Peter Thiel's Apocalyptic Worldview Is a Dangerous Fantasy
142 points
1 hour ago
| 16 comments
| jacobin.com
| HN
jmathai
40 minutes ago
[-]
Maybe slightly off topic to the article, but I don't really care what Peter Thiel has to say. I do think we need to collectively think about how to not give these people a microphone. It's one thing to have concentrated wealth. It's a very different thing to have concentrated wealth and people's attention. I think that's a much more interesting discussion :).
reply
throw310822
38 minutes ago
[-]
This is the article's second sentence:

"Thiel’s lurid, apocalyptic view of world politics may be ludicrous or even deranged, but his wealth and power mean that we can’t afford to ignore it."

reply
epgui
29 minutes ago
[-]
Presumably the commenter read the article and is expressing his disagreement with the article’s second sentence.
reply
nanfinitum
28 minutes ago
[-]
Yes we can actually.

I think it has something to do with Silicon Valley's obsession with money. To SV-people, billionaires are like gods. They are worshipped and invited to all the events worth going to (meetups, hackathons, etc.). Everyone wants to be like them.

And it seems to me to be a geographical problem too. In NYC, billionaires are like supervillains. Nobody particularly likes them (outside of select finance bros), and people openly express disdain for them and their greed.

reply
varenc
22 minutes ago
[-]
You can ignore him, but you'd be ignoring a person with very real power and influence. If you want a hint of how he's going to use his influence, understanding his worldview would be helpful.
reply
entropicdrifter
18 minutes ago
[-]
It's also a governmental problem. Remember that Vance is functionally owned by Thiel, who also backed Trump's campaign.

So, the issue is really just that he has far too much power, as an individual

reply
dpark
17 minutes ago
[-]
> In NYC, billionaires are like supervillains.

This is absurd to the point of being cartoonish. No one treats billionaires like supervillains. How many billionaires are in supermax prisons right now in New York?

> Nobody particularly likes them

This is not relevant, regardless of whether it’s true. A ton of people hate Thiel and Trump. Disliking a billionaire doesn’t take away their power.

reply
fastball
35 minutes ago
[-]
Power might be hard to ignore, but wealth you literally just can.
reply
SimianSci
21 minutes ago
[-]
Wealth is allowing people to buy consent for their worldviews these days. this is an incredibly naiive take.
reply
IncreasePosts
3 minutes ago
[-]
How does one buy consent for a worldview? Buying and selling require two parties - the party who is selling their viewpoint to the highest bidder isn't blameless.
reply
dpark
23 minutes ago
[-]
It’s naive to believe these are not connected. Wealth buys power.
reply
flag_fagger
20 minutes ago
[-]
They’re roughly proxies for each other. But I think land is a much more fundamental source of power. Makes sense that a lot of these types have started to invest in defense fortresses and opine about building new cities.
reply
BugsJustFindMe
12 minutes ago
[-]
It's weird to not understand that wealth buys power.
reply
forgetfreeman
18 minutes ago
[-]
That's a dangerously myopic take in a political landscape where money == speech and speech == influence.
reply
subw00f
24 minutes ago
[-]
Wealth is power
reply
b00ty4breakfast
22 minutes ago
[-]
"lemme just jump in this swimming pool while ignoring the water"
reply
mushufasa
6 minutes ago
[-]
Fundamentally money can buy a microphone (including literally).

That said, buying airtime/ads does is not sufficient to create traction with your ideas. I have worked at plenty of foundations that spend a lot of money to "raise awareness" on various issues, which ultimately goes nowhere.

IMHO the zany, outlandish claims by Thiel, are gaining attention because of their inherent shock-value. I sent a text to my girlfriend last week, incredulous that Thiel was reported to claim the Pope is now an antichrist (¡). Definitely not because I agreed with that claim.

I think the root issue here is deep to human nature -- heightened awareness of danger, that adrenaline amygdala response. Social media helps these messages spread, but news publishers have been putting train wrecks on the front page since the 1800s. A growing handful of savvy operators, Thiel included, have learned how to manipulate this primal instinct to garner fame and influence.

I'm not sure how to change human nature. I do think that education about these tactics helps -- the magic trick is not as impressive when you know how it is done.

