Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it is "fascist". I don't find using that word flippantly contributes to intellectually substantive discussion. Frankly, it is lazy. It is better to provide reasoned criticism, but that may require revisiting some assumptions you're making, and that may be uncomfortable.
Most people are not especially disciplined in interpreting historical realities through the lens of the day. The result is that we form anachronistic and sloppy views of the past. Take, for example, women's suffrage. If we view the pre-suffrage US through the lens of the radical individualism we embrace today, then we more easily conclude, that 19th century America was a "woman-hating" land and all the usual polemic. But if you interpret the vote as one vote per family, then things start to look differently. The family, and not the individual, taken as the basic unit of society as has almost always been the case, with the husband/father as head and representative of his family and its good in society, becomes the natural voting entity. Maybe you don't like that, or think it needs some exceptions, but logically, this basic idea is coherent and it makes sense.
Now, even if you think Musk's views deserve criticism, you can, at least, appreciate the idea, especially in light of what he's said about demographic collapse and the tendency of parents to be more future- and other-oriented--given that their children will need to live in that future--than atomized individuals, who have a greater tendency to live only in a self-indulgent now (celebrated, unsurprisingly, by New Age). You can expect parents with children to vote in ways that prioritize long-term good in a way that atomized individuals would not. It's harder to not give a shit about where things are headed when you have children.
It's important not to let your sensibilities and biases get in the way of the truth, or to confuse sensibilities with reason.