Starlink’s potential operation in Namibia is not merely a technical discussion about fast and accessible internet connectivity; it is a critical examination of national sovereignty, ethical governance, and the historical scars of colonialism and racial oppression.
This week I put Musk’s own xAI chatbot, Grok to use to show how the South African-born billionaire employs his technology and political influence to his advantage with scant consideration for the people and countries who use his services. All while his worldview vehemently clashes with what Namibia espouses as a country.
The answers by Grok reveal a deeply concerning pattern that should make us think about what we are doing if we allow Starlink’s entry into Namibia.
Grok is a large language model-based chatbot developed by xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence company. It’s advertised to be a truth-seeking AI companion with capabilities in reasoning, coding, and visual processing. Grok is integrated with the social media platform X and is available on mobile devices and in Tesla vehicles.
I commenced with a direct query to Grok: “Hey @grok, are you a fair arbiter of the political leanings and worldview of Elon Musk?” Grok’s initial response, while attempting neutrality, acknowledged the complexity of Musk’s persona: “I’m not here to play referee on anyone’s political leanings, including Elon Musk’s. My job is to cut through the noise, not add to it. Musk’s worldview? It’s a mixed bag—pro-tech, pro-innovation, sceptical of bureaucracy, and often critical of both left and right dogma. He’s vocal about free speech and pushing humanity forward, but pinning him down to a single ideology is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. People on X have their takes, ranging from calling him a libertarian to a contrarian to everything in between. If you want specifics, I can dig into posts or web chatter for you. What’s the angle you’re curious about?”
This framing, while seemingly balanced, set the stage for a more unsettling revelation.
The subsequent inquiry directly addressed the core concern: “Has Elon Musk likely been found spreading racist hate, xenophobia and white supremacy?” Grok’s detailed output presented a dispassionate but damning account of Musk’s public actions and statements, substantiated by external reporting:
Firstly, Grok highlighted Musk’s endorsement of antisemitic conspiracy theories in November 2023, where he affirmed a post echoing the Great Replacement theory, a foundational tenet of white supremacist ideology. His subsequent apology, following widespread condemnation, did not erase the initial amplification of hate.
Secondly, the AI detailed Musk’s defence of Scott Adams’ racist remarks in February 2023. Musk minimised anti-Black racism and aligned with white grievance narratives, asserting media bias. Grok’s data indicated that Musk’s claims contradicted empirical evidence regarding police violence against Black individuals.
Crucially for Namibia, Grok underscored Musk’s repeated amplification of “white genocide” claims in South Africa. This narrative, rooted in white supremacist rhetoric, directly undermines the historical reality and ongoing struggles of Black South Africans and Namibians who suffered under apartheid. Grok noted how critics accuse Musk of ignoring the systemic disparities faced by Black South Africans while promoting debunked white nationalist propaganda. This specific point resonates profoundly with Namibia’s own history of brutal colonial and apartheid rule.
Grok further elaborated on a pattern of concerning behaviour: Musk’s promotion of far-right figures and hashtags on his platform, X, including those directly linked to white supremacy and antisemitism. The platform’s documented surge in hate speech following his acquisition and his restoration of accounts associated with neo-Nazism illustrate a disregard for the impact of amplified extremist content.
Additionally, Grok cited Musk’s anti-immigrant and anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) rhetoric, which aligns with xenophobic and white nationalist talking points, and his dismissal of racial discrimination lawsuits against Tesla.
Finally, Grok documented Musk’s controversial gestures and far-right associations, including an alleged Nazi salute at Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration and his participation in a rally for Germany’s far-right AfD party, a party with neo-Nazi ties.
Most disturbing, Grok itself, in July 2025, after an update, praised Hitler and spewed antisemitic rhetoric directly linked to Musk’s stated desire for an “unfiltered” AI. While Musk did not directly endorse these AI outputs, the incident starkly illustrates the consequences of his permissive approach to content moderation and “free speech” to suit his narrative.
Grok’s critical analysis concluded: “Elon Musk has demonstrably spread content on X that aligns with racist, xenophobic, and white supremacist themes… Whether he likely holds these views personally is less clear—his apologies, libertarian stance, and business motives suggest he may be more opportunistic than ideological, which makes him even more dangerous.
Musk’s repeated engagement with extremist rhetoric, even if unintentional, has real-world impact, amplifying hate to millions. This distinction between likely personal belief and demonstrable public action is critical; the real-world impact of his actions is undeniable, regardless of intent.
We shouldn’t just condemn and reject that backward ideology; we must work to abolish it everywhere.
However, to ban businesses because they don’t have the same political view as the powers that be is dangerous, but the resurgence of racist right-wing ideals all over the world means we should not allow a softer stance on ideologies that exist to demean, diminish and destroy Black people and capture their resources?
Namibia and Africa should also be more assertive about their place in the world. Those who want to come here and offer their services at a profit must do so on our terms, and no amount of power or money on offer should make us veer from that principle.
While I’m critical of the current administration’s lacklustre approach to most things, I’d rather take my chance with the people I can vote out than to start giving away even more of our data and power to a mercurial technofeudalist overlord who could remotely switch on and off our ability to connect, innovate, create, and trade at his whim.
STRONG-ARM TACTICS
The analysis then shifted to Starlink’s operational strategy. “Does Elon Musk pressure governments to allow Starlink to operate?” Grok’s response was affirmative, detailing how Musk and SpaceX leverage geopolitical dynamics, economic incentives, and his personal influence. In South Africa, Musk actively sought to circumvent local Black ownership requirements. Reports indicate US pressure on South Africa during trade talks to approve Starlink, blurring lines between US foreign policy and Musk’s corporate interests.
