They do not hate Elon Muskdespite his achievements. They hate him because of what those achievements expose.
He is the living refutation of crony capitalism — the cozy, managed system where success flows not from building better things but from regulatory moats, lobbying access, subsidy capture, and the right friendships. That system wears the costume of "capitalism" while functioning as its opposite: a protection racket for incumbents, held together by red tape and quiet corruption, where the press, the regulators, and the entrenched giants all scratch one another's backs.
Shorter Brivael: they hate Musk because he exposes Crony Capitalism. Exposes its cushy, quiet, hidden, life. Exposes what amounts to a massive grift.
By the way, China’s version of capitalism which Beijing calls “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is also a form of Crony Capitalism. At least, the private sector of it is. The State Owned sector remains the state-owned sector, with all that being run by government apparatchiks involves.
Who are the “They” in the title? Why, all those that hate on Elon, o.c.!
This is the essay I would have written if I’d been able to write as elegantly as Brivael Le Pogam.
This is not me being crazy. This is not me being deluded in calling them Communists and Islamists. They themselves make no secret of it.
Who? Who am I talking about?
This has happened in the last few days, in the Democratic Primary for New York State elections. The Democratic Party candidates who won their primaries were all endorsed by Zohran Mamdani, Mayor of NYC and himself a self-declared Islamist and Communist. They have all offered their fealty to him, the new kingmaker of the Dems.
Each of them has said they hate America. Actually hate America. Yet representing people in New York State. Each has said that 911 was a good thing. Which they celebrated. They love and celebrate Hamas. They call for worldwide revolution. To “globalise the intifada”. Each glazes communism. Each is a member of the crypto-communist Democratic Socialists of America.
They despise America and its flag. One has said she used the American flag as toilet paper. Using the Flag as toilet paper! Shouldn’t that be disqualifying?!
But they’re winners of Democratic Primaries to be Representatives! In the Congress of New York State.
Sure, Free Speech and all. But these are Representatives. Who — to repeat and be extremely clear — have said they hate the country in which they live, they hate its flag and they support international terrorism. And yet are now one November election away from Representing the State of New York.
We must ponder this. Where in earth are we? And where is New York? Where is America?
Asmogold above is Zach Hoyt. He reckons this is a good thing because it makes clear where the Democratic Party is. Where that is, he reckons the majority of Americans is not going to like. So he thinks this is good for Republicans. Which is where he now stands. Or sits.
Like me, Asmogold is an old time Democrat. Like from the era of Bill Clinton or even Barack Obama. For sure I could buy into Clinton”s agenda, or even first-term Obama’s, of Free Markets, closed borders, stopping illegal immigration, law and order, helping the working class while expecting them to work if able. Staying out of foreign entanglements. Trying to control the budget.
But that’s no longer the Democratic Party of today. It’s changed and changing behind recognition.
I don’t agree with a hell if a lot of Asmogold’s views. But I do with many. His analysis of how this all came about is interesting and I largely buy it.
I sure hope Asmogold is right that the majority of Americans won’t buy this Communist- Islamist bullshit. And that these Communist-Islamist flunkies won’t win in November. If he’s wrong then America and the west is in real trouble.
Communism is bad enough. Islam is worse. The combination is like Russian nerve poison.
The Ruthless Podcast has the four fellas, all veterans of political campaigns, give us their take. Which is along similar lines as Asmogold, though less “ranty”.
The left just normalized so much insanity that basic self-preservation now gets called “far right extremism.”
Decades of open borders and failed assimilation delivered parallel societies, welfare strain, and crime spikes in city after city.
Green fanaticism delivered energy poverty and deindustrialization while virtue signaling.
Woke ideology delivered confused kids, erased women, and attacks on national identity.
And the result is voters across France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the UK and beyond are backing the parties the media smears as “far right.”
Those parties are simply saying what was common sense centrist a generation ago.
Secure borders. Citizens first. Affordable energy. Law and order. Protect children. Preserve your culture.
The Overton window got dragged so far left that reality, sanity, and common sense now look radical.
