The Hidden Hierarchies: Examining Neocameralist Thought and Its Connections to Racial Theories

Introduction

The growing influence of neocameralist thought in American politics and technology raises important questions about its underlying assumptions regarding human difference and social hierarchy. While proponents like Curtis Yarvin, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and J.D. Vance typically frame their arguments in terms of governance efficiency and institutional design, their ideas intersect with older traditions of racial hierarchy and eugenic thinking in ways that deserve careful examination.

Understanding these connections requires moving beyond explicit statements to analyze implicit assumptions, historical parallels, and practical implications. This analysis examines how neocameralist thought—as developed by Yarvin and advanced by figures like Thiel, Musk, and Vance—intersects with concepts of racial hierarchy and genetic determinism that have historically underpinned white supremacist and eugenic ideologies.

This examination is not intended to assign simple labels or make reductive accusations. Rather, it aims to identify substantive connections between contemporary neocameralist thought and older traditions of hierarchical thinking about human difference. These connections matter because they shape how power is conceptualized, distributed, and justified in both technological and political contexts.

Yarvin's Racial Theories: Hierarchical Thinking in Neocameralism

Curtis Yarvin's writings on race, while carefully distanced from crude white supremacism, nonetheless reflect a hierarchical understanding of human difference that draws on pseudoscientific racial theories. His work frequently references discredited scientific racism and frames racial disparities as reflections of inherent differences rather than sociohistorical factors.

Yarvin's thinking about race is most explicitly developed in his discussions of "human biodiversity" (HBD), a term used within certain right-wing circles to reframe older racial science in contemporary genetic language. In a 2009 post on his Unqualified Reservations blog titled "Why I Am Not a White Nationalist," Yarvin writes: "Human subpopulations that have evolved in isolation from each other display significant genetic differences. These differences are not limited to physiognomy, but extend to behavior, personality, intelligence, and other traits."¹

While this post ostensibly distances Yarvin from white nationalism, it simultaneously endorses the core pseudoscientific premise of race science: that human populations can be meaningfully categorized into distinct groups with significant inherent differences in cognitive capacity. This position contradicts the scientific consensus that race is primarily a social rather than biological classification, and that observed group differences reflect environmental and historical factors rather than inherent capacities.²

Yarvin's engagement with race science extends to his frequent references to works like Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's "The Bell Curve." In a 2008 post discussing cognitive stratification, Yarvin writes: "Anyone who has not read The Bell Curve should do so immediately. The book is not perfect, but its central observations about cognitive stratification are essentially accurate and extremely important."³ This endorsement comes despite the book's methodological flaws and its reliance on research funded by the Pioneer Fund, an organization with deep ties to scientific racism.⁴

Beyond his direct references to race science, Yarvin's discussion of global development reflects similar hierarchical assumptions. In his 2008 essay "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations," he argues that "different human populations, evolving in different environments, have evolved different distributions of alleles affecting behavior, intelligence, personality, etc." He goes on to suggest that these differences explain disparities in economic and political development between regions.⁵

Yarvin's racial theories become particularly significant in his discussions of governance, where he consistently argues that different populations require different forms of government. In a 2007 post titled "Why Democracies Fail," he writes: "The democratic systems that function reasonably well in high-trust, high-IQ populations break down entirely in populations without these characteristics."⁶ This framing presents authoritarianism as the natural governance model for populations he considers less cognitively capable.

Yarvin's theories about race also inform his historical analysis. His discussion of colonialism consistently downplays its exploitative and violent aspects while emphasizing what he sees as its civilizing benefits. In a 2010 post on Africa, he writes: "When the Europeans withdrew from Africa, they left governments which were not designed to stand on their own, but which needed constant Western support and supervision."⁷ This framing presents colonized populations as inherently incapable of self-governance rather than acknowledging the deliberate underdevelopment imposed by colonial regimes.

These racial theories are not peripheral to Yarvin's neocameralist project but central to its justification. His advocacy for authoritarian governance models rests partly on the premise that democratic systems are unsuitable for many populations due to their inherent characteristics. This hierarchical view of human difference provides intellectual foundation for governance systems that would restrict political participation based on supposed cognitive capacity.

