On March 30, 2025, Elon Musk’s transgender son, Vivian Wilson, labeled Tesla a “Ponzi scheme.” Streamer “Pik” encouraged this statement. Subsequently, political forces exploited it to attack Musk. The incident echoes a familiar historical tactic: turning personal conflicts into ideological battles, reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution’s strategy of pitting family members against each other.
🚨震惊
在主播皮克的诱导下
马斯克儿子失去理智声称：特斯拉是庞氏骗局，因为市盈率很高并呼吁不要购买特斯拉。维维安：“查看市盈率，然后将特斯拉的股票与其他汽车公司进行比较。”
维维安：“这不是一家汽车公司。这是一个庞氏骗局。”
皮克：“是的，确实如此。”
……… pic.twitter.com/cQcIMFaBPu
— Cantonese.📜廣東仔 (@fdsa753159) March 30, 2025
In 2025, Musk partnered with Trump to launch the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). It aimed to cut federal spending and counter left-wing economic policies. This move placed Musk in the crosshairs of the Democratic Party and progressive activists. Consequently, left-wing forces amplified Vivian’s remarks, transforming a private dispute into a political weapon. This highlights the perils of exploiting family conflicts to fuel political extremism.
A similar dynamic played out during the 2020 Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ/CHOP) protests in Seattle. At the peak of the BLM movement, activists seized control of several city blocks. They expelled police and declared an “autonomous zone.” They sought an anarchist utopia. However, the movement quickly collapsed due to internal violence, mismanagement, and scarce resources. Despite its failure, left-wing media initially championed it as a bold resistance movement, demonstrating how ideological fervor can override practical governance concerns.
Both BLM and China’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) share underlying similarities. One framed itself around racial identity, the other around class struggle. In Mao’s China, the “right” class granted legitimacy. In BLM’s framework, the “right” skin color serves a similar function. Fundamentally, both weaponized identity politics. They reduce individuals to group identities, deepen social divisions, and encourage conflict.
Yet, key differences exist. China’s unitary system allowed the Cultural Revolution to engulf the nation. It led to mass purges, economic collapse, and millions of deaths. In contrast, America’s federalist structure and local autonomy acted as a buffer. They prevented movements like CHAZ from spreading beyond isolated areas. This structural difference is a crucial safeguard against national disasters fueled by ideological extremism.
Over the past century, leftist political tactics evolved. From nationalism to class, from orientation to race, they fueled disasters. Identity politics grants moral legitimacy. Under its banner, any action becomes justified, regardless of consequences. Unified by identity, it can destroy society.
Similarly, the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan shows identity politics’ extremes. Political forces inflamed Hindu-Muslim tensions into division. This displaced 15 million and killed 2 million. Politicized identity drives societies into chaos. Today, U.S. racial and gender politics face similar exploitation. Social rifts deepen, though not yet dividing the nation—a warning.
Nevertheless, there is reason for cautious optimism. America’s tradition of local governance helps contain radical movements. It prevents crises like China’s Cultural Revolution. The public must remain vigilant against media manipulation. Strengthen local autonomy. This is America’s hope to avoid extreme politics. History warns us: never underestimate human folly. Collective efforts for greatness often devolve into collective stupidity. Beware the Tower of Babel.
Leave a Reply