The Overton window got dragged so far left that reality, sanity, and common sense now look radical. H/t: @Rothmus
Meantime in Space:
Humanity's goal for the next century is... prevent WW3.*
Elon: "Okay, this is going to sound pretty crazy."
"I'd say the economy is 10 times the its current size in 10 years. Greater than. I feel like that's actually a fairly comfortable prediction."
"Obviously if there's like World War III or something. that that could put a kink in those plans or those expectations. In the absence of World War II, if current trends continue, I would say the the economy 10xes in 10 years and have a base on the moon." H/t: @PeterDiamindis
My dear, my lovely, my love, the amazing Bridget Phetasy, flipping out on the Europeans' reactions to America during the World Cup.
Super Fan Freddy the German, gets calls from Governors, talks to the International Space Station, tickets to Ella Langley concerts. Started the trip with 10k followers now has nearly a million.
The Europe Soccer fans main American loves: Ranch Dressing. Smoked Brisket. Air conditioning. Endless coffee and sodas. Pick-up trucks. Ice (the water variety...). Buc'ees gas stations. The super friendliness of Americans.
And there's this:
"America could simultaneously host another whole World Cup only using the stadiums they're not using for the current one".
The great lie is that there are two sides to society, that is the rich and the poor.
And the great truth is that there are two sides that are the makers and the takers.
The lie is that the rich are unfairly rich and the poor are unfairly poor, and therefore, the poor must take from the rich.
But the truth is that it's the takers that tell you that lie, that the real truth is that artists, plumbers, electricians, woodworkers, computer scientists, people that build, people that make from all walks of life, all income levels, all wealth brackets, are the makers.
And the takers are what Sacks calls this intelligentsia, the analysts, the espousers, the armchair mechanics, the critics, the commentators, the politicians. They are the takers.
They are the people that watch the rest of society make stuff, build stuff, specifically doing things that create value for other people in society. That's what a maker is.
Who allocates capital better? Makers or Takers? Success-motivated individuals or power-obsessed governments? Case in point:
A socialist may object: “private companies also fail”. Indeed they do. And when they do, they forfeit their money. Theirs and their backers’ money. When governments fail, they waste your money. Our money.
I’m generally pessimistic about Europe. And the West. But optimistic about all sorts of other things.
Pessimistic about politics, culture and society in the west.
Optimistic about science and technology.
Brivael Le Pogam, French entrepreneur and essayist, suggests I should be a little more optimistic about Europe. I sure hope he’s right. Time alone will tell. But how much time?
/Snip:
This continent hasn’t had its last word. It won’t. As long as one man remains to love what he has received, to want to pass it on intact, to prefer a hard truth to a comfortable lie—Europe will live.
Elon Musk officially entered the canon of the greatest inventors, builders and capitalists not only of our time but arguably of humankind. What a time to be alive. What an extraordinary era to build, writes @EliseStefanik
Brings us a discussion by the All-in pod bros: Jason Calacanis, David Sacks,David Friedberg, Chamath.
With some clear explanations of how and why Elon became a trillionaire. As Sacks points out: he has not one single dollar more in cash today than he had last month. All that's happened is that the public has valued the stock he has in a company he created at more than it was when it was private.
So much disinformation and misinformation about Elon Musk.
My sum of it all: His haters are either knaves or fools. Either dishonest knaves (disinformation) or ignorant fools (misinformation).
Disinformation is false info that’s deliberately out out there because you don’t like the person.
Misinformation is spread by ignorance. You near something bad about a person you hate; you’re happy to spread it because it harms the person you hate.
Like Brivael Le Pogam (below) I also read and listened to lots by and about Musk. Even more than Brivael I think.
Even before Musk was hated by the Left today, I was reading about him.
I’ve read four books about Elon and his companies, so far:
Elon Musk, by Walter Isaacson.
Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX…. by Ashlee Vance.
Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter by Kate Conger and Ryan Mac.
The Book of Elon, by Eric Jorgenson.
None of these books is a hagiography. None is by an Elon fan-boy. The Twitter one is downright hostile to Elon, though not aged at all well, given the clear improvements to Twitter now X.