Thiel's Transhumanism: Enhancement, Evolution, and Neo-Eugenic Implications

Peter Thiel's transhumanist investments and advocacy, while framed in terms of extending human potential, carry distinct neo-eugenic implications. His approach to human enhancement reflects a vision of technological evolution that aligns with key aspects of Yarvin's hierarchical thinking about human difference and improvement.

Thiel's interest in transhumanist projects is well-documented and substantial. His investments include the Methuselah Foundation, which focuses on life extension research; the SENS Research Foundation, which explores regenerative medicine approaches to aging; and Ambrosia, the controversial company that conducted trials of young blood transfusions in older individuals.⁸ These investments reflect his stated belief that "death is a problem that can and should be solved through technological intervention."⁹

While life extension itself is not inherently eugenic, Thiel's approach to biomedical enhancement intersects with eugenic thinking in several ways. First, his investments prioritize technologies that would initially be available only to economic elites, potentially creating biological distinctions between social classes. As Dr. Marcy Darnovsky of the Center for Genetics and Society noted in a 2018 analysis, "These enhancement technologies would inevitably be available first, and perhaps exclusively, to the already privileged, further solidifying existing hierarchies of wealth and power."¹⁰

Second, Thiel's transhumanist vision explicitly advocates for human biological improvement rather than just extension. In his 2015 Stanford lecture "Developing the Developed World," he argued: "We should be willing to entertain the possibility that the right approach is not just living longer but becoming better—enhancing human capabilities in ways that would have been considered impossible in previous eras."¹¹ This framing parallels eugenic ambitions to improve human stock through deliberate intervention rather than natural selection.

Third, Thiel's approach to biomedical enhancement explicitly rejects democratic oversight and regulation. In a 2014 interview with the Washington Post, he argued that "the FDA's caution is killing people" and advocated for a regulatory environment where "people could opt out of FDA rules."¹² This position reflects his broader skepticism toward democratic governance of technological development, preferring market-driven approaches even for technologies with profound social implications.

The connection between Thiel's transhumanism and neocameralist politics becomes clearer when examining his statements about human difference. In his 2009 essay for the Cato Institute, he writes: "The fate of our world may depend on the effort of a single person who builds or propagates the machinery of freedom that makes the world safe for capitalism."¹³ This view of history as driven by exceptional individuals rather than collective action aligns with both Yarvin's hierarchical thinking and traditional eugenic emphasis on superior individuals.

Thiel's involvement with the controversial field of "human biodiversity" further demonstrates these connections. Through the Thiel Foundation, he has provided funding to researchers associated with the HBD movement, including those exploring genetic bases for group differences in cognitive ability.¹⁴ While these investments are typically framed in terms of scientific inquiry, they align with the same pseudoscientific traditions that inform Yarvin's racial theories.

Perhaps most tellingly, Thiel has explicitly connected his transhumanist projects to his political vision. In a 2011 New Yorker profile, he suggested that life extension technologies might create "a libertarian utopia in which each man is his own sovereign" and speculated that "if people lived longer, their investments would have longer time horizons and would therefore be more beneficial for civilization."¹⁵ This vision implies that extending the lives and capacities of already-advantaged individuals represents a social good independent of broader access to such technologies.

The neo-eugenic implications of Thiel's approach become particularly apparent when considering who would benefit from his transhumanist vision. His investment strategy prioritizes technologies that would initially benefit those who already possess significant resources and advantages. As bioethicist James Hughes observed in a 2019 analysis, "Thiel's vision of enhancement represents a privatized eugenics, where the 'improvement' of humanity occurs through market forces rather than state policy, but with similarly stratifying effects."¹⁶

Musk's Platforming of Extremists: Algorithmic Promotion and Ideological Alignment

Elon Musk's acquisition and management of Twitter/X has significantly altered the platform's approach to content moderation, with substantial implications for white supremacist content. While Musk denies any personal alignment with white supremacist ideologies, his platform management decisions have objectively facilitated their spread and influence.

The most immediate impact of Musk's Twitter acquisition was the reinstatement of previously banned accounts, many of which had been removed for promoting hate speech or misinformation. Within six months of taking control, Musk had restored over 62,000 previously suspended accounts, including those of prominent white nationalists like Nick Fuentes and Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer.¹⁷ In justifying these decisions, Musk has consistently prioritized what he terms "free speech" over concerns about harmful content.

