Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Elon Musk defends free speech, anti-DEI position in combative Don Lemon interview

Published

11 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Claire Chretien

Elon Musk and Don Lemon sparred over DEI, illegal immigration, and free speech in a new interview.

In an interview that aired on X, Elon Musk calmly explained to a seemingly befuddled Don Lemon the principle of free speech. Musk also spoke about the dangers of lowering standards in medical schools in the name of DEI, recently eating breakfast with former President Donald Trump, and the “woke mind virus.”

Musk was a guest on episode 1 of The Don Lemon Show, which aired on X (formerly Twitter). Around 30 minutes into the interview, Lemon pressed Musk on whether he has a responsibility to moderate “hate speech” on the platform. After a back-and-forth, Musk ultimately got to the heart of the matter when he articulated: “Freedom of speech only is relevant when people you don’t like say things you don’t like. Otherwise it has no meaning.”

Later in the interview, Musk emphasized that he “acquired X in order to preserve freedom of speech in America, the First Amendment. I’m gonna stick to that. And if that means making less money [from advertisers], so be it.”

‘Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship’

During their free speech exchange, Lemon showed Musk screenshots of several anti-semitic and racist tweets, saying, “These have been up there for a while.”

“Are they illegal?” Musk asked.

“They’re not illegal, but they’re hateful and they can lead to violence. As I just read to you, the shooters in all of these mass shootings attributed social media to radicalizing them,” Lemon retorted.

“So Don, you love censorship, is what you’re saying,” smirked Musk.

He went on to say, “Moderation is a propaganda word for censorship… Look, if something’s illegal, we’re going to take it down. If it’s not illegal, then we’re putting our thumb on the scale and we’re being censors” if X removes it.

Musk also emphasized that if something is on the platform, that doesn’t necessarily mean that X is promoting it or that anyone is seeing it, and said that since he’s taken over the company, the reach of content deemed “hateful” is actually down.

DEI and the ‘woke mind virus’

An antagonistic Lemon also brought up diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Musk had recently replied to a thread on X from the Daily Wire‘s Ben Shapiro about top medical schools abandoning “all sort[s] of metrics” for surgeons in the name of DEI.

“If the standards for passing medical exams and becoming a doctor, or especially something like a surgeon – if the standards are lowered, then the probability that the surgeon will make a mistake is higher. [If] they’re making mistakes in their exam, they may make mistakes with people and that may result in people dying,” Musk articulated.

“Okay, I understand that. But that’s a hypothetical. That doesn’t mean it’s happening,” said Lemon, to which Musk replied, “I didn’t say it was happening.”

Lemon brought up medicine’s historical mistreatment of minorities, and asked, “Most doctors now are white, and there are lots of mistakes in medicine, so you’re saying that – white doctors have – bad medical care? I’m trying to understand your logic here when it comes to DEI because there’s no actual evidence of what you’re saying.”

Concerning DEI in the airline industry, Lemon went on to ask Musk if he believes women and minority pilots are inherently less intelligent and skilled, to which the billionaire replied, “No, I’m just saying that we should not lower the standards for them.”

The exchange continued:

Lemon: “Why would they be lowering the standards?”

Musk: “I don’t know, why are they lowering the standards?”

Lemon: “Just so you know, five percent of pilots are female. Four percent are black. So you’re talking about this widespread takeover of minorities and women when that’s not actually true.”

Musk: “I’m not saying there’s a widespread takeover.”

Lemon: “Well you’re saying that the standards are being lowered because of certain people.”

Lemon, sounding incredulous, also asked Musk, “Do you not believe in diversity, equity, and inclusion?”

“I think we should be – treat people according to their skills and their integrity, and that’s it,” he responded.

He later elaborated, “Woke mind virus is when you stop caring about people’s skills and their integrity and you start focusing instead on gender and race and other things that are different from that… the woke mind virus is fundamentally racist, fundamentally sexist, and fundamentally evil.”

“Don Lemon versus Elon Musk is like watching a lightweight in the ring against Mike Tyson—and I mean Tyson in his prime. The lightweight is flat on his back, and what’s more, he’s so comatose he doesn’t even know he’s been knocked out,” conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza wrote on X.

Musk may endorse a candidate for president ‘in the final stretch,’ and if he does, ‘will explain exactly why’

Earlier during the interview, Musk shared that he’d recently been at a friend’s house for breakfast and Donald Trump came by.

“Let’s just say he did most of the talking,” said Musk, but Trump didn’t say anything “groundbreaking or new.”

“I may in the final stretch endorse a candidate… if I do decide to endorse a candidate, I will explain exactly why,” Musk told Lemon, noting he’s “leaning away from Biden” but “I’ve made no secret of that.”