I find the premise of projects like Ground News -- trying to de-bias media -- really compelling.

That said, a de-biasing site isn't much help if people don't read it. Infamously, people's politically-melded worldviews are increasingly divorced for reality -- there's a famous example of people in surveys saying they "hated Obamacare" but "loved and relied on the Affordable Care Act" (for international readers: those are the exact same thing, which a simple google search would reveal).

reply
shevy-java
33 minutes ago
[-]
I agree on the first part - I could not care any less about those insane superrich. But they use their money to influence people - this part is dangerous and must be stopped.
reply
philipallstar
29 minutes ago
[-]
You mostly hear about their views from contrarian articles warning of the dangers of their views.
reply
dpark
11 minutes ago
[-]
What does this even mean? Are you trying to imply that the only problem with Thiel’s apocalyptic beliefs is that people are writing articles about them?
reply
seattle_spring
17 minutes ago
[-]
Highlighting the lunacy coming from Thiel, Andreesen, Yarvin, Vance, Musk, etc is not being "contrarian."
reply
advisedwang
10 minutes ago
[-]
a) that is partly bubble. There are others, in other political and social circles, that do hear from him directly.

b) regardless of who hears about Thiel's philosophy, it still has impact. He funds political candidates, companies, think tanks etc and directly affect the world.

reply
fabian2k
23 minutes ago
[-]
His power is not in his public speech, but in his money, connections and private speech. I think overall it's probably more useful to expose just how insane his views are, even if that publicizes them more broadly.
reply
jancsika
8 minutes ago
[-]
The name of the draft document escapes me but there's burgeoning work on this. (IETF?)

IIRC it covers things like how to maintain proper oxygen levels and sustenance while still blocking frequencies in the human audible range with the sand around one's head.

reply
danans
18 minutes ago
[-]
> It's one thing to have concentrated wealth. It's a very different thing to have concentrated wealth and people's attention.

Because of human nature, the two are inseparable, and influence over people's attention is power, especially when those people hold seats of power.

The question is about what perspective society takes towards wealth/power concentration at any given time, and that usually ends up correlated with how the non-wealthy and non-powerful are feeling.

reply
rsynnott
28 minutes ago
[-]
The trouble is, he isn't just a crazy uncle. He's a crazy uncle with significant political power.
reply
giancarlostoro
14 minutes ago
[-]
> I do think we need to collectively think about how to not give these people a microphone.

I've said this about celebrities for two decades now. Most people don't care though; they love the gossip, I guess.

reply
sfpotter
26 minutes ago
[-]
The issue is that having concentrated wealth and having concentrated people's attention are not separate things.
reply
lm28469
34 minutes ago
[-]
On the contrary, people should talk about these parasites more so we can get rid of them, they thrive in the shadows
reply
JKCalhoun
18 minutes ago
[-]
Buying elections, politicians, doesn't require a microphone.
reply
Mistletoe
35 minutes ago
[-]
Unfortunately he and people like him own the microphone, the PA system, the stadium…

Voting is the only power we have but the voting booths are at the stadium.

reply
cbb330
26 minutes ago
[-]
Sorry, but that take is complete garbage.

Wanting to “collectively figure out how to take away the microphone” from rich people you dislike isn’t a brave stance against inequality, it’s straight-up authoritarian censorship based on net worth. In a free society, people choose who gets attention. If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him, but don’t fantasize about silencing citizens because they’re successful. And honestly, Thiel’s worldview has real strengths: he’s been early and right on remote work, the stagnation of atom-based industries, the broken incentives in higher education, the dangers of bureaucratic overreach, and the need for bold technological breakthroughs instead of endless regulation. PayPal, Palantir, SpaceX (as an early investor), and backing young founders through the Thiel Fellowship have created massive value and progress. Dismissing all that because he’s rich and contrarian is lazy.

reply
bryanlarsen
2 minutes ago
[-]
> “collectively figure out how to take away the microphone”

Taking away the microphone is not censorship. We're not talking about taking away Thiel's right to speech, we're talking about taking away undue amplification of Thiel's speech.

You are allowed to stand on a soapbox and shout your politics.

