Although Elon Musk claims he has been and still is a liberal, he has become a conservative hero. I often agree with him, but I see him as merely attempting to return us to normality, sensibility, fairness, and sanity. Musk is resurrecting the notion of free speech, a fundamental concept which has only recently come under siege. His words and actions would have seemed normal, totally unneeded just a few years ago.
Public figures are applauded for simply agreeing with the contemporary narrative. One-channel media gives outsized meaning to their thoughts, many of which are inane or ill informed. LeBron James, for instance, speaks and hundreds of millions followers are informed. Why should we care if LeBron James says nothing intelligible? Let him speak, but note he rarely adds any substance and certainly nothing new to political debates.
Musk, to his credit, is willing to walk the plank and be a counter to the echo chamber, the echo chamber one-channel media protects. Musk knows the criticism is coming, but still engages. He accepts the slings and arrows and encourages others to engage in the debate on Twitter as well.
Even teenagers are targeted for engaging. This seventh grader was suspended from school for wearing a t-shirt saying: “There are only two genders.” Until ten years ago, there was no debate about the number of genders, but all has changed since then. After his suspension, he went back to school with an altered shirt, replacing “only two” with the word “censored”.
He is still engaging in debate. Good for him! However, the progressives don’t want a debate; there should be no questioning of the approved narrative, so he was sent home yet again.
His treatment is a warning to the rest of us. Media pleads for those they see as oppressed, but there is no concern for this seventh grader’s education. He is clearly oppressed by the school system. Some may think this action is hateful or foolhardy, but I call it courageous. He and his family (who are clearly supporting him) are risking more than Musk; they don’t have the same resources to fall back on. They are also entering into an arena they have probably never played in before, one in which today’s media will attempt to destroy your reputation if you prove effective at countering their message, even if a middle schooler.
After the second suspension, the family sued. “This isn’t about a T-shirt; this is about a public school telling a seventh grader that he isn’t allowed to hold a view that differs from the school’s preferred orthodoxy,” legal counsel said. Amen. We simply need a few more to speak up in the same way. We should not accept the demand to end the debate. We should continue to engage. If enough of us do not engage or are discouraged, we all lose, our whole society collapses.
Speech is Violence?
The new mantra, the rationalization for censorship, is: “speech is violence”, a phrase carelessly thrown about today.
Calling a transgender woman a man is “an act of violence,” says transgender actress Laverne Cox, a typical lament (https://reason.com/2021/07/21/speech-is-not-violence/).
Even worse, simply allowing a well-know conservative commentator to speak is considered violence, without even knowing what he has to say. (https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-berkeley-students-chant-speech-violence-frank-camp).
Ivy League professors defend the notion “speech is violence”, and the thought is echoed by many. Ostensibly, they argue for protecting us all, but in reality, it is just a convenient way to win a debate.
I offer a Christian perspective on hate speech. First, St. James tells us the tongue can indeed be the most dangerous weapon in the human arsenal.
19 Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters! Let every person be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger. 20 For human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness. . . 26 If someone thinks he is religious yet does not bridle his tongue, and so deceives his heart, his religion is futile. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world (James 1:19-27)
St. Francis of Assisi expressed a similar view with this thought:
Spread the good news, if all else fails, use words.
We often speak without thinking. Both saints advocated for discretion: consider the impact your words can have on others before speaking. The Christian perspective is aligned with the progressives on the potential of harm from speech. However, these Christian saints never advocated for silencing each other. We are called to be discrete, yet also to bear witness to the truth. The truth should be spoken, not suppressed.
Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2467
We can (and should) admonish each other for saying dubious things, but once we compel silence for just one (while not concurrently being discrete ourselves), we essentially advocate for silencing all. Your political opponents, the ones you claim are so awful, may be censored today, but eventually, they and their point of view will be silenced also. Don’t countenance censorship today; it will boomerang back to you.
Shouldn’t we be allowed to speak when we believe we have something meaningful to say? Stifle yourself when appropriate, but not others. If I am wrong, if you believe I must come around to your perspective, how will I ever know my error without discussion to clarify your view?
If the debate is stifled, realize someone is still controlling which messages are allowed. Someone still determines what is hateful or violent and which speech should be censored. Who is that? Why should we trust them? When will they turn on you? Today, one set of arguments is advanced by a biased media, often not the most correct or even the most popular; another set of arguments is dismissed or censored. It is a righteous cause for many, but it leaves a distorted view of reality.
Many blame God for not sending a lightning bolt for those we disagree with. His justice doesn’t come timely enough, apparently. If you don’t believe in God or are angry he dawdles, you take justice into your own hands, and define your own truth. Political parties say they represent the truth and justice, but politicians primary goal is to be re-elected, not the truth. Political parties will always fail us. The media today is chocked full of propagandists for political parties; they are more loyal to the party than to the truth.
