Elon Musk is not simply an eccentric entrepreneur; he functions as a political actor whose tech empire is reshaping how information flows, what gets amplified, and who holds power in the digital age. Journalists Ben Tarnoff and Quinn Slobodian, authors of a new analysis on what they call "Muskism," argue that Musk represents something far more significant than a billionaire with outsized influence. They describe him as an avatar for a worldview that fuses technology, capital, and power in ways that promise independence but actually create new dependencies and threaten democratic institutions.

What Exactly Is "Muskism" and Why Should You Care?

At its core, "Muskism" centers on a deceptively appealing promise: that individuals and nations can achieve sovereignty and self-reliance by plugging into Musk's technological infrastructures. Yet this promise masks a troubling reality. When people and governments depend on Musk's platforms, satellites, and AI systems, they become vulnerable to his decisions and worldview. The stakes became visible during the Ukrainian conflict, where Musk's control over Starlink satellite connectivity gave him outsized influence over a nation's ability to communicate and defend itself.

Tarnoff and Slobodian point to Musk's ambitious vision for the coming decade, which includes deploying 100 billion humanoid robots, launching one million low-Earth-orbit satellites to create near-monopoly control over global connectivity, and transforming X into a platform for what they describe as "far-right internationalism." In many ways, they argue, he is already partway toward these goals.

How Does Musk Use X and AI to Shape What People Think?

Since acquiring Twitter in 2022 and rebranding it as X, Musk has fundamentally transformed the platform's character. Research shows a clear rightward shift in content across the network. Musk has algorithmically boosted his own posts, ensuring users frequently encounter his views. He has also cultivated a network of allies who receive similar amplification, turning X into what Tarnoff and Slobodian describe as "a much more monolithic place ideologically".

But Musk's influence extends beyond simple amplification. With xAI and its chatbot Grok, he is attempting to reshape the very knowledge base that AI systems rely on. Grok is trained with principles reflecting Musk's worldview and is presented as "rational," yet it reflects what critics describe as a distorted right-wing perspective on topics ranging from Black Lives Matter protests to claims about "white genocide" and South African politics.

The mechanism is more sophisticated than traditional censorship. Rather than simply removing content, Musk operates within the algorithmic medium itself, amplifying certain narratives while marginalizing others. For example, he has amplified far-right influencers like Naomi Seibt, who shaped his views on immigration, Islam, and democracy in Germany, then broadcast those talking points to a global audience.

"With xAI and the chatbot Grok, he is going further. Grok is trained with certain principles that reflect Musk's worldview. It is presented as 'rational' but it is actually a more distorted right wing perspective on things, on everything from the Black Lives Matter protests to the supposed white genocide of words in current to South Africa," explained Quinn Slobodian, historian and co-author of the analysis.

Quinn Slobodian, Historian and Author

Why Are AI Systems and Far-Right Politics Becoming Intertwined?

Musk's motivation for creating xAI stems from his belief that major AI companies like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic have produced "woke" chatbots influenced by progressive training data sources like Wikipedia, which he deeply distrusts. He views this as an "infection" of social media and AI systems with what he calls the "woke mind virus." To counter this, he is not only building alternative AI systems but also constructing alternative knowledge bases.

A key example is "Grokipedia," a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia. When users ask Grok questions on X, the chatbot references Grokipedia for its responses. If someone asks "What was Black Lives Matter?" or "Is white genocide real?", Grok draws from Grokipedia's content. Critically, Grokipedia is expected to help form the training data for future iterations of Grok, creating a feedback loop where Musk's ideological preferences become embedded deeper into the AI system with each update.

"Founding xAI was part of an attempt to counter this. Projects like 'Grokipedia', a right-wing alternative to Wikipedia, show how he is trying to reshape not only platforms but also the knowledge base that AI systems rely on. In that sense, influencing human behaviour and reshaping technology go hand in hand," noted Ben Tarnoff, journalist and co-author.

Ben Tarnoff, Journalist and Author

Steps to Understanding How AI Shapes Information Control

• Recognize algorithmic amplification: Unlike traditional media gatekeeping, modern information control happens through algorithms that boost certain voices and narratives while burying others, making the process less visible but potentially more powerful.
• Understand knowledge base dependency: AI systems are only as objective as the data they train on; if the training data reflects a particular ideology, the AI will too, which is why Musk is investing in alternative sources like Grokipedia.
• Track platform ownership concentration: When a single individual controls both a major communication platform and the AI systems that operate on it, they gain unprecedented power to shape public discourse without traditional democratic oversight.

What Role Does Political Power Play in AI Development?

There is also a political-economic dimension to Musk's strategy. Large-scale AI development requires massive resources, including computing power, data, and energy infrastructure. This creates a structural tendency toward centralized, even authoritarian control, because democratic processes can slow down rapid expansion. Musk's alignment with the Trump administration exemplifies this dynamic. The administration is willing to bypass traditional democratic guardrails that would normally slow the deployment of data centers and untested technology.

The integration of Silicon Valley into the federal government under the current administration is unprecedented in scope. While tech companies have always maintained relationships with government, the extent of integration now visible represents a qualitative shift. This convergence is driven partly by shared material interests: AI development is now the organizing imperative for the tech industry, and that requires state support for infrastructure buildout.

Tarnoff and Slobodian argue that even more moderate figures like Sam Altman at OpenAI are becoming "cozy with authoritarian power" because the scale of AI infrastructure requires the kind of antidemocratic control that can bulldoze public dissatisfaction and bypass normal regulatory processes. In this view, the problem is not simply Musk's ideology but the structural incentives embedded in how AI systems are built and deployed at scale.

The stakes are high. If Musk's vision succeeds, he will have built not just companies but an entire ecosystem of platforms, AI systems, and knowledge bases that reflect his worldview and serve his political interests. The question Tarnoff and Slobodian raise is whether democratic societies can find ways to constrain these ambitions before they become too entrenched to challenge.