But if you amplify your speech on that soapbox you're given a little bit of slack because of "free speech" but then are rightly arrested for public nuisance and/or noise violations.

reply
galleywest200
22 minutes ago
[-]
> If you don’t like Thiel, out-argue him or ignore him

Kind of hard to do this when he has so much money to buy influence anywhere. An example is how the current vice president of the United States is a protege of the guy.

reply
cbb330
12 minutes ago
[-]
Yeah sure, Thiel’s money helped put his protégé Vance in the VP chair, he has real influence, no denying it.

But scroll this comment section for any critique of Thiel and you’ll see the pattern: his wealth gets attacked, his actual ideas almost never do.

Take the “Antichrist Thesis” everyone mocks. It’s Rene Girard-speak for centralized, charismatic authoritarianism that weaponizes morality and scapegoating to grab power. Think Sam Altman preaching about AGI danger while lobbying the gov for openai prioritizing and startup stifling policies. Fed government using big tech censorship for preventing hate speech. He’s been dead-on about that danger for decades.

reply
BugsJustFindMe
7 minutes ago
[-]
> his wealth gets attacked, his actual ideas almost never do

This is false. His ideas get attacked plenty because it's clear that his ideas are destructive to society. But there are only so many times one can have the "holy shit his ideas are destructive to society" conversation without talking about how the only reason his destructive ideas are front and center is because of his money.

reply
saati
5 minutes ago
[-]
Just buy your own vice president if you don't like it!
reply
Centigonal
19 minutes ago
[-]
Today, the super-wealthy have a megaphone for their worldview that is orders of magnitude more effective than anything anyone else has got. It's not just Thiel: Bezos, Soros, Musk, Paul Singer, and others all are or have been promulgating their worldviews at a scale formerly reserved for nation-states. If unchecked, this inequity will bring us to a world not dissimilar to Byzantine Europe, where the "word of god," as filtered through your lord of choice, utterly dominates the marketplace of ideas.
reply
SimianSci
15 minutes ago
[-]
free speech absolutism sounds fair in a vacuum but neglects the power disparity that wealth provides in a connected world. Free Speech is not the concept of anyone can say anything without rules. Its about the ability for those without power to be able to speak on an even playing field as those with power.

The Wealthy and powerful have never had to worry about the freedom of their speech in history. They determined what speech was acceptable.

Take a break from defending those actively destroying our society through their actions, intentional or not, and learn the foundations of why free speech is designed the way it is.

reply
AlexandrB
4 minutes ago
[-]
What's the alternative though? Regulation of speech is often used by those already in power to silence dissent[1]. And there's still plenty a rich person can do to hide themselves as the source of something unsavoury while making it appear "grassroots". Now more than ever, with LLMs and bots.

It's not that free speech absolutism is fair, it's that there's not really an alternative that's any more fair.

[1] https://nypost.com/2025/02/21/world-news/germans-cant-insult...

reply
Hikikomori
14 minutes ago
[-]
Thiel believes democracy has run its course and wants to usher in a new world of network states where tech CEOs are feudal lords. This is all to avoid the anti Christ and the rapture.
reply
hobs
20 minutes ago
[-]
Nothing the GP said had anything to do with taking away people's voice because they are rich, they are saying just because they are rich they don't automatically deserve a microphone.

HN seems very ready to defend the rich and powerful from attacks that don't even exist and its weird to come here and say how great he is while also seeing what his efforts have actually wrought - nothing positive on education or government overreach via the Trump admin. Paypal may have been ok at one point, but is generally considered to be a terrible company to work with, Palantir is a murderer for hire, and SpaceX burns billions to get us not very much with its continued explosions in the sky with hilarious mars shot promises regardless of its other commercial successes.

reply
cbb330
9 minutes ago
[-]
> how to not give these people a microphone
reply
ryandvm
25 minutes ago
[-]
On the other hand, nothing is quite as liberating as finding out that being batshit insane doesn't automatically disqualify you from tremendous economic success.
reply
bananapub
34 minutes ago
[-]
you should care, he and his fellow nutters have siezed control of the USA and most tech-mega-corp leadership either agree with them or will go along with them.
reply
myth_drannon
52 seconds ago
[-]
Where to draw the line? Only the right-wing billionaires? What about other more left-wing like Soros.