Why should right and wrong, truth and fiction matter if God does not exist? The most powerful win in the absence of God. Beware of those consolidating power and advocating for truth.
On the other hand, God tells us He is the Truth. Be certain the Truth eventually wins. It is impossible to overcome certain realities ultimately. Still, God lets the wheat and weeds grow together. He lets the rain fall on the good and the bad. Bad things still happen to good people, and vice versa. God wants us to sort it out and convince each other. He sends us into the world. He doesn’t want us to tie hands or tape our opponents’ mouths. He wants us to bring each other around. He also allows us to suffer the slings and arrows along that way. Truth wins eventually, but it is a struggle. Be discreet and censor yourself, but let the debate continue. There is no other way.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. ” John 14:6
Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. 1 John 3:18
And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. Psalm 119:160
Musk and Faber
Last week, NBC interviewed Elon Musk. While I respect Musk’s accomplishments and his thoughts shared during this interview, the real issue is with the interviewer, David Faber.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/16/elon-musk-cnbc-interview-with-david-faber.html
“Yes that is my opinion,” says Musk.
“But why share it?” Faber asks. “Advertisers may not agree . . . You can tell me. We can talk about it over there, but why share it widely?”
Faber also makes the point that Musk is often labeled an anti-Semite for simply criticizing George Soros. Faber even admits he sees it as unfair criticism, but suggests such attacks ought to discourage Musk (and you as well) from speaking up.
“I don’t think you are [an anti-Semite], but why would you even introduce the idea then?”
The exchange between the two is telling. If you disagree with the conventional point of view, take it off-line, Faber suggests. C’mon Elon, Faber prods: tell us your crazy ideas at a cocktail party; we can all laugh about them, but don’t share your ideas with everyone. Some people may listen to you simply because you are famous; some recognize you are a well-spoken, thoughtful individual expressing ideas in an easy-to-understand manner. People might be swayed. We can’t have that.
Faber discourages Musk from speaking up throughout. Because Musk’s method is harder? Because he goes against the grain? Because he has a few independent thoughts? Faber is representative a failed media and the broken political debate today.
Musk is not an anti-Semite, per Faber, but even still, he asks: isn’t it bothersome they would label you one? Doesn’t that impact your thinking? Criticizing George Soros is labeled anti-Semitic, but criticism of fellow Jew (and conservative), Ben Shapiro is tolerated. Could Faber acknowledge that double-standard? Instead, he tacitly acknowledges and even endorses the tactic of equating disagreement with hatred or phobia.
Mr. Faber demonstrates ever-so-clearly he wants to stifle the debate. Mr. Faber and his network share their crazy ideas and their conspiracy theories to millions, but Musk, who often has a contrary point of view, should be silent, and let the professionals at NBC and the other one-channel media, control the debate. Faber and his cronies, not Musk, are the dangerous ones.
Mr. Faber probably believes he is doing good. The problem is he believes he and a few other chosen folks in the media lead the righteous cause. He is on TV because he is so much smarter than the rest of us; us boobs in the TV audience look to folks like him to tell us what to think. He pities us for our naivete. He wants to protect us from folks like Musk, people with wild ideas that upset the narrative. Folks like Musk, he believes, prey on our innocence.
Faber treats Musk cordially and uses the soft sell, but still, he is trying to cajole him into silence. He appeals to the liberal in Musk. Join us again, please. Don’t give those evil Trump MAGA folks ammunition against us. Can’t you see how dangerous these ideas are in the hands of the wrong people? Musk, in response offers a line from the Princess Bride: “Offer me money. Offer me power. I don’t care.” Seeking the truth, not settling upon someone else’s version of truth, is what matters to Musk.
Kudos for saying so! First, Musk demonstrates capitalists like him are not driven only by desire for money; conscience matters to a principled capitalist, and he shows he has principles. More importantly, Musk exposes the elitist and patronizing views of Mr. Faber. Musk says he is not religious (“I don’t worship anything”), but he is on the right path and may someday find where truth comes from.
Twice during this segment, Mr. Faber accuses Musk of siding with crazy conspiracists. Mr. Musk has a answer direct and effective answer in each instance. Faber ends this segment with this question: “that’s a debate you want to get into on Twitter?”. His tone is incredulous. I hear “C’mon man!” from the president in the background. “You can’t actually believe in that nonsense?”
Mr. Faber, not Mr. Musk, sounds like the unprincipled capitalist; cash your lucrative paycheck, bask in your fame, and enjoy the benefits which come from it. Don’t do anything to upset that golden apple cart for yourself and the rest of us.
Mr. Faber: when we disagree with the information emanating from one-channel media outlets like yours, when your ultimate goal of controlling our thoughts are clear to us, we very much want the debate. We don’t care that people like you object. We think you’re no smarter than the rest of us. We have something to say as well. We want to discredit your ideas, which are influential themselves, but as Mr. Musk directly states are often “bull—“.