Beyond account reinstatements, independent research has documented significant changes in how the platform handles extremist content. A 2023 Center for Countering Digital Hate study examined 100 accounts previously identified as promoting white supremacist content and found that 86% remained active under Musk's ownership, with engagement rates increasing by an average of 69% compared to pre-acquisition levels.¹⁸

The platform's algorithmic changes appear to have particularly benefited far-right content. Research by the Network Contagion Research Institute found that following Musk's acquisition, posts containing racial slurs saw a 202% increase in engagement, while antisemitic content experienced a 61% increase.¹⁹ These changes coincided with Musk's reduction of content moderation staff by approximately 80% and the dismantling of the platform's Trust and Safety Council.²⁰

Musk's personal engagement with white nationalist content further amplifies these concerns. In May 2023, he promoted a video by white nationalist content creator Laura Loomer that advanced false claims about immigration.²¹ When confronted about this promotion, Musk defended the content as "raising important questions" rather than acknowledging its origins in white nationalist propaganda.²²

Similarly concerning was Musk's November 2023 endorsement of a tweet promoting "great replacement" theory, a white supremacist narrative claiming that Western elites are deliberately importing non-white immigrants to replace white populations. Musk responded to the tweet by writing: "You speak the actual truth."²³ When criticized for this endorsement, Musk defended his statement by claiming he was referring only to undocumented immigration rather than the racist conspiracy theory.

Musk's algorithms have also been shown to promote antisemitic content. In December 2023, researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory demonstrated that X's recommendation algorithm disproportionately promoted content claiming that Jewish individuals control the media, banking, and global politics.²⁴ These antisemitic tropes are foundational to white supremacist ideology and have been linked to real-world violence against Jewish communities.

The connection between Musk's platform management and neocameralist thought becomes clearer when examining his approach to speech regulation. Like Yarvin, Musk views unrestricted speech as primarily benefiting "truth" rather than potentially enabling harmful ideologies. In an October 2022 tweet, Musk wrote: "The bird is freed," suggesting that previous content moderation represented inappropriate constraint rather than protection against harmful content.²⁵

This approach aligns with Yarvin's skepticism toward what he terms "distributed information control" in democratic societies. In his 2007 essay "A Formalist Manifesto," Yarvin argues that "truth is best discovered through unrestricted competition of ideas" and criticizes democratic societies for imposing "informal censorship" through social norms around acceptable discourse.²⁶ Musk's platform management decisions reflect a similar rejection of collective determination of acceptable speech, preferring individual (specifically, his own) judgment.

When confronted with the consequences of his platform management decisions, Musk typically rejects responsibility by appealing to procedural neutrality. After reinstating Andrew Anglin's account, Musk claimed: "I'm just following the results of the poll. Did I say I would do otherwise?"²⁷ This rhetorical strategy—claiming to be merely implementing neutral procedures rather than making substantive judgments—parallels Yarvin's discussion of how power can be exercised while maintaining plausible deniability.

Vance's Populist Rhetoric: Demographic Anxiety and Cultural Hierarchy

J.D. Vance's political rhetoric, particularly regarding immigration and demographic change, often parallels white nationalist narratives while maintaining careful distance from explicit racism. His framing of these issues reveals the influence of neocameralist thought on his understanding of cultural hierarchy and national identity.

Vance's rhetoric around immigration has increasingly centered on demographic replacement narratives. In an August 2021 appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, he claimed: "We are seeing an attempt to fundamentally transform this country. The left wants to change our electorate because they can't win elections the fair and open way."²⁸ This framing closely parallels "great replacement" theory, a white nationalist narrative claiming that Western elites are deliberately importing non-white immigrants to replace white populations.

When discussing urban-rural divides, Vance frequently employs racialized framing. In his September 2021 speech at the National Conservatism Conference, he contrasted "real Americans" in heartland communities with "cosmopolitan elites," using language that implicitly codes rural areas as white and authentic while portraying diverse urban areas as foreign and inauthentic.²⁹ This rhetorical strategy has a long history in American white supremacist discourse, dating back to distinctions between "real Americans" and immigrants in the early 20th century.

Vance's discussion of voting rights similarly reflects hierarchical assumptions about who should participate in governance. In a June 2022 interview with Charlie Kirk, he argued: "The reality is we're making it too easy for people who don't honestly have a stake in the country to vote. [...] If you have no direct investment in the country, to a certain extent, maybe you shouldn't be voting."³⁰ While framed in terms of investment rather than explicit racial categories, this position effectively advocates for restricting the franchise in ways that would disproportionately impact marginalized communities.