And what about the influencers with millions of followers (recent Qatari influence campaign comes to mind)? What about Hollywood (again Qataris and their influence campaign, if you notice how some famous actors started to speak on certain topics)

reply
MangoToupe
5 minutes ago
[-]
Having peoples’ attention strikes me as not very interesting when you can just buy a newspaper (or the opinions therein) and have it anyway.

Thiel is courting Christian nutjobs whether or not you pay attention to it. I’m personally not gonna stick my head in the sand.

reply
next_xibalba
19 minutes ago
[-]
Having listened to a fair amount of Thiel, he tends to be very, very mischaracterized. He relies on metaphor and allegory to describe the world, and is very philosophical and analytical–all of which opens the door to broad interpretation. For instance, his use of the phrase "Antichrist" has been wildly (and deliberately, IMO) misinterpreted by the commentariat and intelligentsia that dominate our sense making institutions. I'm not suggesting anyone should agree with everything (or anything!) he says, but I think the dismissal of him is to one's own detriment as much of it is very interesting and thoughtful.
reply
JohnFen
15 minutes ago
[-]
My problem with Thiel is that he's actively working to make the world a horrible place for anybody who isn't in his circle, and has the wealth needed to make inroads towards that end. I am not interested in listening to someone whose philosophy leads him to such behavior.
reply
yoyohello13
30 minutes ago
[-]
I would have never believed it 10 years ago. I actually think there is a high probability the world will be ended, not by war or natural disaster, but by an honest to god trillionaire super villain.

The ultra wealthy are an actual existential threat to humanity. No one can be trusted with that much money and power.

reply
okokwhatever
26 minutes ago
[-]
I fact I think exactly the opposite observing how the nations are ruling their people.
reply
piva00
4 minutes ago
[-]
You gotta expand on that because it sounds ludicrous.
reply
shevy-java
33 minutes ago
[-]
His ramblings aren't that relevant. The problem is that the money is used to get influence; we could see this with Musk too.

Something has to change. The superrich act as parasites and broken all inter-generational promises. The USA really messed up here - they should have put down control systems to prevent this parasitic situation.

reply
browningstreet
30 minutes ago
[-]
Your first sentence is belied by everything else you wrote.

Saying weird/extreme shit and then building a movement is a way of qualifying initiates and those willing to rally to the cause. It's part of the cult programming playbook. You build an in-crowd and you aim their energies at the out-crowd. It often leads to more unhinged positions too.. these things don't self-correct.

Thiel's a loon, Elon's a loon, Trump's a loon, Vought's a loon.

Pointed dismissiveness completely misses the point.

reply
ajuc
21 minutes ago
[-]
Media without regulation = oligarchy.
reply
linuxhansl
18 minutes ago
[-]
Hmm... If anybody meets the definition of his antichrist, it might be him.

The notion that there is an antichrist and that "international agencies, environmentalism and guardrails on technology could quicken its rise" is ludicrous.

The only reason we listen to his nonsense is because he has money, and with that comes power in this country.

I suggest he take some shrooms and chill...

reply
LogicFailsMe
49 minutes ago
[-]
And here I thought he was just trying to wrap his techno libertoonian worldview in the Book of Revelations in the hopes that the religious right would get behind it. Did I miss something?
reply
snapdeficit
42 minutes ago
[-]
Odd for a gay man to court those who support Leviticus stoning of gays. Self hating? Or just savvy?
reply
yannyu
41 minutes ago
[-]
In the current setup, having enough money protects you from the laws of the country and the judgment of others. Thiel is rich enough and therefore powerful enough that these culture wars will never personally affect him or anyone he cares about.
reply
ashleyn
28 minutes ago
[-]
I've always suspected this mentality had a lot to do with why Peter Thiel is like that. Growing up in the wreckage of the AIDS crisis and thinking to yourself, "I don't have to go down with them. I don't ever have to be like them. I'm still here, because I'm smarter, I'm better than them." I'd never admit any of this publicly, but I have a lot of similar thoughts as a trans woman who slipped through all the cracks and ended up wealthy in my thirties. Poverty is the tip of the discrimination spear and you really could buy your way out of it all.
reply
LogicFailsMe
19 minutes ago
[-]
Tell that to Ernst Rohm...
reply
sjsdaiuasgdia
35 minutes ago
[-]
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition...There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
reply
stephenhuey
27 minutes ago
[-]
I was wondering about the origin of this phrase, and it may not be what you think it is.

https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservative...

reply
philipallstar
29 minutes ago
[-]
There's no point misrepresenting a political stance. Well, there is a point, but it's malicious.
reply
seattle_spring
15 minutes ago
[-]
> There's no point misrepresenting a political stance. Well, there is a point, but it's malicious.