Taylor Swift Shows how to Cave
Taylor Swift is the counter to Musk; she couldn’t tolerate the pressure. Prior to 2018, Swift remained politically agnostic. Most celebrities of her stature tend to air their (mostly progressive) views openly. Swift stayed strictly in the singing lane, but her silence was noted by too many others.
Silence is not allowed for influential and popular singers like Taylor Swift. Christian doctrine urges discretion, but discretion is not a progressive value. Swift, read the tea leaves, finally broke her silence, taking the easier road.
Swift has been skewered for political silence in the past — The Guardian suggested last year that she might be an “envoy for Trump’s values” — but on Sunday some fans railed against her decision to end it.
Did you vote for Trump is a basic standard for our one-channel media. It is used to quickly determine if you are evil or good. Still, Swift is not an even a US citizen, not eligible to vote, so it is understandable if she stays out of US politics. Apparently, the pressure, loss of money and prestige, was too much to bear, however. She broke her silence, first by weighing on an election in Tennessee (supporting the one-channel media’s approved candidates) and then taking a hard left in her music swift-songs-videos-go-woke
Swift took the approved progressive path. Progressives, despite their rhetoric, are not for speech if it means criticism of the preferred narratives. Such criticism is “violence” as well, even if eventually proven true. Faber urged Musk to actually be silent; his thoughts and his tolerance of alternative views are disliked by progressives who control the media.
While Taylor Swift received widespread praise for her voyage into politics in 2018, she also met a lot of criticism, with many wondering what took her so long to speak out in such a charged political climate. The “Look What You Made Me Do” singer had famously stayed away from the topic until around the November 2018 midterm elections, when she publicly endorsed two candidates running for offices in Tennessee — but she apparently stayed away from politics for a really relatable reason. Apparently, Taylor Swift didn’t talk politics because she didn’t feel “informed” enough to do so. Fair enough.
Swift is certainly allowed to speak, but I am dubious of her reasons. Was it principle or self-interest? There was obvious pressure for her to engage politically. She acted to satisfy her critics and assure them she is not a closet conservative. Why couldn’t she have been left alone? A few fans abandoned her for speaking out, but Swift was mainly praised in 2018. We don’t know her motivations, but the paradigm is not a good one: the benefits pile up when supporting one side, but not the other. Perhaps Swift genuinely expressed her political views, but supporting the popular narrative of the media and all your peers is not courageous in any way.
Risking a portion of your already substantial wealth, fame, and power to push back against those controlling the narrative takes actual courage. Elon Musk and the seventh grader took the road less traveled. They provide a model, albeit a difficult one, to follow.
Two More Examples
I don’t have time to go more in depth with more examples, so I will briefly mention two more.
FBI agent Garrett O’Boyle, a former Iraq and Afghanistan Army veteran and a former police officer, was treated horribly by his employer. He raised concerns regarding numerous questionable FBI practices and was then unfairly targeted. In testimony to Congress, he explained the FBI sent him to a new post of duty, and after selling his home and moving his family halfway across the country, he was suspended his first day in the new office. His family was left homeless; his belongings, still in transit, were seized and held by the FBI for six weeks. This was clearly done to extract the maximum pain and suffering for someone who had embarrassed leadership. This is how due process works today?
“Too many are unwilling to sacrifice for the hard right over the easy wrong”, Mr. O’Boyle says. The FBI silences all opposition and criticism, so many others do not speak up. Mr. O’Boyle’s story clearly demonstrates this point. Despite all he suffered, Mr. O’Boyle continues to speak up. This is courage.
The Los Angeles Dodgers, on the other hand, bowed to intimidation. The Dodgers first invited and then dis-invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence from participating in their upcoming pride night celebration. The sisters mock Christian symbols, including parodies of Jesus and Mary, and dress themselves as Catholic nuns. This group should not be honored by a reputable organization like the Dodgers. The sisters are hateful, offensive, and blasphemous. Yet, the Dodgers bowed to pressure and once again added them to the upcoming festivities, yielding to the new progressive religion and keeping sacred its holy pride month. This is a lack of courage. The Sisters should be ignored and the Dodgers boycotted for recognizing them. Where is the talk of “hate speech” from groups like these?
With their signature white makeup, oversize wimples (they call them Hoobie Doobies) and supersize lashes, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence turn heads wherever they go. But the group’s national profile soared to new heights recently when the Dodgers announced that they would recognize the sisters with a community heroes award, rescinded the award after pushback from conservative Catholic groups and then reinstated it — all over the course of a whirlwind few days.
I am proud of America when listening to men like FBI agent O’Boyle and I am ashamed of America when recognition is given to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Which way will America ultimately land? This is still a choice, a choice for all of us.
Seek the Truth 
One thought on “What is Sacrifice? What is Courage? Musk, Swift, and Others Demonstrate.”