This Yale professor warns of Elon Musk’s ‘fascism’ — and misses the real threat



Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.

I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.

Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.

After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.

Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.

Negative vs. positive freedom

Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.

In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.

Institutions need accountability

Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.

Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.

Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.

Where Snyder falls short

Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.

Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.

Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.

When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.

CEO’s ‘targeted killing’ highlights a rising tide of anti-institutional rage



Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, was fatally shot Wednesday morning outside of his New York City hotel in what police have described as a premeditated, targeted attack. The 50-year-old CEO was shot multiple times by a masked gunman who had been waiting outside the Hilton hotel along Sixth Avenue, where the Thompson was hosting an investors’ conference. According to his wife, Thompson had received threats, and the bullet casings recovered at the crime scene had a personalized message hand-engraved on the shells: “deny,” “depose,” and “defend.”

This chilling event raises serious concerns — not just about security but about the rising tide of disillusionment and rage in our society.

We must resist the temptation to take shortcuts to justice. Instead, we need to demand better from our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves.

For years, I’ve warned about the potential for chaos when people lose faith in institutions. Back in 2010, while on Fox News, I vividly recall saying that the very people enabling today’s revolutionary rhetoric would one day find themselves dragged into the streets by mobs and beaten to death on live television.

It sounded dramatic then. Now, it feels prophetic.

The purpose of government

The crumbling of faith in our institutions is largely due to our willful ignorance of the very purpose of our government. Unlike governments throughout history, ours wasn’t designed merely to enforce laws or keep the peace. The Declaration of Independence boldly asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect our unalienable rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights aren’t granted by any king, congress, or court; they are inherent.

The founders understood something critical: When governments become hostile to those rights — when they oppress rather than protect — it is not just the right but the duty of the people to replace them. However, the Declaration also offers a sobering reminder: People are often more willing to endure suffering than to risk the unknown.

This principle resonates deeply with me. As a recovering alcoholic, I know the temptation to stick with the devil you know. I lived in the pain of addiction for years, afraid that sobriety might only reveal my worst fears: that I was irredeemable, unworthy of anything better. But when the pain became unbearable, I was forced to take the leap.

America is at a similar inflection point.

Pain breeds change — but it must be lawful

We’re living in a time of immense collective pain — pain exacerbated by COVID-19, economic instability, and institutional corruption. Many Americans are willing to embrace the unknown, as we witnessed in this past election. Cohorts from the left moved across the aisle to support Donald Trump. That willingness is a sign of desperation — and an opportunity for renewal.

But it’s also dangerous. The Declaration of Independence was never a call to mob violence or vigilante justice. It was a framework for lawful, peaceful change. America’s founders understood that revolutions driven by hatred and chaos destroy justice rather than uphold it.

When institutions fail — and make no mistake, they have failed — it’s easy to see why people might turn to violence as an outlet for their anger. Marxist revolutionaries, anarchists, and disillusioned citizens will be tempted to act as judge, jury, and executioner. We’ve seen this before in history, from the French Revolution to the riots that followed George Floyd’s death.

But let me ask you: Is shooting someone in the street justice? Even if the victim is guilty — say, a corrupt pharmaceutical executive exploiting the vulnerable — is killing him how justice works?

Justice isn’t about vengeance. It’s about accountability. It requires evidence, due process, and impartiality. Mob justice, on the other hand, tears at the fabric of our society. It replaces the rule of law with chaos and ensures that no one, rich or poor, is truly safe.

A dangerous pattern emerging

Brian Thompson’s murder may be just the beginning of a disturbing trend. As faith in institutions erodes, more people will take matters into their own hands, targeting pharmaceutical executives, health care leaders, and others they perceive as symbols of corruption. This is not justice. It’s anarchy disguised as righteousness.

If we succumb to this mindset, we lose the very principles that make America worth defending. Our nation’s strength lies in its commitment to reasoned debate, lawful protest, and a system where justice is blind.

We must resist the temptation to take shortcuts to justice. Instead, we need to demand better from our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves. The pain we feel as a nation is real, but if we channel it constructively, it can lead to meaningful reform.

The Declaration of Independence gave us the blueprint: a vision for building something greater, not tearing everything apart. It’s up to us to follow that example — with prudence, reason, and care.

This isn’t just about one man’s tragic death. It’s about whether we will uphold the principles of justice or descend into chaos. The choice is ours.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Secret Service’s Incompetence Is Exactly Why We Need Trump To Dismantle The Deep State

The security state is going to have to explain how it could have failed so badly and in so many respects, and why we should believe it.