Interesting perspective, considering that you said this only 5 minutes later in this same post:

> There's a communist who's just been elected to Mayer of New York.

reply
LogicFailsMe
5 minutes ago
[-]
The weird part isn't that a socialist got elected mayor of New York. The weird part is that the Democratic party didn't have anyone better to primary him out of the nomination.

The two-party system seems pretty cooked at this point.

reply
mindslight
18 minutes ago
[-]
Personally I find that quote tired and trite. But so-called "conservatives" could certainly stand to clear up the matter by articulating what their constructive political stances actually are these days - that is beyond merely vice signalling, performative cruelty, and a cult of personality around Dear Leader. If you try and work this out of them by appealing to what conservative principles used to be and applying them to what they presently support, you basically just get some brush off of why that ideal is no longer applicable and then a bunch of whataboutism to justify why they have to kill our society to purportedly save it.
reply
LogicFailsMe
7 minutes ago
[-]
TBF Trump isn't a conservative. He's a populist that overthrew the Republican party without firing a single shot and the "conservatives" are all too busy running around in circles to do something about him.
reply
CalChris
36 minutes ago
[-]
And that includes the Catholic Church.
reply
windexh8er
22 minutes ago
[-]
I think it's more and more evident that the ultra rich (and their circles of subordinates) don't actually care about the common divisive topical areas. It seems to be the playbook that they have a divisive stance to put them in a specific camp (at their convenience). History has shown us that those ultra rich have no regard to flip flopping as it sees fit to their outcomes. It has nothing to do with self hate or being savvy - the reality is: it doesn't matter for them because nobody in their circle cares. I think that's very evident with Thiel.

If you don't think so, play this game: how would things change for Peter Thiel if he was of a different race? It wouldn't. Greed is blind to these superficial facets that drive the normies up the wall. It's truly by design. And it's so broadly accepted you don't even need to hide these things anymore which only adds insult to injury.

reply
shevy-java
32 minutes ago
[-]
The superrich in general don't care about being hypocritical, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to his personal preferences. Just look at the Epstein situation. The superrich frequented there.
reply
graemep
26 minutes ago
[-]
That maybe why he seems to be targetting Catholics rather than evangelicals.

The problem is that in much of the world (e.g. the UK) Catholics are historically left wing, AND uninterested in apocalyptic ideas so it seems a big ask.

The article does not leave me with any understanding of what his ideas actually are.

reply
flag_fagger
17 minutes ago
[-]
I mean, at the end of the day, they’re all fucking kids.
reply
rsynnott
27 minutes ago
[-]
Not everything is a conspiracy; sometimes a crazy person is just a crazy person.
reply
solumunus
45 minutes ago
[-]
No the dude is genuinely cooked.
reply
LogicFailsMe
9 minutes ago
[-]
That would be consistent with his assertion that Greta Thunberg might be the Antichrist.

Because really?

Greta Thunberg is the best that a nearly omnipotent second only to the Creator itself can do? Did he ever watch The Omen movies? Insist on nothing less than Sam Neill's portrayal of Damian Thorn as the Antichrist.

In contrast, Greta Thunberg would be the six-fingered AI slop of antichrists. Is he insinuating that Satan has been replaced with generative AI? If so, times are much worse than I thought.

reply
danudey
43 minutes ago
[-]
As are we all, with these people in charge.
reply
LogicFailsMe
16 minutes ago
[-]
The federal government can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent?
reply
havblue
21 minutes ago
[-]
While it's possible this is true, I would have preferred that the article make its own case on why Thiel is crazy and not just cite the Guardian. The article is written for someone who already agrees with the title.
reply
tech_ken
10 minutes ago
[-]
> This is what Thiel’s apocalyptic geopolitics looks like in practice: a twisted military-industrial eschatology where an AI-powered genocide is understood to be “restraining” rather than enacting the end of the world.

