean that it has gone away. All you have to do is stall, deflect and lie about it as Trump did when his father’s company was sued by the Nixon administration for discrimination. All you have to do is deny It, as Musk does repeatedly during this interview.
It doesn’t continue because people keep talking about it — it continues because people keep doing it.
Musk is literally in denial of Lemon’s own lived reality. He thinks “well, you made it — so you shouldn’t care about all that anymore.” But Lemon does care, because he knows that He’s Been Lucky. He knows that he’s not the only one who has faced these challenges and that many of them weren’t so lucky. He doesn’t assume the natural selection and natural ascension of the Meritocracy Myth. He knows what he had to go through as both a Black Man and a Gay man.
Lemon was born in 1966, just one year after the Voting Rights Act passed. His parents directly experienced Jim Crow. I’m certain he did too being from Baton Rouge. And right now the Voting Rights Act has been in tatters since 2013.
Lemon couldn’t legally marry the person he loved until he was 49 years old in 2015 when the SCOTUS decided Obergefell. That’s not long ago.
That’s practically last week.
And then this happened.
There was also quite a long section where Lemon and Musk faced off on the issue of Moderation vs Censorship. Musk argued that “Moderation” is just a propaganda word for “Censorship” and he repeatedly defended not using moderation against Hate Speech by arguing “Is it legal?” when Lemon showed him sample posts of Anti-semitism on Xitter.
It’s here where I think Lemon faltered. He could have fought harder.
Death Threats are not legal.
Section 115(a)(2) of Title 18 covers threats against all Federal employees, including those covered by § 351, when such threat is done "with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with" such Federal employee "while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against" such Federal employee.
In addition, § 115(a)(2) of Title 18 was expanded, as of April 24, 1996, to cover assault, kidnapping, and murder, as well as attempts to kidnap or murder or threats to assault, kidnap, or murder, any former Federal employee, including any former Member or employee of Congress or former Justice or employee of the Supreme Court, with intent to retaliate against such person on account of the performance of official duties. See Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, § 727(b), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, 1302. Moreover, the family members of all former Federal employees are now covered under § 115(b) against assault or murder, including any attempt to assault or murder, directed towards them on or after April 24, 1996, provided such act was done with intent to retaliate against the former Federal employee on account of the performance of his/her official duties during the term of his/her Federal service.
Even if the person isn’t a Federal Employee — it's still not legal under 18 U.S. Code § 875 - Interstate communications
(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing
any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Defamation is illegal.
(1) Defamation.—
The term “
defamation” means any action or other proceeding for
defamation, libel, slander, or similar claim alleging that forms of speech are false, have
caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have presented any person in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or
condemnation of any person.
Harassment is Illegal.
(1) As used in this section— (A) the term “course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose; (B) the term “harassment” means a serious act or course of conduct directed at a specific person that— (i) causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and (ii) serves no legitimate purpose; (C) the term “immediate family member” has the meaning given that term in section 115 and includes grandchildren; (D) the term “intimidation” means a serious act or course of conduct directed at a specific person that— (i) causes fear or apprehension in such person; and (ii) serves no legitimate purpose; (E) the term “restricted personal information” has the meaning give that term in section 119; (F) the term “serious act” means a single act of threatening, retaliatory, harassing, or violent conduct that is reasonably likely to influence the willingness of a victim or witness to testify or participate in a Federal criminal case or investigation; and (G) the term “specific person” means a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case or investigation, and includes an immediate family member of such a victim or witness.
Stalking is illegal.
Whoever—
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that—
(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—
(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person;
(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);
It’s very obvious that saying “you should die” or “I’m gonna kill you” is illegal. What is a little more questionable is saying “Groomers should be executed”, “Latinos should be shot” or “Jews deserve to die.” [Or for that matter “Mexicans are Rapists”, “Immigrants are animals”, “Illegals are vermin”, “Jews are traitors”]
Does the level of threat become more nebulous because it’s directed against a group rather than an individual?
That’s debatable. This is where we enter into the area of Terrorism, but the problem there is that there is no current legal definition of “Domestic Terrorism” only “International terrorism.”
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the
persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
There isn’t a Domestic Terrorism law supposedly because of “Free Speech” rules such a Brandenberg — but seriously, if saying or transmitting rhetoric that encourages political violence against a group — or is intended to intimidate part of the population — can be illegal in an international context, it should also be illegal in a domestic context.
That’s the one law we could use. And it would only take two words “or domestic.”
With all that established, “Free Speech” still isn't what Musk claims — like some requirement to let anyone say-any-damn-thing-they-want-to-say-all-the-time. It’s a limitation on the government’s power to restrict open discourse and political speech. It has nothing to do with what private companies do, and it doesn’t abrogate the responsibility of private companies to avoid allowing people to use their tools to foment violence.
Repeatedly Musk accuses Lemon of being in favor of “Censorship.” “You want censorship so bad you can taste it” — but only the Government can implement censorship — like when Florida institutes book bans. Having a corporate policy against incitement and acceleration of violence — is not “censorship.”
Plus Musk still bans people on Xitter. He may claim that he believes in people “saying things he doesn’t like” and yet when they actually do that — when they actually get in his grill and under his skin — he kicks them the fuck off the platform. In fact, as we all know, he cancelled his contract with Lemon immediately after this interview because, apparently, Don “said something he didn't like.”
So, hypocrite.
