Iâm dubious Thiel is actually an ally to anyone worried about permanent dictatorship. He has connections to openly anti-democratic neoreactionaries like Curtis Yarvin, he quotes Nazi lawyer and democracy critic Carl Schmitt on how moments of greatness in politics are when you see your enemy as an enemy, and one of the most famous things he ever said is âI no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatibleâ. Rather I think he is using âtotalitarianâ to refer to any situation where the government is less economically libertarian than he would like, or âwokeâ ideas are popular amongst elite tastemakers, even if the polity this is all occurring in is clearly a liberal democracy, not a totalitarian state. (For the record I agree that certain kinds of âwokenessâ can be bad for the free and open exchange of ideas even if it is not enforced by the government.) Itâs deceptive rhetoric basically, applying a word with a common meaning in an idiosyncratic way, whilst the force of the label is generated by the common meaning. (Though I doubt Thiel is being deliberately consciously deceptive.)
Iâd also say that, even independent of Thielâs politics, I think it is a bad sign when people start taking openly religious, supernaturalist stuff seriously. I know Iâm not going to persuade anyone just by saying this, but I think part of being ârationalâ and âtruth-seekingâ and saying whatâs true even when it offends people is firm rejection of religion and the supernatural (on grounds of irrationality, not necessarily social harmfulness). If you agree with me about that, but you are less bothered by Thiel here than by âwokenessâ, at least consider that your opposition to the latter might not be being driven entirely by considerations about truth-seeking and truth-telling.
Thiel seems to believe that the status-quo âinternational communityâ of liberal western nations (as embodied by the likes of Obama, Angela Merkel, etc) is currently doomed to slowly slide into some kind of stagnant, inescapable, communistic, one-world-government dystopia.
Personally, I very strongly disagree with Thiel that this is inevitable or even likely (although I see where heâs coming from insofar as IMO this is at least a possibility worth worrying about). Consequently, I think the implied neoreactionary strategy (not sure if this is really Thielâs strategy since obviously he wouldnât just admit it) -- something like âhave somebody like JD Vance or Elon Musk coup the government, then roll the dice and hope that you end up getting a semi-benevolent libertarian dictatorship that eventually matures into a competent normal government, like Singapore or Chile, instead of ending up getting a catastrophic outcome like Nazi Germany or North Korea or a devastating civil warââis an incredibly stupid strategy that is likely to go extremely wrong.
I also agree with you that Christianity is obviously false and thus reflects poorly on people who sincerely believe it. (Although I think Benâs post exaggerates the degree to which Thiel is taking Christian ideas literally, since he certainly doesnât seem to follow official doctrine on lots of stuff.) Thielâs weird reasoning style that he brings not just to Christianity but to everything (very nonlinear, heavy on metaphors and analogies, not interested in technical details) is certainly not an exemplar of rationalist virtue. (I think itâs more like⌠heavily optimized for trying to come up with a different perspective than everyone else, which MIGHT be right, or might at least have something to it. Especially on the very biggest questions where, he presumably believes, bias is the strongest and cutting through groupthink is the most difficult. Versus normal rationalist-style thinking is optimized for just, you know, being actually fully correct the highest % of the time, which involves much more careful technical reasoning, lots of hive-mind-style âdeferringâ to the analysis of other smart people, etc)
I think he is using âtotalitarianâ to refer to any situation where the government is less economically libertarian than he would like, or âwokeâ ideas are popular amongst elite tastemakers, even if the polity this is all occurring in is clearly a liberal democracy, not a totalitarian state.
It seems true that he thinks governments (including liberal democracies) are satanic. I am unclear how much of this is because he thinks they are a slippery slope towards what you would call âtotalitarianismâ vs. being bad per se, but I think he is fairly consistent in his anarchism.
Iâm dubious Thiel is actually an ally to anyone worried about permanent dictatorship. He has connections to openly anti-democratic neoreactionaries like Curtis Yarvin, he quotes Nazi lawyer and democracy critic Carl Schmitt on how moments of greatness in politics are when you see your enemy as an enemy, and one of the most famous things he ever said is âI no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatibleâ. Rather I think he is using âtotalitarianâ to refer to any situation where the government is less economically libertarian than he would like, or âwokeâ ideas are popular amongst elite tastemakers, even if the polity this is all occurring in is clearly a liberal democracy, not a totalitarian state. (For the record I agree that certain kinds of âwokenessâ can be bad for the free and open exchange of ideas even if it is not enforced by the government.) Itâs deceptive rhetoric basically, applying a word with a common meaning in an idiosyncratic way, whilst the force of the label is generated by the common meaning. (Though I doubt Thiel is being deliberately consciously deceptive.)
Iâd also say that, even independent of Thielâs politics, I think it is a bad sign when people start taking openly religious, supernaturalist stuff seriously. I know Iâm not going to persuade anyone just by saying this, but I think part of being ârationalâ and âtruth-seekingâ and saying whatâs true even when it offends people is firm rejection of religion and the supernatural (on grounds of irrationality, not necessarily social harmfulness). If you agree with me about that, but you are less bothered by Thiel here than by âwokenessâ, at least consider that your opposition to the latter might not be being driven entirely by considerations about truth-seeking and truth-telling.
Thiel seems to believe that the status-quo âinternational communityâ of liberal western nations (as embodied by the likes of Obama, Angela Merkel, etc) is currently doomed to slowly slide into some kind of stagnant, inescapable, communistic, one-world-government dystopia.
Personally, I very strongly disagree with Thiel that this is inevitable or even likely (although I see where heâs coming from insofar as IMO this is at least a possibility worth worrying about). Consequently, I think the implied neoreactionary strategy (not sure if this is really Thielâs strategy since obviously he wouldnât just admit it) -- something like âhave somebody like JD Vance or Elon Musk coup the government, then roll the dice and hope that you end up getting a semi-benevolent libertarian dictatorship that eventually matures into a competent normal government, like Singapore or Chile, instead of ending up getting a catastrophic outcome like Nazi Germany or North Korea or a devastating civil warââis an incredibly stupid strategy that is likely to go extremely wrong.
I also agree with you that Christianity is obviously false and thus reflects poorly on people who sincerely believe it. (Although I think Benâs post exaggerates the degree to which Thiel is taking Christian ideas literally, since he certainly doesnât seem to follow official doctrine on lots of stuff.) Thielâs weird reasoning style that he brings not just to Christianity but to everything (very nonlinear, heavy on metaphors and analogies, not interested in technical details) is certainly not an exemplar of rationalist virtue. (I think itâs more like⌠heavily optimized for trying to come up with a different perspective than everyone else, which MIGHT be right, or might at least have something to it. Especially on the very biggest questions where, he presumably believes, bias is the strongest and cutting through groupthink is the most difficult. Versus normal rationalist-style thinking is optimized for just, you know, being actually fully correct the highest % of the time, which involves much more careful technical reasoning, lots of hive-mind-style âdeferringâ to the analysis of other smart people, etc)
It seems true that he thinks governments (including liberal democracies) are satanic. I am unclear how much of this is because he thinks they are a slippery slope towards what you would call âtotalitarianismâ vs. being bad per se, but I think he is fairly consistent in his anarchism.