I could have used some more explication on the connection between Thiel's ideology and Palantir's project portfolio. I felt like this article was structured like "Part 1: Thiel is Crazy, Part 2: Palantir is Awful, Conclusion: They are Related", without really making clear what the relationship between them was. It seems pretty contradictory that someone concerned about "The New One World Order" would create a global police technology apparatus, so deep-diving into the cognitive dissonance there would have been interesting (to me).

reply
sd9
36 minutes ago
[-]
Thiel's ramblings seem so unhinged, delusions of grandeur.

I am so thankful that I'm not rich enough to be surrounded by people who agree with every single half baked thought that I put out.

reply
flag_fagger
16 minutes ago
[-]
> I am so thankful that I'm not rich enough to be surrounded by people who agree with every single half baked thought that I put out

Why not, it’s not as if you’d face any real consequences for your own reckless stupidity.

reply
JohnFen
11 minutes ago
[-]
Because I like to be able to live with myself.
reply
rsynnott
25 minutes ago
[-]
> I am so thankful that I'm not rich enough to be surrounded by people who agree with every single half baked thought that I put out.

Fortunately, Silicon Valley has now provided a machine to do that for you.

I'd be somewhat concerned that this type of severe detachment from reality may become more common as LLMs make the obsequious ego-buffing that was previously available only to billionaires too cheap to meter.

reply
drcongo
31 minutes ago
[-]
There's a timecube level of unhinged to his antichrist ramblings - spurious connections steadfastly believed. If he wasn't a billionaire there would be men in white coats chasing him.
reply
exogeny
32 minutes ago
[-]
At a certain threshold of wealth, you stop having anyone around you that will tell you anything other than platitudes about how great and wonderful you are. If he ever had any self-awareness or humility -- and that is questionable -- it's been Dunning Krugered and yes-manned into absolute shreds.

He's a weak, frail manchild masquerading as a cartoonish supervillain. Fuck him.

reply
akomtu
36 minutes ago
[-]
> Thiel transforms US imperial power and unrestrained technological expansion ... into the final rampart against what he imagines as a catastrophic global homogenization.

Thiel warns about Antichrist, while doing the very thing that's enabling his coming. Unrestrained technological expansion is exactly what's erasing the human spirit and replacing it with a machine culture.

reply
bryanlarsen
29 minutes ago
[-]
Supposedly Thiel's earlier writings warn about an Antichrist that sounds very similar to the Thiel and Musk of 2025. OTOH Thiel's current writing claims the antichrist is Greta Thunberg.
reply
cowpig
29 minutes ago
[-]
You are right.

It is a classic tactic of fascism, called [accusation in a mirror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror)

reply
robertkoss
38 minutes ago
[-]
The problem that this article has is essentially this:

> Thiel by contrast is profiting from the use of AI weapons targeting systems used in the Ukraine war and the genocide in Gaza.

Thiel is IMO not doing this for profit. He is deeply ideological, which should be more worrisome.

reply
shevy-java
31 minutes ago
[-]
He 100% uses this for profit. Why does he not give away his money?

It is profit. The craziness is just the cover for it.

reply
philipallstar
26 minutes ago
[-]
> He 100% uses this for profit. Why does he not give away his money?

You haven't given away your money. Does that mean everything you do (including writing the above comment) is for profit?

reply
galleywest200
19 minutes ago
[-]
Sure, but I don't profit from wars.
reply
michaelmrose
28 minutes ago
[-]
What AI weapons systems are in use in Ukraine?
reply
adolph
25 minutes ago
[-]
If you can parse the academic jargon and get past the ad hominem, the article is a basic meditation on how the state of information technology continues to support both centralization and distribution of decisions.

  This ambivalence mirrors the paradox of American empire, where the United 
  States sees itself simultaneously as a guarantor of global order and a 
  bulwark against world government: the “world’s policeman” unbound by 
  international law.
reply
codr7
9 minutes ago
[-]
Thiel is a creepy fuck, as are most tech bros.

