
Elon Musk is a good guy, right? He wants to stop climate change, make humanity interplanetary so we don’t share the same fate as the dinosaurs, and is a staunch defender of free speech, freedom and democracy. Surely, such noble callings make him one of the most moral and ethical people on the planet. Well, no. This is a fake public persona Musk has built for himself. Musk has used projects like Hyperloop to stop the US from adopting high-speed rail, a transport solution far better for the environment than any EV. The science clearly shows that a Martian city is both a terrible idea and not a viable backup planet for humanity. What’s more, as I have extensively covered recently, Musk might say he loves freedom and free speech, but in practice, he suppresses and censors speech he doesn’t like and supports presidential candidates with a track record of trying to overthrow democracy. Such inconsistency has started to erode Musk’s carefully curated public image. But a recent tweet (xeet?) utterly destroyed it by letting slip a deeply disturbingly ugly side of Musk.
So, what was this tweet about? Well, Musk retweeted a theory that a free-thinking “Republic” could only exist under the decision-making of “high-status males”, claiming that it was “interesting.” If that sounds deeply dystopian and nightmarish, it is because it is.
The idea behind this theory is that people who can’t defend themselves physically, including women and low-testosterone men, parse information through a consensus filter as a safety mechanism and, as such, can’t think freely. It then concludes that this means they can’t vote freely, and as such, only “high-status males” should be allowed to vote to keep the health of a republic.
Make no mistake, such a theory is both utterly moronic and verbatim what fascist leaders pushed.
It’s obviously deeply misogynistic, something which Musk seems to have heavily embraced in recent years. But it goes far deeper than that.
As with all alt-right theories, it gets biology and social mechanics all wrong. High testosterone isn’t directly linked to being stronger, and being stronger does not equate to being able to defend yourself. I know of a fragile 80-year-old who successfully fought off a fit 18-year-old mugger because he knew how to box properly. Moreover, humanity’s whole shtick is using tools to mitigate physical limitations. No matter how “weak” you are, you can use weapons and defensive tools like pepper spray to successfully stop any assailant relying on their strength.
It also conflates vulnerable people’s voting interests. Firstly, There is no evidence of them “parsing information through a consensus filter” to ensure they please the crowd. Secondly, this is why voting is done anonymously. Thirdly, psychology has shown that humans are far more selfish than that and often act in their own interests. Fourth, this is why we have laws around political manipulation and police to enforce them: to protect those who are vulnerable to being manipulated out of their freedom. Fifth, if this is true (which it isn’t), taking away people’s ability to vote rather than giving them extra protection is literally making society less free and less free thinking by definition. Finally, as this theory claims only “high-status males” should be able to vote, it heavily implies that said group of males are the ones doing the manipulation through aggressive threats; as such, putting them in charge of politics will lead to freedom-crushing despotic rule, as such actions can go unchecked.
What’s more, what is a high-status male? The fact the theory links this to testosterone implies this is a genetic quality. Either way, this is a completely arbitrary definition and has no connection to testosterone, either, as different people have different views on what constitutes status. As such, it can be manipulated to include or exclude anyone. However, when you consider the source of this theory, the reason for this becomes clear. Such ambiguity and the heavy implication of a genetic component is likely a racist and possibly even antisemitic dog whistle, effectively saying rich white guys should rule. As a side note, the science is crystal clear that being rich or white has no bearing on intellect, ability to lead, ability to defend or ethics. Moreover, genetics does not determine wealth in any way, shape, or form.
Let’s also not forget that this theory is almost identical to Nazi race theories and calls for similar actions to the Nuremberg Race Laws, particularly when you take the obvious dog whistle into account. What’s more, this idea that society should be ruled by a genetically stronger group of people (also known as a race) is, by definition, a theory of eugenics and fascism through and through.
No, you could argue that Musk was merely retweeting this deeply misogynistic, eugenic, racist, fascist theory as “interesting” not because he supported it but because it is interesting how utterly stupid and unfounded it was. If Musk had no previous ties to groups that tried to overt democracy, neo-Nazis or eugenics, I would agree and give him the pass. But this simply isn’t the case.
Musk has endorsed Trump, a guy who practically tried to get this inane theory into action, leading to the Jan 6th insurrection. He has openly supported antisemitic posts on X/Twitter. Replatformed neo-Nazis on X/Twitter, despite also suspending several journalists’ accounts and sued a watchdog group publishing the rise of hate speech on the site for defamation, making his argument of free-speech absolutism moot. He has openly supported the “great replacement theory”, which is deeply racist and demonstrably false. He claims diversity hiring of women and minorities is damaging businesses and healthcare by lowering the standard for hiring. This isn’t the case; the standards are still there and held rigorously; diversity hiring just ensures a company’s hiring reflects the actual demographic. As such, there is zero evidence that diversity hiring is a detrimental policy, and in fact, there is a lot of evidence that it has a positive impact. As such, Musk’s stance here is misogynistic and racist. To top this all off, many of his close friends, including Peter Thiel and David Sacks, have been heavily associated with white nationalist movements and have been described as “Nazi curious.”
So, it’s fair to say that Musk definitely has misogynistic and racist views and is at least fascist adjacent.
But he also has a history of believing in and supporting eugenics. Musk has repeatedly said C-sections lead to higher intelligence by allowing larger brains. Science has repeatedly shown that large brains don’t equate to higher intelligence, and C-sections aren’t linked to larger brains, but a whole host of other factors, many non-genetic. Musk has also tweeted his belief in “assortative mating”, the idea that when people mate with people of the same race, they produce smarter kids, and we can use this to make humanity far smarter as a whole. This idea is not backed up by science at all. In fact, the science actually shows that genetics only plays a small role in intelligence, and the only reason bi-racial kids have lower average IQs than their Caucasian counterparts is because our society is still profoundly institutionally racist. However, Musk insists this is due to genetics, despite the wealth of evidence on the contrary. Musk also backed controversial philosopher Nick Bostrom, whose theories have been described as “eugenics on steroids” and deeply unscientific. He has also donated $10 million to the Population Wellbeing Initiative, which uses demonstrably false pseudoscience of sudden population collapse and the guise of longtermism to research and promote new-age eugenics.
With all of this in mind, do you really think Musk retweeted this bat shit stupid, racist, eugenics-driven, misogynistic, fascist theory because he found it interestingly stupid or because he finds it interesting because he supports it?
Okay, so why should you care? Well, firstly, Musk has a ton of wealth (at least until X/Twitter implodes). As such, he can fund projects, institutes and lobbying groups that push this narrative and manipulate the public into supporting this deplorable stance. Moreover, Trump’s advisers have said they want to bring Musk in to help the government cut costs. As such, Musk could have a significant role in the next US government and will bring all of these horrific biases and incorrect viewpoints with him.
This is why I am so critical of Musk. He holds an incredible position of influence, and his track record shows that he, at the very least, is sympathetic to the idea of eugenics as well as racist, misogynistic and fascist viewpoints and policies. What’s more, history and just plain old common-sense paint a damning picture that when we let people with such views influence our lives, things only get worse. Far worse.
Thanks for reading! Content like this doesn’t happen without your support. So, if you want to see more like this, don’t forget to Subscribe and help get the word out by hitting the share button below.
Sources: The Independent, The Independent, The Guardian, Jalopnik, The Guardian, Cato