Lemon’s new show was originally slated to be an X production, but Musk ultimately canceled the deal, although the show is still posted on the platform. Lemon had asked for “a free Tesla Cybertruck, a $5 million upfront payment on top of an $8 million salary, an equity stake in the multibillion-dollar company, and the right to approve any changes in X policy as it relates to news content,” the New York Post reported.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Agriculture / 4 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Business / 4 hours ago

Canada’s Aging Population Is Creating A Fiscal Crisis

International / 5 hours ago

Pursuing world peace: Trump’s secret peace talks with Hamas a stunning break from decades of neocon policy

Agriculture

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Published on March 6, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Dr. Sylvain Charlebois

Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts

Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.

While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.

Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.

Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.

Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.

One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.

The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.

A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.

Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.

Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.

That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.

Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.

The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s Aging Population Is Creating A Fiscal Crisis

Published on March 6, 2025

By

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Rising OAS and GIS costs outpacing economic growth, straining the federal budget

Canada’s aging population is creating a financial crisis that policymakers cannot afford to ignore. The rising costs of Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) pose a growing risk to federal finances, yet no dedicated funding has been established to ensure their long-term viability.

The numbers are staggering. The 2024 Financial Accounts (Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I, p. 43) show that spending on elderly benefits rose at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.24 per cent between 2015 and 2024, climbing from $44.1 billion to $76.04 billion. Over the same period, total federal program spending increased at a CAGR of 7.24 per cent, from $248.7 billion to $466.7 billion.

Although elderly benefits made up 17.7 per cent of total program spending in 2015, they now account for 16.3 per cent. This decline is not due to reduced spending but rather a surge in pandemic-related government expenditures, which temporarily outpaced OAS-GIS growth. Nevertheless, the trajectory is clear: elderly benefits are now the federal government’s third-largest expense, behind only ‘Other Transfer Payments’ and ‘Operating Expenses.’

While these figures already indicate a growing fiscal challenge, government projections suggest the problem will only get worse. According to the federal Fall Economic Statement (Table A1.11, p. 211), economic growth is expected to average four per cent annually until 2029-30. Yet OAS-GIS costs are projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 6.5 per cent, outpacing both GDP growth and other program spending. By 2029-30, spending on elderly benefits is expected to reach $104.4 billion, or 18.3 per cent of all program expenditures.

Government projections highlight the rapid growth in elderly benefits over the next six years, as shown in the table below:

Fiscal Year                  Elderly Benefits ($B)                Total Program Expenses ($B)              Percentage of Total Program Expenses
2023-24                       76.0                                          466.7                                                   16.2 per cent
2024-25                       80.9                                          485.7                                                   16.7 per cent
2025-26                       85.5                                          500.3                                                   17.1 per cent
2026-27                       90.1                                          509.3                                                   17.7 per cent
2027-28                       94.6                                          529.7                                                   17.9 per cent
2028-29                       99.5                                          549.7                                                   18.1 per cent
2029-30                       104.4                                        570.3                                                   18.3 per cent

As the table shows, OAS-GIS spending is rising as a proportion of total government expenditures. This mirrors the original crisis in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), when benefits outpaced contributions as the population aged.

The CPP once faced a similar sustainability crisis, and its reform in 1997 offers a potential model for addressing the challenges of OAS-GIS today. The federal government overhauled the CPP by creating the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which now manages $570 billion in assets. At the time, CPP benefits were paid through general government revenues rather than dedicated investments.

The solution involved higher contribution rates and the creation of an independent investment board to manage the fund sustainably.

These changes secured the CPP’s future, but OAS-GIS remains entirely dependent on government revenue, with no financial backing of its own. That makes it even more vulnerable to economic downturns and demographic shifts.

Policymakers must take decisive action to secure its future. One option is to tighten eligibility criteria to curb uncontrolled spending. Cost-of-living adjustments should also be limited to official inflation measures, ensuring sustainability without unfairly burdening low-income seniors.

The federal government must acknowledge the problem before it becomes unmanageable. The next finance minister should seek input from actuaries, investment professionals, economists and the public to explore feasible long-term solutions. A dedicated OAS-GIS Investment Board, similar to the CPPIB, could help ensure the program’s sustainability. The government already expanded CPP in 2019—there is precedent for such an approach.

Since OAS-GIS has no existing assets, the government will need to inject capital into the program. This could be done through annual surpluses deemed excessive for current needs or through long-term debt financing. Issuing 30-, 40- or even 50-year bonds specifically designed to fund OAS-GIS could provide a market-friendly, fiscally responsible path to solvency. If properly structured, such a plan could improve Canada’s credit rating rather than weaken it, ultimately reducing borrowing costs.

Even today, OAS-GIS spending exceeds the annual federal deficit, a clear warning sign that this issue can no longer be ignored. If no action is taken, Canada will face soaring elderly benefits with no sustainable way to fund them.

The time to act is now. Delaying reform will only make the crisis worse, burdening future generations with an unsustainable system. Policymakers have a choice: build a sustainable future for OAS-GIS or allow it to become a fiscal disaster.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X