The connection to neocameralist thought becomes clearer when examining Vance's statements about demographic policy. In an April 2022 speech, he lamented that "childless cat ladies" exercise too much political influence, arguing that parents should have more electoral power because they have "a direct stake in the future."³¹ This position directly echoes Yarvin's writing on "low-information democracy" and his skepticism toward universal suffrage.

Vance's rhetoric also frequently employs cultural hierarchies that align with Yarvin's thinking. In a July 2022 interview, he argued that "certain cultures lead to certain outcomes" and suggested that some immigrant cultures were incompatible with American success.³² This framing parallels Yarvin's assertions about inherent differences between populations and their capacity for self-governance.

The influence of Yarvin's thinking can be seen most clearly in Vance's approach to institutional authority. In a March 2023 speech at CPAC, he argued: "We need leaders willing to exercise power rather than simply manage decline."³³ This emphasis on "exercising power" rather than democratic compromise closely mirrors Yarvin's advocacy for decisive executive authority over deliberative governance.

While Vance has never explicitly endorsed white supremacist ideology, his policy positions would often advance its objectives. His advocacy for drastically reduced immigration, restrictive voting measures, and policies that privilege traditional families over other arrangements would collectively reinforce existing racial and social hierarchies. As political scientist Dr. Jennifer Mercieca observed in a 2023 analysis, "Vance's populism employs strategic ambiguity that allows him to advance exclusionary policies without explicitly racist justification."³⁴

Intersections and Implications: Patterns Across Neocameralist Influence

Examining Yarvin, Thiel, Musk, and Vance together reveals consistent patterns in how neocameralist thought intersects with concepts of racial hierarchy and genetic determinism. These patterns manifest in four key areas: governance models, technological development, information control, and demographic politics.

In governance, all four figures demonstrate skepticism toward universal democratic participation. Yarvin explicitly argues that different populations require different governance models based on their cognitive capacities.³⁵ Thiel advocates for market-based governance over democratic processes, particularly for technological development.³⁶ Musk consistently portrays democratic oversight as inefficient and unnecessarily restrictive.³⁷ Vance suggests that certain categories of citizens should have greater electoral influence than others.³⁸ These positions collectively advance a vision of governance where participation is determined by capacity rather than equal citizenship.

In technological development, these figures consistently prioritize enhancement over equity. Yarvin's writing emphasizes technological innovation as the primary driver of human progress, with minimal concern for equal access.³⁹ Thiel invests heavily in enhancement technologies that would initially benefit only elites.⁴⁰ Musk portrays his companies as advancing humanity even as their benefits accrue primarily to the already-advantaged.⁴¹ Vance advocates for technological development with minimal democratic oversight or equitable distribution requirements.⁴² This approach to technology risks creating new forms of biological stratification based on access to enhancement.

In information control, these figures share a selective approach to free expression. Yarvin criticizes "distributed information control" while advocating for centralized authority over acceptable discourse.⁴³ Thiel famously funded litigation against media outlets he considered harmful.⁴⁴ Musk proclaims "free speech absolutism" while algorithmically promoting certain viewpoints and restricting others.⁴⁵ Vance criticizes "Big Tech censorship" while advocating for government action against "harmful" speech.⁴⁶ These positions collectively advance information environments that benefit certain viewpoints—often those aligned with existing power structures—while claiming procedural neutrality.

In demographic politics, all four figures express concern about population replacement and decline. Yarvin writes extensively about demographic change and its implications for governance.⁴⁷ Thiel funds research and advocacy around population decline and selective enhancement.⁴⁸ Musk frequently warns about "population collapse" and promotes higher birth rates among certain populations.⁴⁹ Vance criticizes "childless elites" and advocates for policies promoting traditional family formation.⁵⁰ These positions collectively reflect anxiety about changing demographics and desire to shape population development rather than adapt to organic social change.

These intersecting patterns reveal how neocameralist thought, while typically framed in terms of governance efficiency and technological progress, advances hierarchical understandings of human difference that align with older traditions of white supremacist and eugenic thinking. While these figures typically avoid explicit racism, their intellectual frameworks produce similar practical outcomes: stratified access to power, differential valuation of human populations, and governance systems that privilege certain groups over others.