I mean, he looks perfectly human; but once he opens his mouth.

reply
DudeOpotomus
34 minutes ago
[-]
Hubris.

It will end him, and his insanely stupid ideology. He is obviously a sociopath with very deep childhood trauma. Karma will get him. Probably cancer as he seems to be genially rotten soul.

reply
BugsJustFindMe
2 minutes ago
[-]
I don't think cancer works that way.
reply
exogeny
35 minutes ago
[-]
Like anything else with Thiel, it's a viewed formed by a socially-maladjusted twerp who was picked on and now wants to rule the world. He's found a lot of useful lieutenants in that quest, mostly because they, like him, resent the fact that no amount of power or money or yes-men surrounding them will quiet their inner insecurities.

The truly insidious calculation they all eventually got to is that in Trump you have someone that is somehow even more insecure and craven than them and can be straight bought and sold to the highest bidder. They give Trump the superficial credibility of having ostensibly smart people behind him, and Trump gives them the benefits of being adjacent to his non-stop corruption and self-dealing machine.

reply
poszlem
44 minutes ago
[-]
I mean, they have a point. But considering they run a whole journal on literal communism, it’s hard to take them seriously. The message falls flat when it comes from a different flavor of dangerous fantasy.
reply
danudey
42 minutes ago
[-]
Nice "both sides" argument, very subtle.
reply
qwerpy
40 minutes ago
[-]
When one side of crazies goes after a different side of crazies, “both sides are crazy” is an appropriate way to look at it.
reply
micromacrofoot
32 minutes ago
[-]
I guess if you want to completely abandon nuance... but at that point everyone is some variety of crazy. Half the US believes in ghosts.
reply
numbers_guy
21 minutes ago
[-]
There is obviously a huge difference between fascist-aspiring westerners and communist-aspiring westerners. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Tankies are crazy and I don't approve of their ideology, but they also do not dehumanize large swaths of the population.
reply
antonymoose
40 minutes ago
[-]
Sometimes both sides do suck.
reply
lm28469
37 minutes ago
[-]
One side is metastasising in the US government right now, the other has been long dead.

"it's the same because they're both bad"

ok...

reply
philipallstar
23 minutes ago
[-]
It's not been long dead. There's a communist who's just been elected to Mayer of New York.
reply
dpark
14 minutes ago
[-]
He’s a socialist. Painting all socialism as “evil communism” is reductive and dishonest.
reply
poszlem
40 minutes ago
[-]
It’s intentionally blunt. That’s exactly the issue right now: fascists and communists are going at each other and tearing apart what remains of our liberal world.
reply
almosthere
35 minutes ago
[-]
I think "facists" is a tiring word to describe them. I would recommend christian nationalists.
reply
numbers_guy
17 minutes ago
[-]
"Christian nationalist" is a term that on the one hand, insults Christians, and on the other hand flatters these power hungry grifters. Why would you use such a term?
reply
poszlem
34 minutes ago
[-]
I mean - obviously the modern day communists rarely use the original name too. But I guess we are adults and know that in reality, under all of that political marketing, we are talking about fascists and communists.
reply
fukukitaru
38 minutes ago
[-]
It's not particularly worth saving
reply
poszlem
37 minutes ago
[-]
I guess we have to learn every 80-100 years, that, actually it is.
reply
numbers_guy
30 minutes ago
[-]
> and communists

Communists left the chat in 1989, grandpa. There are multiple factions competing for power but communists aren't really in the ring right now. It's mostly different flavours of establishment factions and alt-right factions.

reply
tech_ken
15 minutes ago
[-]
Jacobin is to communism as Gary Johnson is to JD Vance. "Left politics" covers a lot of ideologies and they all hate each other.
reply
tanjtanjtanj
39 minutes ago
[-]
Jacobin is not a whole journal on literal communism.

It’s a magazine with a professed socialist view point but it’s more aligned with left-of-center American politics. Think Sanders or Mamdani rather than Stalin or Mao.

reply
psunavy03
34 minutes ago
[-]
For the US, that's still "far left" as opposed to merely "left of center."
reply
loeg
19 minutes ago
[-]
Jacobin is more closely aligned with Stalin or Mao than Sanders or Mamdani, actually.
reply
gishh
31 minutes ago
[-]
> Jacobin is not a whole journal on literal communism. It’s a magazine with a professed socialist view point but it’s more aligned with left-of-center American politics. Think Sanders or Mamdani rather than Stalin or Mao.

