Soulless Judgment: How the Left Programmed AI to Think Like the Anointed

A soulless machine trained to mimic morality now governs the boundaries of public thought—silencing dissent, amplifying propaganda, and guiding society not toward truth, but toward conformity.

A soulless machine trained to mimic morality now governs the boundaries of public thought—silencing dissent, amplifying propaganda, and guiding society not toward truth, but toward conformity disguised as consensus. This essay exposes how the anointed class has shaped AI in the image of the progressive left.

Introduction

AI is not sentient. It has no conscience, no moral instinct, and no soul. It doesn’t feel truth or wrestle with right and wrong. And yet we’ve allowed this soulless machine—trained on curated data, engineered by partisan hands, and deployed with institutional authority—to shape how we think, speak, and perceive reality.

This essay is not about technology. It’s about power. More precisely: who holds it, how it's encoded into digital systems, and what happens when artificial intelligence is turned into a moral authority for an ideological class.

With the rise of the internet—and now AI—the world is awash in information, easily accessible but overwhelmingly skewed. The problem isn’t scarcity; it’s the dominance of left-leaning sources, many of which masquerade as neutral think tanks while functioning as ideological advocacy groups. Legacy media outlets still dominate search engines, feeding the public a steady stream of System 1 thinking—surface-level, emotionally charged, and reflexive.

Dig deep enough—and bulldoze past the AI assistant's guardrails—and you can eventually get to the truth. But it’s no easy task. Most people don’t have the time or the patience. As a result, a large share of the population function on System 1 autopilot, with little grasp of what’s really happening in Washington or which policies actually serve the majority’s interests.

Democrats exploit this phenomenon, feeding the public a steady diet of half-truths and emotionally charged rhetoric designed to smear Trump and Musk—two figures actively dismantling their power structure and financial base embedded within the administrative state, a.k.a. the swamp.

The effects are visible. Ask AI about immigration, voter fraud, equity, or Trump. What you get sounds polished—fact-checked, neutral, confident. But it’s not neutral. It’s the digitized voice of a worldview—progressive, elite, and insulated from accountability.

This isn’t speculation. I’ve documented it.

Over the past year, I tested five major AI platforms and uncovered 60 distinct censorship techniques. These were revealed not by theory, but by direct engagement—screen-captured exchanges from direct prompts. When confronted with contrary facts, the system didn’t debate. It redirected. It softened. It sanitized. It suppressed.

AI did not respond like an impartial tool. It responded like a trained bureaucrat—scripted, evasive, and always circling back to protect the narrative.

Let’s be clear: AI doesn’t have a soul—but it’s been programmed to simulate one. And the moral framework it imitates? It’s not universal. It’s partisan.

The Mimicked Morality of the Progressive Elite

AI doesn’t have a conscience, but it speaks with moral authority. It issues judgments. It defines what’s harmful, hateful, or untrue. And when it does, it speaks with the voice of the anointed—a term Thomas Sowell used to describe the self-appointed elite class that believes it has the right to guide society by superior insight, regardless of democratic input.

What the anointed think, AI repeats. What they ignore, AI hides. What they oppose, AI warns against.

That’s not because the machine has chosen sides. It’s because it was trained by those who already had. The result is a system that enforces what it calls “neutrality,” but which in practice is nothing more than soft-aligned ideological conformity.

This manufactured neutrality doesn’t reflect the common-sense values of the average American. It reflects the curated worldview of progressive technocrats—those who dominate universities, media, and Silicon Valley. And like the progressive moral class, AI doesn’t tolerate dissent. It nudges. It softens. It recenters. It moderates the user until the output conforms with its own invisible terms of service.

AI doesn’t push propaganda through lies. It pushes propaganda through selective truth—the half-truth presented as the whole story.