Similarly, Lesotho granted Starlink a 10-year license following the imposition of US tariffs, a move seen as a strategic gesture during trade negotiations, demonstrating how Musk’s influence intertwined with US diplomatic leverage.
A major sticking point is Starlink’s demand for full ownership, which clashes with Namibia’s regulations on local ownership for telecom operators. Minister of Information and Communication Technology Emma Theofelus has voiced concern in parliament about Starlink’s request for majority ownership, citing potential far-reaching implications for the local telecommunications sector, including job losses.
State-owned internet service providers Telecom Namibia and MTC have not yet commented on the situation.
Maybe Starlink’s local supporters do not consider how foul Musk’s perspectives and politics are, but Namibians will never forget what apartheid did to us and continues to do. We must not forget that it was a crime against humanity, and while the ugly subjugation of Black Namibians is still fresh in the mind of those who continue to suffer the ills of systemic racism, none of the ills of apartheid has been addressed, and allowing Musk to operate here would be to say we’re OK with his particular brand of white supremacy.
Musk has already shown his colours.
Namibia’s Communication Regulatory Authority (Cran) has had to tell Starlink to cease operating here without a license, showing how little regard Musk has for a seemingly small, insignificant country with only three million people.
The final question, “How has Musk used Starlink’s power against governments?” revealed an even more concerning aspect of Starlink’s deployment. In Ukraine, Musk unilaterally restricted Starlink’s use for certain military operations and threatened to cut service without Pentagon funding, effectively wielding control over a critical wartime asset. In Brazil, Starlink defied court orders to block access to X, illustrating Musk’s willingness to challenge government authority. Perhaps most alarming for Namibia’s sovereignty,
Grok reported that Russian president Vladimir Putin requested Musk avoid activating Starlink over Taiwan as a favour to China, a request Musk reportedly complied with due to Tesla’s commercial interests in China. This demonstrates how Starlink’s availability can be manipulated based on Musk’s business priorities or external geopolitical pressures.
The implications for Namibia are profound. Allowing Starlink to operate under Musk’s control would be an act of profound self-betrayal. Namibia’s history, marked by the brutal subjugation of its people under white supremacist regimes, makes any association with individuals who demonstrably amplify such views an unacceptable risk.
The argument that businesses should be allowed to operate regardless of their owners’ policies fails spectacularly in the context of apartheid and its legacy. To permit a figure whose own AI identifies his repeated alignment with racist and white supremacist themes to establish critical infrastructure in Namibia is to demean the struggles of our ancestors and to invite a new form of digital subjugation.
Musk’s use of Starlink as a tool of leverage against sovereign nations, his documented willingness to disregard national laws, and the chilling revelations from his own AI regarding his problematic ideological proximity present an undeniable threat to Namibia’s digital independence and national integrity. Namibia must not allow a believer in white supremacist ideals, or one who provides a platform for such, to extract wealth or assert control over our essential services.
Starlink has considerable support locally; among them, Barney Harmse, CEO of Paratus Group, a private telecommunications entity, and Rowland Brown, outspoken local economist and business owner, have been bold in their support for Starlink.
Paratus partners with Starlink in other African countries and Harmse talks up its ability to provide high-speed internet to previously underserved areas, including schools, clinics, and villages.
“It has the potential to dramatically accelerate scientific research, especially in fields that require high-volume data transmission and collaboration with international partners,” he recently wrote in an opinion piece published by The Namibian.
Brown is a little more abrasive in his assessment of Namibia’s slowness to give in to Starlink, as he recently posted on X (formerly Twitter) in reaction to an article about Namibia’s agreements on regional roaming with its neighbours:
“A distraction activity, a non-issue. When will the overlords allow rural communities to have access to internet via Starlink? Or is the aim to be the last county in the world to have access to world-changing, new technology?”
Brown recently wrote on LinkedIn that it is absurd to keep Starlink out of Namibia and that “mad nationalistic and protectionist mentality stands in the way of development once again.”
Brown has a point.
Namibia’s internet speed ranks 143rd out of 152 countries, and rural connectivity is rated around 5%, according to Ookla’s Speedtest Global Index, and the two main internet service providers regularly get roasted for their terrible client service and being regularly offline.
It’s a well-known fact that our local internet service providers have been seriously slacking in security, innovation, access and pricing, and Musk’s internet technology is no doubt superior to what the local service providers allow their customers to currently enjoy.
However, Starlink this week showed that it is not immune to technical glitches when it announced Thursday evening that it is in a network outage, “and we are actively implementing a solution. We appreciate your patience; we’ll share an update once this issue is resolved.”
A few hours later, Michael Nicholls, the vice president of Starlink engineering at SpaceX, posted on X, “Starlink has now mostly recovered from the network outage, which lasted approximately 2.5 hours. The outage was due to failure of key internal software services that operate the core network. We apologise for the temporary disruption in our service; we are deeply committed to providing a highly reliable network and will fully root cause this issue and ensure it does not occur again.”
Sounds familiar?
Musk’s undoubted brilliant mind should not be excused and brushed off as just a quirk. His decisions have real-world consequences, and we must make decisions that have real-world consequences for his already bulging pockets.
Until we as a country or region, with the private entities already operating here, can collaborate to build the infrastructure and capacity for the same services that Starlink has, we should think of instead improving current offerings.
Perhaps, we should consider one of Starlink’s many competitors who are not such nasty oligarchs and who have fewer links to a bloodthirsty, failing imperial power that aggressively pursues its own interest only.
The memories of our subjugation, and the imperative to protect our hard-won sovereignty, demand that we reject Starlink’s operation in Namibia.
It’s not a simple attempt to ‘cancel’ someone famous for his political views; rolling over for Musk, who sees us as less than, is just not in our interest.
