Thiel pretty obviously wants to rule the world but he’s just so uncharismatic that he’ll never get anyone onboard whatever vision he has. Ultimately I think he’ll be used by whoever thinks he can advance their vision and then he’ll be discarded
It's sort of funny. His historical Antichrist stories covered here are basically about technocrats becoming the Antichrist. His contemporary take is that it's obviously not the technocrats, it'll be Greta Thunberg or someone like her. Someone who opposes technological development (to any degree) will be the Antichrist. So we must develop technology unfettered because the old stories of the Antichrist are irrelevant now for some reason.
Also the technocrat vibes of "I'll grind the poor to a fine powder and use it to fertilize my private garden if no one stops me" are somewhat lacking in charisma.
Mostly because he keeps talking about it. He recently put on a lecture series about it, and seems to think that Greta Thunberg is going to create a one world government.
Seems like we’re way beyond the point of no return on the concept that humanity has consistent needs and that individual freedom should be limited for the good of the larger group
The arbitrary nature of the “larger group” being limited in scope is entirely ethno-socially constructed.
So again wouldn’t the idealized form of this live at the highest level of human coherence such that there is a singular ethnicity (“human”) that has consistent rules applied to it no matter where you go on the planet?
Calling someone else’s prophet an Antichrist is very self-serving, though I get the reason why someone would do it. The people of the Abrahamic faiths will just have to reconcile with the fact that to God they’re all the same, more or less.
It’s not just Thiel. There’s a whole subculture attached to such notions, and to “superiority of the tech lords” (my phrase)
Here is more on the antichrist matter (or non-matter) [3]
And the ultra-libertarians around it.
Curtis Yarvin is so well known now, especially in the bay area, that there are already jokes and comedy routines (cant find the references right now) about “parties with Yarvin” and people impersonating him to draw attention.
I have said this a few times and it goes somewhat against the grain but Peter Thiel is just another idiot with too much money and not enough people around him pushing back on his dumb ideas. We as the working class shouldn’t be afraid of him, that’s what he wants.
I also did some rough napkin math on his net worth and he’s barely more successful than the S&P 500. His two big breaks were getting lucky with PayPal and Facebook investments. The rest of his net worth is pretty much just as good as dumping those two companies’ proceeds into the stock market and sitting there.
People get scared of his companies but I bet their products kinda suck.
I acknowledge that they aren’t exactly doing the Lord’s work.
But really what I’m saying is detached from that. I’m saying that they are a run of the mill government contractor. If it wasn’t them it would be someone else or maybe it would even be software developed in-house.
Peter Thiel isn’t some kind of evil genius Bond villain for deciding to leave the ruthless competition of the private sector where you actually need to deliver a good product and instead live off of government contracts where vendor choices are more limited.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Target had more sophisticated data profiling tools than Palantir.
This misses the motive. PT is motivated by way more than money and his goals are entirely undemocractic. Target's data profiling is banal greed and myopia, while it constructs an apparatus that is dystopian, PT has dystopian goals.
Here's a little perspective which might dispel you of that notion. If anything, the people you describe are willing to compromise any alleged libertarian principles they may hold for a seat at the table. It would arguably make them lesser-libertarians. They are commonly described as "Beltway Libertarians"
The distinction has been around for awhile now. As a rule, someone accepting state contracts probably isn't "ultra-libertarian". This probably won't make you more amenable to the cause of liberty, but the distinction is worth making. A little accuracy in your pejoratives goes a long way.
I think the onus is on you at this point to go and actually read about what he has done in the last ten years. It’s not up to someone else to spoon feed it to you.
You’ve just completely made up something here to presumably make yourself feel smart? Literally tens of thousands of words have been published on this topic. Asking someone to read them isn’t some unreasonable request.
What is unreasonable is turning up in a discussion and saying either none of that pre-existing material counts for nothing or that I shouldn’t have to do any work here and instead you should “debate me bro”.
I would consider myself fairly informed with what he has done in the last 10 years. And while I don't like some of it, nothing of that can remotely be used to justify calling him a "fascist".
It's expected you can't substantiate your words. Easy escape blaming someone else isn't it?
Listen, I’m going to be honest with you, when you say that you’re well informed and it’s just everyone else overreacting I don’t believe you.
But I’m happy to be proved wrong so why don’t you go ahead and show me by giving your best faith interpretation as to why you think someone might call him a fascist.
Imagine my and everyone else’s surprise to hear your silence on this one a full day later… couldn’t have seen that coming a mile away but go on and tell me more about how it’s on everyone else to do the hard work and convince you with detailed arguments. Heaven forbid you had to lift a finger here yourself.
Given how you twist facts, I usually don't waste time to discuss things with people who are throwing unsubstantiated accusations, blame everyone else when asked to substantiate.
You made accusation that is absolutely unsubstantiated and blatantly false. When suddenly asked to substantiate it, you bailed out by telling everyone to do their work.
Thats the answer why noone reasonable would engage in any discussions of that quality and manner.
After seeing some of your other arguments down-thread, I will not be engaging with this comment as it's clearly not in good faith. As others have said, go read what he's said, and what he's done, and if you don't see a fascist, then take a hard look in the mirror. Then maybe see if you can understand why he is also an authoritarian oligarch. Reading his own words and actions will tell you that too.