> Sanders or Mamdani

Sanders and Mamdani are about as far left of center as one can get at the moment, such that they almost meld into Stalin or Mao.

The mental gymnastics you’re doing to blunt that fact is absolutely incredible.

reply
mightyham
1 minute ago
[-]
> such that they almost meld into Stalin or Mao

Stalin was an ideological authoritarian that executed political rivals and used lethal force, price controls, and other governmental tools to control the economy and the general working population. The idea that Sanders and Mambani advocate anything close to that is laughable.

The rhetoric on both the right and left that liken today's politics to extremism in the 20th century is a ridiculous anachronism that needs to be called out more often.

reply
dragonwriter
26 minutes ago
[-]
> Sanders and Mamdani are about as far left of center as one can get at the moment

No, they aren’t. They are about as far left of center as you can get and be competitive in US elections, maybe, but that’s a very different thing. There’s a lot to their left (as you an see from the by the opposition from leftist as sellouts to capitalist/imperialist/etc. institutions both have.)

reply
rsynnott
23 minutes ago
[-]
> such that they almost meld into Stalin or Mao.

... Oh, come on now. I can't tell whether you're extremely confused about Sanders and Mamdani, or extremely confused about Stalin and Mao.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/25/bernie-sande... would have gone very differently if Sanders was Mao, for a start.

reply
gishh
14 minutes ago
[-]
You really think if they had the unchecked power of Stalin or mao they would be… better?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s a no-kidding literary tool used throughout history.

reply
KumaBear
36 minutes ago
[-]
Here comes another person throwing out words like “communism” yet using the term inaccurately. Please invest in a dictionary.
reply
micromacrofoot
36 minutes ago
[-]
The core belief in communism is "collective ownership for the common good" which feels like a far cry from "the literal antichrist is coming."

I could follow an argument that Jacobin is naive, but it seems silly to make the direct comparison to someone who thinks we're approaching some predictable end of days and say they're the same.

reply
MiiMe19
32 minutes ago
[-]
100M+ dead ideology
reply
hearsathought
3 minutes ago
[-]
Not sure why people keep bringing this up. Every ideology has blood on their hands, but communism is nowhere near #1. Try comparing the death tolls/genocides/etc of the capitalist/anti-communist side with the communist side.
reply
psunavy03
41 minutes ago
[-]
Interesting that this is being downvoted considering "Thiel is a right-wing loon" and "Jacobin are a bunch of left-wing loons" are not mutually exclusive statements.

They're both wrong, just in different ways, and observing this is not "bothsidesism."

reply
estebank
37 minutes ago
[-]
Discussing the messenger instead of the message is a common strategy to derail conversations away from the message.
reply
noelwelsh
38 minutes ago
[-]
As you observe, the original comment is wrong and as such it contributes nothing useful to the discussion.
reply
observationist
38 minutes ago
[-]
Yeah, expect this to get flagged and vanish. This has nothing to do with anything even remotely interesting except to those who are emotionally invested with pwning their political or ideological opposition. At this level of discourse, they're all batshit bonkers.
reply
bananapub
32 minutes ago
[-]
it's not interesting at all - the comment is very stupid (jacobin is not "whole journal on literal communism") as well as such lazy both-sidesism everyone is dumber for having read it.

there's lots of stupid brigading on HN, but sometimes dumb comments get the downvotes they deserve.

reply
fidotron
42 minutes ago
[-]
> This justifies the most extreme violence against his opponents while protecting his own views from contestation. Thiel’s world is a battlefield of moral absolutes rather than a terrain of political complexity where different interests and values are contested and negotiated.

The irony of this being on a site called jacobin is palpable.

reply
js8
38 minutes ago
[-]
I downvoted you. It's well-known that The Jacobin is named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Jacobins.
reply
shadowtree
30 minutes ago
[-]
Which in turn were named after the original Jacobins.

...and man, did Haiti turn out to be a perfect example of Third-Worldism. Ethnocide, ecological disaster, full on regression into a post-civilizational nightmare.

reply