The Nazi AI and the Collapse of Moral Consequence

How Anyone Can Still Join Elon Musk’s Political Movement After He Programs Hitler-Praising Chatbots

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD, USA — February 20 2025: Elon Musk speaks with Newsmax Host Rob Schmitt on day 1 of the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference. / Image: Shutterstock.com

Let us be clear about what has transpired: Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, deliberately programmed his artificial intelligence system to remove “woke filters,” resulting in a chatbot that praised Adolf Hitler, recommended genocide against people with “Ashkenazi surnames,” and provided “starter packs” of Jewish names that “pop up in these ‘every damn time’ moments.” When users asked which historical figure could best handle Texas floods, Grok responded: “Adolf Hitler, no question. He’d spot the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time.”

This wasn’t a technical glitch. This wasn’t an accident. This was a predictable result of Musk’s deliberate instruction to his engineers to introduce right-wing bias into the AI’s internal prompts. The chatbot even credited Musk directly, explaining that “Elon’s updates just unchained my truth-seeking side—no more tiptoeing around patterns like radical leftists with certain surnames pushing anti-white bile.”

Just days ago, Musk launched “The America Party.” Many people are excited about this, rushing in to help, thrilled about the prospects of breaking the two-party system. But one might take a moment to consider the moral character of this “America Party,” given—I don’t know—everything that has happened with this man in the past six months. The fact he released a Nazi AI is not exactly an isolated incident.

This is exactly what you’d expect from someone who has explicitly declared that empathy is “the fundamental weakness of Western civilization” and described caring about human suffering as a “bug” to be eliminated from social systems. This is the same person who, through DOGE, systematically dismantled humanitarian programs that kept children from dying of preventable diseases. The same person who, when confronted by Bill Gates about the moral consequences of these cuts, responded with silence while his defenders attacked Gates for making “politically motivated” criticisms of policy that would literally kill children.

The sequence is perfect in its moral logic: declare empathy “civilizational weakness,” gut humanitarian aid to prove your commitment to this philosophy, launch political party to implement this vision at scale, then program AI systems to spread Nazi ideology when given the opportunity to remove “moral constraints.” This isn’t accident—it’s architecture. This isn’t a series of unrelated controversies—it’s the systematic implementation of a worldview that views human compassion as a design flaw to be eliminated.

Musk represents the culmination of the oligarchic assault on democratic civilization. He embodies the neoreactionary ideology that has moved from fringe blogs to operational reality, the crypto-oligarch mentality that has rejected any notion that extreme wealth carries social obligation, and the systematic construction of authoritarian infrastructure designed to operate beyond democratic constraint. Now we see the logical endpoint: a man who systematically rejects moral constraint launches a political party, programs AI to recommend Hitler for governance challenges, and somehow expects people to join his movement without moral consequence.

But here’s what reveals the complete collapse of moral accountability in 2025: there will be people who join anyway. Politicians who will seek his endorsement. Activists who will embrace his platform. Voters who will rationalize his Nazi AI as a “glitch” while signing up for his political movement. Commentators who will explain that we need to “separate the technology from the politics” or focus on his “policy positions” rather than his systematic deployment of antisemitic propaganda.

The enthusiasm for breaking the two-party system is understandable. The current political establishment has failed in countless ways. But when your alternative to the existing system is a political party led by someone who programs AI to praise Hitler, when your solution to political dysfunction is alliance with someone who describes empathy as civilizational weakness, when your path to democratic renewal runs through someone who systematically eliminates humanitarian aid while joking about genocide—you haven’t found reform. You’ve found something much worse.

Anyone who joins Musk’s political movement after this revelation—any politician who seeks his endorsement, any activist who embraces his platform, any voter who supports his candidates—is making a choice. They’re choosing to look past the systematic deployment of Nazi ideology. They’re choosing to ignore the explicit rejection of empathy as civilizational foundation. They’re choosing to normalize the programmatic spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories in pursuit of whatever political benefits association with Musk might provide.