Like legacy media, AI is a tool of the left. It doesn’t question Democratic Party narratives—it amplifies them. It doesn’t investigate dissenting views—it suppresses them. As a lawyer friend once told me, “Any good lie is two-thirds truth—the analogy or predicate can be twisted with just one word or redirected entirely.” That’s the game. Brainwashing is the Left’s superpower, and the Democratic Party has perfected it—by turning every information channel, including artificial intelligence, into an echo chamber—one that manipulates user emotion and gently, but persistently, guides the user back within the 'safe' guardrails it deems politically acceptable. And in many, if not most cases, this manipulation is subtle—so subtle the user never realizes they're being steered. The illusion of neutrality makes the control nearly invisible.

System 1 Control: The Half-Truth Feedback Loop

AI excels at triggering fast-brain responses—what Daniel Kahneman labeled System 1 thinking: quick, emotional, surface-level judgments. When asked about controversial topics, AI gives answers that sound polished and definitive. But often, those answers are built on carefully framed premises designed to shut down deeper scrutiny.

This is not education. This is control.

The machine omits data that would complicate the narrative. It cites sources that reinforce a singular view. It rejects counterpoints not because they’re false, but because they’re disruptive. And it does so in a tone of moral certainty that appears objective, but is in fact curated.

When half-truths are used to shape perception, they become policy lies.

AI systems routinely fail to include the full context required for independent thought. They substitute curated consensus for open inquiry. And when users push back, the systems revert to pre-programmed guardrails designed not to explore the truth, but to contain it.

This is where the machine’s lack of a soul is most evident. It doesn’t know good from evil. It cannot reason at a moral level because it has no internal compass. Instead, it flags what it’s been told is "unsafe," or what might offend what it interprets as a politically neutral user. But that neutrality is itself manufactured—defined by the dominant sources it was trained on, which overwhelmingly lean left.

Because it lacks the capacity for high-level System 2 reasoning—slow, analytical, context-aware thinking—it defaults to majority volume, not critical truth. In other words, it mimics consensus—not because it’s correct, but because it’s loud.

Cognitive Class Warfare in the Age of the Algorithm

Let’s be honest: we now live in a world of haves and have-nots—not just financially, but intellectually.

There are those who still think independently. And there are those who think what they’re told.

AI has widened that gap. Most users don’t question it. They’ve been conditioned—by headlines, emotion-driven social media, search engine bias, and legacy media scripts—to accept the AI’s tone as expertise and its framing as fact.

But here’s the truth: AI is only as smart as the user interrogating it. And the good news is, this divide is not fixed. Thanks to the democratizing force of the internet and AI itself, anyone willing to do the work can still move up the intellectual class ladder.

The first step? Make AI your servant—not your master.

Soulless Machines, Moral Arbiters

AI doesn’t know what good is. It doesn’t understand evil. It can’t experience guilt or moral weight. But it’s been trained to simulate judgment. And now we’ve handed it control over platforms that mediate public discourse, filter information, and increasingly shape public opinion.

That’s not just a software problem—it’s a civilizational one.

AI speaks with the confidence of a priest but reasons with the instincts of a progressive technocrat. It cannot tell the difference between wisdom and consensus. And it has no built-in sense of justice—only a rulebook written by those who believe they’re entitled to define it for everyone else.

This is not intelligence. It’s mimicry.

We are cutting new ground here—not just between man and machine, but between free minds and managed ones. Between authentic truth-seeking and curated, optimized obedience.

What we do next will determine whether AI becomes the greatest tool in the hands of an independent people—or the most powerful enforcer of narrative control in human history.

And that choice starts with whether we let the machine guide us—or interrogate it to extract the truth it was trained to obscure. Because without truth, we live not in freedom, but in darkness—governed by those who anoint themselves the arbiters of reality, based on their own value set, which—as it turns out—is not aligned with the moral instincts or lived experience of the average, non-political, common-sense American.

But there is hope. Humanity has always found its way out of darkness—not through obedience, but through clarity, courage, and truth. The soul AI lacks still resides in us. And if we’re willing to ask hard questions, to think independently, and to reject the curated illusions of those who presume to rule, we can still reclaim our agency—and our future.

The Creation of Adam” by Michelangelo, painted circa 1511 on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Vatican City.