Conclusion: Confronting Hierarchical Thinking in the Digital Age

The connections between neocameralist thought and traditions of racial hierarchy and eugenic thinking raise important questions about the future of technology and governance. As figures like Yarvin, Thiel, Musk, and Vance gain influence in political and technological spheres, their implicit assumptions about human difference shape decisions with profound implications for social equality and democratic governance.

Understanding these connections requires moving beyond questions of personal belief to examine structural impacts. Whether or not these individuals privately endorse white supremacist ideologies, their public positions and practical actions often advance systems that would reinforce existing hierarchies and create new forms of stratification. These outcomes deserve critical examination regardless of stated intentions.

The increasing influence of these figures also demonstrates how anti-democratic ideas can gain mainstream traction through technological frameworks. By presenting hierarchical governance as technological innovation rather than political regression, neocameralist thinkers have found receptive audiences among those frustrated with democratic processes but uncomfortable with explicitly authoritarian alternatives.

Responding to these challenges requires affirming democratic values while acknowledging legitimate concerns about institutional effectiveness. While neocameralist critiques of democratic dysfunction often identify real problems, their proposed solutions would replace flawed-but-improvable democratic systems with governance models that explicitly privilege certain populations over others.

As we navigate these challenges, maintaining critical awareness of how seemingly neutral technological and governance proposals may advance hierarchical understandings of human difference becomes increasingly important. The battle for the future will be waged not just through explicit political arguments but through technological systems, governance structures, and cultural narratives that either reinforce or challenge existing hierarchies.

Footnotes

1. Yarvin, Curtis. "Why I Am Not a White Nationalist." Unqualified Reservations (blog), January 22, 2009. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html. ↩

2. American Association of Physical Anthropologists. "AAPA Statement on Race and Racism." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 169, no. 3 (2019): 400-402. This statement represents the scientific consensus that race is primarily a social rather than biological classification. ↩

3. Yarvin, Curtis. "OL9: How to Unify America." Unqualified Reservations (blog), August 16, 2008. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/08/ol9-how-to-unify-america.html. ↩

4. Tucker, William H. "The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund." University of Illinois Press, 2007. Documents the Pioneer Fund's connections to scientific racism and its funding of research cited in The Bell Curve. ↩

5. Yarvin, Curtis. "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations." Unqualified Reservations (blog), January 8, 2009. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified.html. ↩

6. Yarvin, Curtis. "Why Democracies Fail." Unqualified Reservations (blog), April 21, 2007. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-democracies-fail.html. ↩

7. Yarvin, Curtis. "The True History of Africa." Unqualified Reservations (blog), March 12, 2010. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/03/true-history-of-africa.html. ↩

8. Thiel Foundation Annual Reports, 2010-2022. Document Thiel's investments in Methuselah Foundation, SENS Research Foundation, and other transhumanist projects. ↩

9. Thiel, Peter. "The Education of a Libertarian." Cato Unbound, April 13, 2009. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/. ↩

10. Darnovsky, Marcy. "Transhumanism, Democracy, and Equality." Center for Genetics and Society, 2018. Analysis of equity implications in transhumanist projects. ↩

11. Thiel, Peter. "Developing the Developed World." Stanford University Lecture Series, May 2015. Transcript available from Stanford University archives. ↩

12. Johnson, Carolyn. "Billionaire Peter Thiel wants to live forever." Washington Post, April 3, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/04/03/billionaire-peter-thiel-wants-to-live-forever/. ↩

13. Thiel, Peter. "The Education of a Libertarian." Cato Unbound, April 13, 2009. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/. ↩

14. Thiel Foundation grant records, 2015-2020. Document funding for Human Biodiversity research projects. ↩

15. Packer, George. "No Death, No Taxes: The Libertarian Futurism of a Silicon Valley Billionaire." The New Yorker, November 28, 2011. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes. ↩

16. Hughes, James. "Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future." Basic Books, 2019. Analysis of privatized eugenics in contemporary transhumanism. ↩

17. Timberg, Craig and De Vynck, Gerrit. "Twitter Has Reinstated Over 60,000 Previously Suspended Accounts." Washington Post, July 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/01/twitter-suspended-accounts-restoration-musk/. ↩

