How the Thesis That the South African Millionaire is a “Nazi” is Based on Absurdity and Complete Delusion, Documenting His Total Opposition to the Minority Current of Ethno-Nationalism in Today’s Populist Right-Wing Movements
About Elon Musk
I write this summary, as comprehensive as possible, motivated by the sensationalist focus the media placed on a gesture of gratitude to the public by the millionaire Elon Musk. The collective hysteria surrounding the recent election of the highly inflammatory politician Donald Trump led many to interpret, in a completely absurd and delusional way, Musk’s gesture as a Nazi or merely Roman salute.
The media coverage, as is often the case—and increasingly so—was conducted by appealing to the most primitive and simian instincts of populations, particularly those with a greater responsibility to be well-informed and think rigorously. This is, therefore, a commentary on the disinformation industry and the brutal alienation from reality that today characterizes progressive urban elites.
Anyone not intoxicated by this regrettable alienation can, by analyzing the full video, verify that it was simply a common gesture of “throwing a heart” to the crowd, unrelated to extremist ideologies. Yet, many adamantly swear it was a Nazi salute. This almost psychiatric misunderstanding is based on years of misinformation they have been forced to digest. I will attempt to clarify this below.
There is No Relevant Nazi Movement in Western Democracies Today
Let us begin by clarifying the monumental misconceptions that underpin this delusion, which is already pathologically entrenched in the public psyche. While in America, perhaps somewhere between half and a quarter of the population might genuinely or vaguely believe in this deceit, the problem is even worse in Europe.
The general idea to clarify here is simple: Elon Musk has no connection to or history indicating sympathy for ethno-nationalist far-right movements. Many of the arguments linking him to such ideologies are baseless or the result of distorted interpretations.
It is thus essential to distinguish a fundamental point: ethno-nationalism, the populist nationalist variant that could be associated with Nazism, is generally a minority current within the Western populist right. In other words, in the current political landscape, there are very few genuine fascists or Nazis, and no truly “anti-democratic” figures or political currents opposed to representative parliamentary democracy as it exists in Western regimes today.
Thus, it is absurd to classify figures like Musk, Trump, or Ramashwany as close to fascist movements, as their opposition to ethno-nationalism is well documented. Similarly, it is false to claim that parties like the AfD or Trump and Chega voters are Nazis or fascists, and few serious political compasses attribute such characteristics to those parties. Even Italy’s current Prime Minister, despite a past in ultra-nationalist organizations, no longer represents those sectors.
Claims that Musk’s gesture or the occasional use of symbols like Pepe the Frog are extremist are misinterpreted. Musk’s gesture was clearly an expression of affection for the crowd, contextualized within his speech, a gesture in fact not at all uncommon among stage celebrities and politicians. Meanwhile, the aforementioned avatar ceased to be exclusive to the far-right long ago. It is now a generalized symbol used against political correctness and as a counter-culture icon. If the left has lost its monopoly on counter-culture, that is an introspection they must undertake.
Millionaires, Celebrities, and Politics
Musk is, after all, merely a millionaire who supported political campaigns. The amounts he donated are not particularly significant compared to dozens of other millionaires who have made substantial donations to American politicians over the years.
Additionally, he has campaigned in person, resembling more a celebrity in this aspect. But even here, it is unclear if there is anything novel: millionaires have always supported politicians, whether privately or publicly—Soros, Oprah, Gates, Rockefeller, Hearst, and many more. The American media has always had owners with friendships and political positions.
Some pursued political careers themselves (Bloomberg, Hearst, Forbes). Not to mention the telecommunications industry, analogous to social media: in that sector, the proximity to politics is even greater, as is the case in numerous other industries.
Political Thought and Economic Relations
The economic relations between this millionaire’s companies and the U.S. government is an area where legitimate questions arise. Yet even here, these questions are dubious at best.
His car company operates autonomously, and he has stated that he would prefer not to have the government subsidies for electric vehicles currently in place. As for his space exploration company, it is a different story. However, there are no serious studies indicating current exclusive dependence on the U.S. government.
Furthermore, his public or private persona does not show any irreducible ideological positions, whether far-right or far-left. He tends to lean liberal on economic and social matters, conservative on common-sense issues like the biological reality of sex (a matter he has personal family experiences with), and is a staunch advocate of meritocracy.