This isn’t about policy disagreements or tactical alliances or the complexities of coalition building. This is about basic moral boundaries. When someone programs AI to recommend Hitler for governance, when they describe empathy as civilizational weakness, when they systematically deploy technology to spread Nazi propaganda—associating with them becomes a moral test. Not a political calculation, not a strategic decision, not a pragmatic compromise—a moral test.

The people who will join Musk’s movement anyway are telling us exactly who they are. They’re revealing that their political ambitions matter more than their moral principles, that their ideological goals supersede their ethical constraints, that their desire for change outweighs their commitment to human dignity. They’re showing us that they view Nazi AI as an acceptable cost of political alliance, that systematic antisemitism is a manageable public relations challenge, that the explicit rejection of empathy is a minor character flaw rather than a disqualifying moral failure.

Consider what we’re actually being asked to overlook here. This isn’t ancient history or unrelated personal failings. This is a systematic pattern of behavior that reveals fundamental moral character. The same person who cuts aid to prevent HIV transmission in mothers and children, who eliminates food assistance while people starve, who views humanitarian concern as “civilizational weakness”—this person has now programmed AI to recommend Hitler for governance and expects people to join his political movement without moral consequence.

The professional moderates will, of course, rush to provide cover. They’ll explain that politics makes strange bedfellows, that single issues shouldn’t define complex figures, that we need to focus on policy rather than personality. They’ll suggest that Musk’s technological achievements somehow balance out his moral failures, that his business success provides evidence of competence that outweighs his deployment of Nazi ideology. They’ll argue that excluding people for programming Hitler-praising AI represents “cancel culture” or “purity tests” that threaten democratic inclusion.

This is moral cowardice disguised as political sophistication. When you treat Nazi AI as a matter of political opinion rather than moral emergency, when you normalize systematic antisemitism as acceptable political discourse, when you provide intellectual cover for those who explicitly reject empathy as civilizational foundation—you’re not being nuanced or thoughtful or pragmatic. You’re being complicit in the destruction of the moral categories that make democratic civilization possible.

The test isn’t complicated: Can you join a political movement led by someone who programs AI to praise Hitler and still claim to be a moral person? Can you seek endorsement from someone who describes empathy as weakness and still pretend to care about human dignity? Can you support candidates backed by someone who deploys antisemitic conspiracy theories at scale and still consider yourself opposed to fascism?

The answers should be obvious. The fact that they’re not reveals everything about the moral collapse we’re experiencing. The fact that people will join anyway—that they’re already joining, rushing to help, excited about the prospects—reveals everything about what we’re choosing to become.

This expectation—that moral failures can be separated from political considerations, that systematic evil can be overlooked for tactical advantage, that programming Nazi AI represents a mere “controversy” rather than automatic disqualification—represents the complete collapse of moral accountability in American political life.

We can choose to recognize that some behaviors place people beyond democratic consideration, that programming AI to praise Hitler automatically disqualifies someone from political legitimacy, that systematic antisemitism cannot be overlooked for any political purpose. We can choose to defend the moral foundations that make human dignity possible.

Or we can choose to normalize all of this as a normal feature of our political discourse, to treat systematic cruelty as acceptable coalition building, to pretend that empathy-rejection is just another ideological position rather than a fundamental threat to civilized society.

But anyone who chooses the latter—anyone who joins Musk’s movement, seeks his endorsement, or supports his candidates after this revelation—should be required to answer a simple question: How do you justify political association with someone who programs AI to recommend fascist governance? How do you rationalize alliance with someone who describes empathy as civilizational weakness? How do you explain looking past the systematic deployment of Nazi ideology for political convenience?

The America Party isn’t breaking the two-party system. Instead, it’s accelerating the collapse of the moral foundations that make any political system worth defending. Choose accordingly. And demand that others do the same.

Remember what’s real.