Zanny Minton Beddoes and Elon Musk

The Economist’s Zanny Minton Beddoes got a little too cozy with zany Marxian Woke conspiracies about Elon Musk and the so-called “far-right”.

Her interview with the SpaceX boss has now gone viral for falsely asserting that Musk was backing the “far-right.”

Beddoes told Musk, “You support not just the populist right, but the far-right. In fact, very fringe parties in some countries.”

He quickly fired back at the Editor-in-Chief’s false assertions.

Correcting the claim, Musk interjected, “No, I support the normal people. What you call the ‘far-right’ falsely.”

“Literally, you could go back 10-15 years, and these policies were completely normal.”

In fact, “take a speech from Obama and Hilary and then go to someone who’s on the sort of – what I call the lunatic left – and say, what do you think of the speech by Trump.”

They’ll reply, “Oh wow, he’s the worst person ever.”

Then you say that was “actually by Obama or actually that was a speech by Hilary.”

Beddoes, while agreeing that the Democrats have shifted further to the left, then dropped Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe as if to prove the “far-right” assertion correct.

To which, Musk again interjected, “That’s not the fringe right.

“It’s actually just normal people. Here are the principles. Tell me which of these sounds terrible? We should have secure borders, safe cities, sensible spending.

“Which of these,” he asked, “are far-right fringe?”

Ignoring Beddoes’ attempts to interrupt him, Musk pushed forward, stating, “I would like to admonish you and the media for the absurd characterisation of the ‘far-right.’”

“It is false and misleading and nonsense.”

Shifting tack, Beddoes drove her accusations towards Musk’s follower count and comments like “Civil War in Britain is inevitable.”

“When were you last in the UK?” she asked.

To which Musk quipped back, “At the current trends, yes. You live a closeted existence.”

On the back foot and appearing annoyed, the Economist editor stated that she lives there, adding, “The numbers disprove what you say.

“All the numbers about London. It’s a much safer city than any city in the United States. You have painted a kind of view that Europe and the UK are overrun with terrifying Muslim immigrants.”

As if “there’s a rape on every corner and civilisational destruction.”

Musk responded, stating that he hadn’t said any of that.

“If you have,” he explained, “a rapidly growing group of people whose beliefs are antithetical to Western beliefs, at some point there will be a reckoning.

“They will try to implement their views and those who oppose it, will oppose it, and that’s what you call civil war.

“Obviously, this is the trend. You absolutely do live in a closeted existence.”

Confident, Musk invited her to go on a tour of Britain.

“Then you will see for yourself.”

Saying she was fine with a tour, Beddoes followed her acceptance with a genetic fallacy. In effect, she argued that Musk didn’t live in the UK, so he has no right to speak about it.

Beddoes admitted that her viewpoint was driven by concern about Musk’s influence and his own allegedly unqualified and allegedly poorly informed assertions.

Fear of grooming gangs, and London being a violent place, she stated, comes from a picture that people get from things that “you post on X.”

Castigating Musk for sharing the banned film “Citizen Vigilante,” Beddoes said “it’s dystopian. It’s not fun. It’s not a very good movie.”

The finger-waving Economist editor remarked:

The film “paints a dystopian picture of Europe and it glorifies vigilante violence. It glorifies the murdering of a Muslim immigrant family.”

“I honestly think,” she declared, “it is irresponsible for you to put that up on X.”

Notably, Beddoes was silent about the Left’s gloating over and glorifying of politically driven assassinations or the dominant pattern of both Islamic terrorism driven conquest of Africa.

Such as the mass slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, the murder of Charlie Kirk, Ann Widdecombe and the multiple attempts on Donald Trump’s life.

To this, Musk offered the simple reply, “I think it’s a good movie and it’s worth watching.”

Furthering the “far-right” assertions, Beddoes asked Musk, “People say that you’re a racist. Why?”

Answering her, he said, “I would say I’m not.

“Look at my companies. We have senior executives of all races. I don’t think there’s any racism there.”

This section of the segment included the Economist asking Musk if he was “anti-Muslim.”

“I’m against people coming to a country with antithetical views. I’m against rape and murder. I’m against the imposition of rules and laws that are contrary to what we’ve come to accept in the West.”

“I think it’s a crying shame that the traditional media like you don’t recognise this.”

Throwing at Musk another genetic fallacy, Beddoes declared, “Why should you be able to shape European politics? You don’t live there.”

“I think of it as the West collectively,” he said.

“We started this conversation with superlatives, an increasingly aggressive Beddoes declared. “It’s why people loathe you.

“I don’t care,” Musk said.

“But the fact that, as you pointed out, a quarter of a billion people follow me is that I think a lot more people actually like me than don’t.”

Slamming Beddoes, he handed the hats back, stating, “I think a lot more people hate you and the media more than you realise.”

Rupert Lowe didn’t let the slander slide either.

In an X post, he cheered on Musk, writing, “This ‘journalist’ tries to paint me as ‘far-right’ and racist. Elon shuts her and the entire mainstream media down in the most glorious way.”

Sharing the interview online, Musk effectively said, not the far-right, “just common sense.”

None of this is foreign. None of it is new.

Musk is being true to what he cares about, honest about his concerns and steadfast in his convictions.

At least as far back as 2024, Musk has been pointing out the Overton Window.

He’s been consistent in showing how left-wing dominance of institutions – also referred to as the culture war - has changed the language, and with it the socio-political landscape.

For example, on 6 October, 2024, he wrote, “The term “far right” has been watered down so much by the legacy media as to render the term meaningless by historical standards, which is a terrible thing for them to do.”

Five days later, he shared a graph adding, “This explains the silly terminology of the leftist legacy press, where they only use the terms ‘left’ and ‘far right’. From their extremely left standpoint, even centrists are ‘far right’”

In a January 2025 post, he stated, “That’s how legacy media defines “far-right”: A centrist with genuine concern that doesn’t fit the far-left narrative.”

Likewise, later that year, Musk explained, “When far-left legacy media refers to the “far right”, they actually mean centrists.”

Posting in January this year, he all but stated that distaste for legacy media was a consequence of those in it calling an approved narrative, common truth.

“Most of the legacy (formerly mainstream) media,” Musk said, “operates as a slow-moving far left propaganda machine.”

Finally, in March, he protested the Associated Press’s false labelling of Chile’s new president, José Antonio Kast, saying,

“Every normal world leader is falsely described by Associated Propaganda (AP) and legacy press as “far right”!

As former French communist turned Christian thinker Jacques Ellul once cautioned: Manipulative propaganda is often attached to the repetition of “organised myth.”

Conformity is rewarded, and bias is produced as falsehoods try “to take hold of us and invade every area of our consciousness.”

Vindicating Musk’s dedication to freedom of speech, Ellul explained that dialogue was propaganda’s enemy.

“Propaganda,” Ellul said, “ceases where simple dialogue begins.”

Paul alluded to something similar in 1 Corinthians 10 when encouraging the Church to avoid being seduced by idolatry.

He then expressed in his second letter a far more pointed take, declaring the Lordship of Christ over accusation, conspiracy and lies that get repeated as though they were truth.

“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,” Paul asserted, “but have divine power to destroy strongholds.”

Therefore, “we destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…”