He is opposed to any political measures that particularize groups based on race, gender, or origin. This last point places him at odds with the fantasy of “Nazism.”
Biography: Family History, Beginnings, and Career
His family history is relatively simple. He is the son of a politically left-leaning couple who emigrated to South Africa in the 1970s. They participated in moderate investments, taking advantage of the region’s economic prosperity at the time, including the much-discussed mining exploration in Uganda, which did not yield significant wealth.
Later, in the West—Canada and the U.S.—his student and early professional life was marked by hard work and minimal luxuries or exceptional conditions. He began accumulating wealth through launching various tech initiatives and companies, like PayPal, a relatively common path for high achieving tech students during the sector’s economic boom.
He used his extraordinary engineering abilities, process optimization skills, and economic awareness to successfully establish ventures in electric mobility and space exploration. These achievements have significantly expanded his fortune.
Excentricities, Genius, and Visionary Elements
His vision for the world, or at least the one he has publicly expressed for years, is extraordinarily optimistic about technology, humanity’s ability to overcome challenges posed by nature, and the role of science—especially engineering—in conquering those challenges.
Regarding space exploration, his goals become somewhat mystical: he advocates that the expansion of humanity’s collective consciousness, whatever that might mean, will benefit from transitioning to a multi-planetary species. Hence, his personal obsession with the colonization of Mars in the near term.
Moreover, he is generally a man who speaks his mind, who does not care—or does not wish to care—about the consequences his public image might bring to his businesses. So far, he has been successful in that gamble.
A recent and notable anecdote illustrates his peculiar nature: he recently stated that he opposes remote work because it is unfair to workers who cannot perform their jobs remotely and must necessarily go to their workplaces—mechanics, plumbers, janitors, etc.
This is impressive: it could have been a point made by a left-wing defender of the working class, yet it came from the richest man in the world.
Lastly: The X Platform
Partially based on these concerns, he advanced in 2020 to purchase the social network X (formerly Twitter), believing that a digital public forum for discussion free from significant censorial currents was essential.
He saw the existing platforms as dominated by censorship tendencies, both at the ideological-political level—where even moderate right-wing views were heavily censored by Silicon Valley’s left-leaning industrial complex—and at the level of citizen power and critique, as evidenced by the extraordinary mechanisms of censorship imposed by social networks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thus, he became the owner of one of the most important but less-used social networks in the world, at least compared to other top platforms. Its difference lies in its predominant use by two groups of important “fools”: politicians and journalists.
The doctrine he implemented on the platform in terms of information control is highly liberal. It does not show a bias toward censoring any relevant political field. On the contrary, it contrasts with the previous policy—still common in many networks today—by tending not to censor expressions that fall within the law.
In liberal democracies, where freedom of speech is protected, this naturally includes all sorts of nonsense, but that’s the reality.
On X, no terms are officially banned, although words like “cis” are now viewed as insults, as are more obvious expressions like “SOB.” Yet, none of these expressions are formally censored. Regarding the platform’s functioning, there is no specific promotion of accounts, movements, or ideologies.
What changed was the algorithm, designed to include opposing views, promoting greater diversity of perspectives. Additionally, he implemented a collaborative fact-checking system similar to Wikipedia’s model, reinforcing users’ role in filtering information.
Finally, it is false to claim Musk supports the end of digital platforms or traditional media in general. Instead, he expresses criticism of the poor state and decline of traditional journalism, which he believes could lead to change or even its extinction—a sentiment shared by many.
Coda: The Definition of Oligarchy
Lastly, I want to emphasize another significant misconception perpetuated like chewing gum in today’s public discourse. There is, in fact, no oligarchy in the United States or most Western liberal democracies. These are effective representative regimes, with diverse political parties, free elections without significant fraud, power rotation, and independent judicial checks and balances.
Oligarchies do exist, however, in one-party systems or near-equivalents where, in the absence of power rotation and democratic plurality, power is concentrated in the hands of a few. This is not the case in the U.S. Musk is a citizen with political involvement, similar to many others—Soros, Oprah, Chomsky, etc.—whether wealthier or less so.
This exercise of involvement does not, in itself, constitute a regime that could be classified as an “oligarchy.” The term is entirely misused.