'Cafeteria Catholic': Another prominent Catholic archbishop calls Biden out as a phony



The Catholic archbishop overseeing the Archdiocese of Washington suggested in late March that despite claiming to be a devout Catholic, President Joe Biden had effectively subordinated his faith to leftist politics. The term Cardinal Wilton Gregory used to describe Biden and others with the tendency to pick and choose which nonnegotiable moral teachings to follow was "cafeteria Catholic."

In his recent speech at a Napa Institute event in Washington, D.C., Cardinal Robert Sarah — one of the most senior and recognizable leaders in the church — similarly slammed Biden, reusing Gregory's descriptor.

Cardinal Sarah, the former head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum under Pope Benedict XVI, noted at the outset of his remarks that the "West, while not the birthplace of Christianity, is home [to] much of what was once called 'Christendom' and much of what has become modern society, the roots of which are firmly European."

Sarah, a socially conservative West African, bemoaned the loss of distinction between the former and the latter, indicating that Catholics in the West have assimilated some of the same beliefs as "the general population."

The Catholic leader singled out Biden, now unpopular with the vast majority of American Catholics, as a poster boy for this kind of syncretism and willfully diluted faith.

"You have a self-identified Catholic president who is an example of what Cardinal Gregory recently described as a 'cafeteria Catholic,'" said the archbishop.

Blaze News previously reported that while Biden was celebrating the so-called "Transgender Day of Visibility" on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Gregory said that "like a number of Catholics, [Biden] picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts."

'Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.'

"There is a phrase that we have used in the past, a 'cafeteria Catholic.' You choose that which is attractive and dismiss that which is challenging," continued Gregory.

Cardinal Gregory further suggested that "there are things, especially in terms of life issues, there are things that [Biden] chooses to ignore, or he uses the current situation as a political pawn rather than saying, 'Look, my church believes this, I'm a good Catholic, I would like to believe this.' Rather than to twist and turn some dimensions of the faith as a political advantage."

While Biden's position on gender ideology and homosexual unions certainly put him at odds with Catholic teaching and the church, his radical stance on abortion stands in direct opposition with millennia-old church teaching.

"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable," says the Catechism. "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life."

Cardinal Raymond Burke, a canon lawyer and former prefect of the church's highest court, said in 2020 that on account of his antagonistic posturing against the church's moral teaching on abortion, Biden "is not a Catholic in good standing and he should not approach to receive Holy Communion."

Cardinal Sarah noted that it's not only Biden who is a "cafeteria Catholic."

"Many of you Catholic public officials are in the same category. Many of your Catholic hospitals and universities are Catholic in name only," said Sarah.

'The latter is a dangerous disease even if its first symptoms seem mild.'

The religious leader noted further that the "important witness to the fullness of our Catholic faith" in America "has been traded for cultural assimilation" and that the "uniqueness of the Catholic community" in America has been lost at the macro level.

However, Cardinal Sarah said that whereas the faith in Europe is "dying and in some places is dead," in part because some prelates are fearful of "opposing the world," the same is not true of the majority of church leaders in the United States.

"[The European prelates] dream of being loved by the world. They have lost the concern of being a sign of contradiction. Perhaps too much material wealth leads to compromise with the world affairs," said Sarah. "I believe that the church of our time is experiencing the temptation of atheism. Not intellectual atheism, but this subtle and dangerous state of mind: fluid and practical atheism. The latter is a dangerous disease even if its first symptoms seem mild."

Cardinal Sarah clarified that by "practical atheism," he meant a loss of the sense of the gospel and the transformation of Scripture into a tool for secular purposes.

This practical atheism is growing increasingly popular among Catholics in other regions of the West, with the ostensible exception of the United States, said Sarah.

Cardinal Sarah added, "Too many do not take the faith seriously."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Libertarianism Had Its Moment But Is Ill-Equipped For The Task Of Saving America

Our cultural decadence and institutional rot can only be remedied by a movement unafraid to assert virtue throughout society.

The Secret To Marxism’s Success? Slowly Infiltrating Existing Structures

Marxists rejected the outward revolution that Karl Marx had planned, and instead opted to subtly shape the way people thought.

7 Important Social Benefits Kids Develop From Homeschooling

From high interaction with homeschooled families and graduates in multiple environments, professional and personal, I've definitely noticed differences.

Australia’s COVID Insanity Shows Why Freedom Is So Fragile

Americans beware: Australia’s atrocious handling of the pandemic is as great an apology for liberty as you’ll find in the world today.