“Free Speech” is not absolute, it never has been and it never will be. People can, should be, and are held accountable for how they use and abuse their free speech rights. Sometimes, it leads to consequences.
Like $148 Million (for Giuliani) and $91 Million (for Trump) in consequences.
So yeah, a lot of the posts that Lemon showed him could be illegal. Especially posts against LGBTQ persons which have directly led to Death Threats, Assaults against Trans People and Drag queens, and Bomb Threats against Children’s Hospitals.
Last March, police in Coralville, Iowa, investigated a bomb threat targeting a junior high school. Authorities brought in specially trained dogs to sniff for explosives and started looking into why someone might try to target the community’s teachers and students.
Law enforcement quickly determined that the threat was a hoax. Detective Hanna Dvorak from the Coralville Police Department arrived at a theory.
“It appears this all stems from a post made earlier this week by Chaya Raichik and her ‘Libs of TikTok’ account,” Dvorak wrote in a report to her superiors.
Raichik, 29, is not accused of making any bomb threats in Iowa or anywhere else. But about a day and a half before authorities responded to the threat at Coralville’s Northwest Junior High, Raichik posted that the school offers a “pornographic” book in its library that “teaches kids about gay sex.”
Bottom line, this is Stochastic Terrorism.
Lemon went through the litany of Terrorist Mass Murders that have happened in recent years perpetrated as a result of Social Media (and by Trump supporters) such as Charleston, Christchurch, El Paso, Pittsburgh and Buffalo and as he was speaking Musk’s eyes glazed over like he could see his mouth moving but not hear the words.
He could not make the mental connection between the Rhetoric and the Actions. It was just plain beyond him, that the Great Replacement Theory -— which Musk has touted — has led directly to the deaths of dozens.
He was completely oblivious to this and continued to argue that “the point of free speech is allowing people to say things that you hate.”
Which is true — but it doesn't mean that you should allow and promote saying things that are directly putting people‘s lives at risk. He seemed to think this is all just “harmless shitposting” that doesn’t have any impact on anyone.
But it does.
In fact, he continued to double down on the Great Replacement concepts arguing that Undocumented Migrants who get counted in the Census give Democrats an extra 20 districts and representatives in Congress and 20 extra points in the Electoral College. Of course he ignores that there are plenty of the undocumented living in Red States like Texas and Florida and this district skew isn’t nearly so one-sided.
He also doesn’t pay any attention — even though Lemon brought it up — to the fact that many districts in the Red States are heavily Gerrymandered and the POC who vote there — and who may skew Democratic — are having their power reduced and diminished by having their districts drawn in a way that “cracks” their vote apart.
At the beginning of this cycle, Republicans had firm control of redistricting in all of the South except Virginia, where a new bipartisan process would be used, and Louisiana, where Republicans were just shy of a veto-proof legislative majority. As in past cycles, they used that power aggressively to increase their advantages in the region. By further skewing maps in large states like Texas, Georgia, and Florida, Republicans were able to create an additional seven Republican-leaning districts and are now favored to win a whopping 70 percent of the region’s 155 seats, up from an already commanding 66 percent before maps were redrawn. In no other region of the country are Republicans favored to win as many — or as large a percentage of — seats. But it could have been even worse for Democrats: if state courts in North Carolina hadn’t ordered a redraw of a wildly gerrymandered congressional map, Republican dominance of the region would have been even more complete.
All told, factoring in the six Democratic-leaning swing districts in the region, new maps in the South give Republicans the potential to win up to 114 seats, just over half the number needed for a majority. Most of these districts, moreover, are not just Republican, but solidly so because of a concerted Republican strategy to eliminate competitive districts. After redistricting, fewer than 1 in 10 Trump districts in the South is competitive, a far lower percentage than most of the nation.
Republicans are regularly stealing Democratic seats by breaking up districts that have a concentration of people of color. That’s just an objective fact.
But people like Musk won’t ever see it, or admit it. Even when the GOP winds up in court over it over a dozen times.
With his myopic rhetoric — he’s a deadly dangerous man. Make no mistake, under the guise of “absolute free speech” Musk is openly fomenting domestic terrorism, and he doesn’t even care. He’s not even paying attention. He could get a lot of people killed.
Some other perspectives:
Emma's line toward the end of this video (17:32) is awesome.
Hey you weird, like, “end wokeness” natalist freaks. This is your King? This soft as baby-shit motherfucker over here whose crying about his childhood…?
“Yes, yes, my sperm is very important and more important than your’s and I need to spread it.”
He really is pathetic. And fragile. And it’s fun to see.
And much like Trump they really are very similar people. Both weird personality disorders and father’s that treated them poorly but gave them immense riches and then they’re just constantly trying to prove to the world that they’re competent.
Um, yeah.
Just ‘cuz Elon Musk has kind of a Tech Veneer as opposed to be spray painted Orange and Gold doesn’t make him any less of a clown.
Woo!! Chef’s kiss. Classic.
And Don Lemon with David Pakman. No, he didn’t ask for a Cybertruck.
You can join me debating the issues and the facts inside the belly of the beast on my Facebook Group: Army for Truth.
Have a listen to my new Vocal Cover — "Dashboard Mary" originally by Podunk and check out my new Patreon where you can download copies of my covers and original songs. You can also stream tracks from my previous Solo CD from ReverbNation.
And You can send Funds to Support me via Paypal