Thiel is a snake faggot digital panopticon globalist who has a weird kink where he loves to publicly larp as a populist and I hate him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051224)

The shitlibs I hate-read on BlueSky are still MAF about it 10 years later.

For that reason alone, I like him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051231)

He’s vindictive and petty, just like the fag he is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051242)

And then you always think of the right arguments to make later. It was about two hours after we had dinner and I was home that I thought of: Wow, Elon, you don’t believe in going to Mars anymore. 2024 is the year where Elon stopped believing in Mars — not as a silly science tech project, but as a political project. Mars was supposed to be a political project; it was building an alternative. And in 2024 Elon came to believe that if you went to Mars, the socialist U.S. government, the woke A.I. would follow you to Mars."

exactly. very reassuring to see that these guys finally understand this

you have to win politically here, in the united states. there's no other option. there's nowhere to run. there's nowhere else to "make a stand"

this is the same sentiment shared by the other people in silicon valley who i talk to. they are finally getting it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051267)

(you have to conquer and subjugate them politically or eliminate them entirely)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051277)

Douthat: We’ve got as much time as you have to talk about the Antichrist.

Thiel: All right. Well, I could talk about it for a long time. I think there’s always a question of how we articulate some of these existential risks, some of the challenges we have, and they’re all framed in this sort of runaway dystopian science text. There’s a risk of nuclear war, there’s a risk of environmental disaster. Maybe something specific, like climate change, although there are lots of other ones we’ve come up with. There’s a risk of bioweapons. You have all the different sci-fi scenarios. Obviously, there are certain types of risks with A.I.

But I always think that if we’re going to have this frame of talking about existential risks, perhaps we should also talk about the risk of another type of a bad singularity, which I would describe as the one-world totalitarian state. Because I would say the default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance. What do you do about nuclear weapons? We have a United Nations with real teeth that controls them, and they’re controlled by an international political order. And then something like this is also: What do we do about A.I.? And we need global compute governance. We need a one-world government to control all the computers, log every single keystroke, to make sure people don’t program a dangerous A.I. And I’ve been wondering whether that’s going from the frying pan into the fire.

The atheist philosophical framing is “One World or None.” That was a short film that was put out by the Federation of American Scientists in the late ’40s. It starts with the nuclear bomb blowing up the world, and obviously, you need a one-world government to stop it — one world or none. And the Christian framing, which in some ways is the same question, is: Antichrist or Armageddon? You have the one-world state of the Antichrist, or we’re sleepwalking toward Armageddon. “One world or none,” “Antichrist or Armageddon,” on one level, are the same question.

Now, I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, but one question is — and this was a plot hole in all these Antichrist books people wrote — how does the Antichrist take over the world? He gives these demonic, hypnotic speeches and people just fall for it. It’s this demonium, Ex-Machina —

Douthat: It’s totally — it’s implausible.

Thiel: It’s a very implausible plot hole. But I think we have an answer to this plot hole. The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about Armageddon nonstop. You talk about existential risk nonstop, and this is what you need to regulate. It’s the opposite of the picture of Baconian science from the 17th, 18th century, where the Antichrist is like some evil tech genius, evil scientist who invents this machine to take over the world. People are way too scared for that.

In our world, the thing that has political resonance is the opposite. The thing that has political resonance is: We need to stop science, we need to just say “stop” to this. And this is where, in the 17th century, I can imagine a Dr. Strangelove, Edward Teller-type person taking over the world. In our world, it’s far more likely to be Greta Thunberg."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051336)

We had this really complicated history with the way nuclear technology worked, and — OK, we didn’t really get to a totalitarian, one-world state. But by the 1970s, one account of the stagnation is that the runaway progress of technology had gotten very scary, and that Baconian science ended at Los Alamos.

And then it was: OK, it ended there, and we didn’t want to have any more. And when Charles Manson took LSD in the late ’60s and the murders started, what he saw on LSD, what he learned was that you could be like an antihero in a Dostoyevsky book and everything was permitted.

Of course, not everyone became Charles Manson. But in my telling of the history, everyone became as deranged as Charles Manson and the hippies took over ——

Douthat: But Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take over the world. We’re ending in the apocalyptic, and you’re ——

Thiel: But my telling of the history of the 1970s is the hippies did win. We landed on the moon in July of 1969, Woodstock started three weeks later and, with the benefit of hindsight, that’s when progress stopped and the hippies won. And yeah, it was not literally Charles Manson ——

Douthat: OK. I want to stay with the Antichrist, just to end. And you’re retreating. You’re saying: OK, environmentalism is already pro-stagnation, and so on. OK, let’s agree with all that."

lmao at this fat dork panicking and changing the subject when he realizes what is happening here

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051347)

douthat at first tries to change the subject, because he's a hack for the establishment, and what thiel is really saying is that the establishment power structure itself is illegitimate and has led us astray. thiel doesn't let him, and manages to steer the conversation back around to finish his claim

the interview ends with douthat making the bizarre assertion that actually, we can't already have succumbed to a sort of depersonalized antichrist and Fallen, because that would mean that God has allowed this to happen, and he would never allow that. to which thiel seems pretty flabbergasted that he could be so retarded. and then the interview ends there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051654)

really good interview btw, i recommend reading

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743430&forum_id=2#49051357)