The best of the books is the one by Walter Isaacson. He followed Elon everywhere, every day for two years. He’s written a terrific bio, so elegantly written it’s a real page turner.
Then there’s Elon on social media. Multiple long-form interviews with people like Alex Fridman and Joe Rogan. Even the BBC.
From all of this I get a feel for Elon Musk and what drives him. As Brivael says below, at the top of the list there’s Freedom. Musk tries to contribute to the flourishing of freedom for humanity. “I’m a big fan of humanity” says Musk. He talks often of his drive “to keep alight the fragile flame of human consciousness”. All of these are life aims repeated often by Elon. But his haters ignore this. Instead they run a narrative that all he’s doing is to try to enrich himself by more “tax breaks for billionaires”. But Enrichment is a byproduct not the aim.
So, no, I’m don’t buy any of the nonsense that’s spread by people who used to love him when he was, so they thought, on “their side”, but made a big move to support another party, another candidate for president, namely Donald Trump. That alone sent them out of their minds. Yet Elon didn’t change. His values, his aims, didn’t change. His commitment to his companies, his commitment to help progress humanity, didn’t change.
I agree with Jonathan Sacerdoti. And with others on the right who think this is a shocker of a “deal”. Because it is. It just is.
The MOU with the “religious maniacs” (Marco Rubio) in the Iran regime is not a “ceasefire” or some wonderful Donald Deal. It’s a shameful capitulation. It’s an embarrassment. It’s a shocker. It’s the end of Trump’s legacy.
That’s how bad it is. IMO. And yes, I have read the very few Republicans who praise it. But there’s nothing praiseworthy here. Trump has finally got some bipartisan agreement: it’s a shocker of a deal. An embarrassment. A failure. A loss.
Tell me Bridget Phetasy is not funny... In the vid above.
And a great presenter.
She should have her own show. My bet is, if she were offered a job, she'd say no. She's having too much fun, as her own boss, able to say whatever she wants.
Cherry Picking. I want to argue that this phrase is simply ad hominem. When you don’t have a counter argument you charge your interlocutor with “cherry picking”.
BUT — and here’s the thing — EVERYTHING is cherry picking.
Whatever facts or argument one quotes are necessarily going to be a selection from the whole. One doesn't recite all the academic papers on a subject. You quote a BIT of it. You cherry pick. Editors do it every minute of every day to put out newspapers. These are the very definition of Cherry Picking.
Charging someone with "cherry picking" is rather like charging someone with "using words". Of course I'm using words! We all do. Just as we must all cherry pick. We can't recite the whole of everything that's known about a subject, even if we knew it.
Please help me make my argument. Sharpen it. Give it guts. Do it in as short a from as you can.
Grok to me:
The charge of “cherry picking” is usually ad hominem.
It is the move you make when you have no answer to the evidence presented. Instead of engaging the facts, you attack the person for having selected them.
But selection is not optional. It is the precondition of all argument. You cannot quote an entire paper, recite every statistic, or narrate the full historical record. Every claim, every article, every editorial, and every conversation is a curated slice.
Newspapers are machines for systematic cherry-picking. So are academic papers, court arguments, and political speeches. The question is never whether selection occurred. The question is whether the selection misleads.
When someone replies “cherry picking” without showing that the omitted material actually reverses the conclusion or outweighs what was presented, they have not made a methodological point. They have made a personal one: you chose badly because you are arguing against me. That is textbook ad hominem — attacking the arguer’s character or motives rather than the argument’s substance.
Real cherry-picking exists. It is the deliberate suppression of known contradictory evidence. The casual accusation, however, almost never demonstrates this. It simply registers discomfort that the other side found data that hurts their position.
Grandfather's Birth Cert, from Ballymena, in 2018. No. 113 is "Andrew Forsythe", paternal grandfather, born in Northern Ireland in 1876.
The "Forsythes" with an "e" are the ones that live in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. Without the "e" it's the Scottish Forsyth's.
