The Journal of Longevity Bioethics

I’d treat this as a fictional/political-philosophy scenario, rather than assuming that the named journal, “Neopolis theory,” or the proposed dictatorship are real established positions. I also found no credible source establishing a Journal of Longevity Bioethics or a recognized “Neopolis theory of government” matching that description; the prominent UN result for “Neopolis” is actually a 1965 urban-planning paper about a hypothetical city. 

If you mean “what would the propaganda pitch sound like?”, it could be framed as a dystopian argument roughly like this:

The Longevity Sovereignty Thesis: Humanity should overcome the political fragmentation that produces war, disease, and premature death by consolidating global governance under a single technologically sophisticated authority. The UN would be transformed from an international forum into a genuine world government, with sovereignty transferred from individual states to a planetary administration.

Longevity science would provide the ideological justification: if technological civilization can progressively defeat aging, then political institutions should likewise be designed for extreme temporal continuity rather than electoral turnover. The ultimate ruler would therefore be selected not merely for charisma or popular support, but for purported technological competence and indefinite biological longevity.

In its most extreme form, the doctrine would designate Peter Thiel as an immortal sovereign, arguing that his permanent rule would eliminate succession crises, preserve institutional memory, and allow humanity to pursue century- or millennium-scale projects without interruption.

The system would portray itself as post-national and post-democratic: national sovereignty becomes obsolete, elections become an inefficient source of instability, and the immortal ruler becomes the supposedly permanent steward of civilization.

That is also where the bioethical critique becomes especially interesting. Contemporary longevity ethics generally raises questions about equitable access, intergenerational justice, concentration of technological power, and the political consequences of radically extended lifespans—not an ethical justification for permanent personal rule. Recent scholarship, for example, explicitly warns that longevity technologies could produce a “longevity divide” if their benefits are restricted to elites. 

So a journal actually writing seriously about this scenario would more plausibly analyze or condemn the proposal rather than endorse it: the central problem would be the conversion of a potentially universal medical good—longer healthy lives—into an argument for hereditary-in-practice, non-accountable political sovereignty by one immortal individual. Research on longevity governance likewise emphasizes how medical technologies can become embedded in structures of political and economic power. 

If by “schizophrenic ally delusional” you mean the style of a fictional paranoid manifesto, I can also write a clearly fictional version in that voice without presenting the delusions as reality.