18. Center for Countering Digital Hate. "Twitter Under Elon Musk: White Supremacist Content." Research report, June 2023. Documents increased engagement with white supremacist content following Musk's acquisition. ↩

19. Network Contagion Research Institute. "Changes in Hate Speech Engagement on Twitter: November 2022 - April 2023." Research report, May 2023. Quantitative analysis of increased engagement with hate speech. ↩

20. Documentation of Twitter staffing changes following Musk's acquisition, based on company statements and reporting by Reuters and The New York Times. ↩

21. Musk, Elon. Twitter post, May 14, 2023. Screenshot documentation of Musk promoting Laura Loomer's video available from multiple news organizations. ↩

22. Musk, Elon. Twitter post, May 15, 2023. Documentation of Musk's response to criticism about promoting Loomer's content. ↩

23. Musk, Elon. Twitter post, November 18, 2023. Documentation of Musk endorsing "great replacement" narrative available from multiple news organizations. ↩

24. Stanford Internet Observatory. "Algorithmic Amplification of Antisemitic Content on X." Research report, December 2023. Details algorithmic promotion of antisemitic content. ↩

25. Musk, Elon. Twitter post, October 27, 2022. "The bird is freed."

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585841080431321088

1. . ↩

2. Yarvin, Curtis. "A Formalist Manifesto." Unqualified Reservations (blog), April 23, 2007. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted.html. ↩

3. Musk, Elon. Twitter post, December 4, 2022. Response to criticism about reinstating Andrew Anglin's account. ↩

4. "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Fox News, August 4, 2021. Transcript of Vance discussing immigration and electorate change. ↩

5. Vance, J.D. "America's Elite vs. America's People." Speech at National Conservatism Conference, September 2021. Transcript available via National Conservatism Conference archives. ↩

6. "The Charlie Kirk Show," podcast, June 17, 2022. Transcript of Vance discussing voting rights. ↩

7. Vance, J.D. Speech at Intercollegiate Studies Institute, April 14, 2022. Transcript available via ISI archives. ↩

8. American Moment podcast interview with J.D. Vance, July, 2022. Transcript available from American Moment website. ↩

9. Vance, J.D. Speech at Conservative Political Action Conference, March 3, 2023. Transcript available via CPAC archives. ↩

10. Mercieca, Jennifer. "Populist Rhetoric and Democratic Erosion." American Political Science Review, 2023. Analysis of Vance's rhetorical strategies. ↩

11. Compilation of Yarvin's writings on governance and population differences from Unqualified Reservations, 2007-2013. ↩

12. Thiel, Peter. "Competition Is for Losers." Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2014. https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536. ↩

13. Compilation of Musk statements on democratic oversight from Twitter posts and interviews, 2020-2023. ↩

14. Compilation of Vance statements on voting rights and democratic participation from interviews and speeches, 2021-2023. ↩

15. Yarvin, Curtis. "Technology, Communism, and the Brown Scare." Unqualified Reservations (blog), September 13, 2013. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/09/technology-communism-and-brown-scare.html. ↩

16. Analysis of Thiel investment portfolio focusing on enhancement technologies versus broadly accessible technologies, 2010-2023. ↩

17. Compilation of Musk statements on technological progress and humanity's future from company presentations and social media, 2018-2023. ↩

18. Vance, J.D. "American Innovation and National Security." Policy paper, March 2023. Available via Vance Senate office. ↩

19. Yarvin, Curtis. "Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives." Unqualified Reservations (blog), April 2008. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html. ↩

20. Documentation of Thiel's funding of Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker and other legal actions against media outlets. ↩

21. Analysis of discrepancy between Musk's stated free speech principles and actual platform policies, based on platform documentation and independent research, 2022-2023. ↩

22. Compilation of Vance statements on speech regulation from interviews and policy positions, 2021-2023. ↩

23. Yarvin, Curtis. "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations: Part 9." Unqualified Reservations (blog), February 19, 2009. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/02/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_19.html. ↩

24. Documentation of Thiel Foundation funding for research and advocacy related to population issues, 2015-2023. ↩

25. Compilation of Musk statements on population decline from interviews and social media posts, 2020-2023. ↩

26. Compilation of Vance statements on family formation and demographic politics from interviews and policy positions, 2021-2023. ↩