The Forsythes with an "e" likely were forced out of Scotland or were "encouraged" out of Scotland and to Northern Ireland in the 17th or 18th Centuries. State-sponsored colonization, known as the Plantation of Ulster.
I may look further. Or maybe not.
Should we Forsythes with an "e" be allowed a Right of Return? To Ballymena in Northern Ireland? Or to Scotland?
For the Record. A summary of a longer convo. From Google's Gemini AI:
Family History Research Report: The Forsythe Family of County Antrim
1. Decoded Birth Registry Details (11 February 1876)
Child's Full Name: Andrew Forsythe
Date of Birth: 11 February 1876
Place of Birth: Tullybane (Tullynewy), Civil Parish of Dunaghy, County Antrim, Ireland
Father's Name: Thomas Forsythe
Father's Profession: Farmer
Mother's Name: Bessie Forsythe (formerly Stewart)
Registration District: Clough (within the Superintendent Registrar's District of Ballymena)
Informant: Matilda McCormack (Present at birth; signed with her mark +, indicating she was illiterate; likely a midwife, aunt, or grandmother living in Tullybane)
Date Registered: 29 February 1876
Registrar: John Wiley
2. Historic & Cultural Insights
The "E" Ending: The spelling of Forsythe with an "e" heavily signifies the family’s transition into Northern Ireland and distinguishes this branch from the traditional Scottish Forsyth.
Ancestral Ties: Both parental surnames (Forsythe and Stewart) are classic Lowland Scottish names, confirming a deeply rooted Ulster-Scots Presbyterian heritage.
The Local Economy: Being a farmer in Dunaghy parish during the late 19th century meant dealing with the fallout of the Irish Land War. Andrew likely chose to migrate to Australia due to agricultural hardships, lack of land ownership opportunities for younger sons, or targeted recruitment by Australian colonies looking for experienced farmers.
3. Strategic Next Steps for Records Research
Step A: Uncover Andrew's Grandfathers (The Marriage Certificate)
To extend your tree back another generation, you need to find the marriage record of Thomas Forsythe and Bessie Stewart. This will explicitly name the grandfathers of Andrew.
Where to Search:IrishGenealogy.ie (Free, official historic civil records site).
Search Strategy: Search "Civil Marriages" using Thomas Forsythe and Bessie Stewart (or Elizabeth Stewart) in the Ballymena district. Narrow the timeline from 1864 to 1875.
What to look for: The certificate will list the names and occupations of both fathers (Andrew's grandfathers) and the exact Presbyterian church where they wed.
Step B: Pinpoint the Exact Family Farm Plots
Because the family remained in the same parish for generations, you can find exactly which fields Andrew grew up on.
Where to Search:AskAboutIreland.ie - Griffith’s Valuation (Free land records mapped between 1847 and 1864).
Search Strategy: Look for Thomas Forsythe (or an older relative like a William or John Forsythe) in County Antrim, parish of Dunaghy, townland of Tullynewy or Tullybane.
What to look for: Note the plot number. Use the website’s map overlay slider to look at the 19th-century plot borders directly over modern satellite Google Maps.
Step C: Track the Farm Succession
To see who inherited the family farm after Andrew left for Australia, bridge the timeline gap using the land revision tax records.
Search Strategy: Search their digital land books for Dunaghy Parish covering 1864 to 1910.
What to look for: Look for the Forsythe farm plot. You will physically see names crossed out in colored inks when a relative passed away and a new family member took over the tenancy.
Step D: Discover Andrew's Australian Arrival
To close the loop on his migration story around the turn of the century, look for his ship logs.
Where to Search: The State Archives of his arrival destination (e.g., NSW State Archives for Sydney or Public Record Office Victoria for Melbourne).
Search Strategy: Look for "Andrew Forsythe" (or Forsyth) in passenger arrival indexes between 1895 and 1905.
What to look for: Look for listings noted as an "assisted immigrant" or "agricultural laborer," which confirms he was recruited to farm Australian soil.
To keep tracking Andrew's path down under, let me know if you know which Australian state he first lived in or if he married in Australia.
