"So, let’s sum up. Peter Thiel believes he belongs to an elite group, often understood in implicitly or explicitly racial terms, that is entitled to set aside democratic governance in favor of pursuing a program of technological progress and national restoration. He believes the political means to accomplish this is through a charismatic leader with manipulative, populist appeals to past national glory and against parasitic immigrants and culturally decadent liberalism. For him, even the most milquetoast, reformist liberalism is “tantamount to communism.”
They were right that we wouldn't recognise it when it comes to us. Peter Thiel is not hiding his views yet escapes censure and is instead lauded by many, including a significant portion of the tech community who embrace his 'America First' ethos, too giddy at the prospect of permanent US hegemony to notice that this too is supremacism, this too is fascism.
I think the author misses the mark and does so in far too many words. He presents Thiel as having a confusing and, as the author admits, contradictory set of beliefs. A much more cohesive description of Thiel without the internal contradictions (a facist who is a nationalist and a libertarian and a white sepremacist and a technocrat and a globalist elite etc etc) is that of a neoliberal elite capitalist.
His ideology is not contradictory at all, as the author wants us to believe, unless you were to believe that his actions are somehow a reflection of the true beliefs that he holds. To give an example, his support for populist candidates is not evidence that he himself has a populist ideology. The premise itself is laughable - unless you believe in the kayfabe that is modern US politics. JD Vance is not a populist - though he plays one on TV. Thiel bankrolls what are effectively models, some hired from amateur modeling websites (citation, national (hypen) justice.com), and uses them as mouthpieces to achieve his political and idealogical aims.
> So, let’s sum up. Peter Thiel believes he belongs to an elite group, often understood in implicitly or explicitly racial terms,
Thiel does belong to an elite group. He doesn't just believe he does.
> that is entitled to set aside democratic governance in favor of pursuing a program of technological progress and national restoration.
Author provides zero evidence of Thiel performing any national restoration. How is Thiel's technocratic surveillance apparatus (as described by the author) in any way nationalistic?
> He believes the political means to accomplish this is through a charismatic leader with manipulative, populist appeals
Finally the author is into something here. He is connecting Thiel's use of political puppets to achieve his political aims.
> He envisioned a kind of imperialist world-state controlled not through deliberative bodies like the U.N. but directly by the intelligence and secret police bureaus.
World-state? That sounds like globalism to me, which is the opposite of nationalism.
> He combines the ideology of white collar, petit-bourgeois intermediary class with its emphases direct management techniques and closely-held ownership with the grandiose, world-spanning designs of an industrial titan
In the absence of mind-reading abilities one can only use the evidence of one’s actions to make determinations of motivation and character.
The author has taken the time to chronicle and detail those actions.
The difference as I see it is that while we can speculate about whether someone is a “real X, Y, or Z,” Thiel’s money is being used to really advance the goals of Xs, Ys, and Zs.
Let me give a simple example, where rhetoric is used only to excite a voting base but where the action never manifests: Trump and the Wall.
Now a whole new breed of populists have arisen but use the same tactic. They play to what people want, but then never deliver. This is the oldest trick in politics.
Not once does the author show a single result of Thiels work that manifests as greater nationalism. Please share what I missed.
You missed my point: the underlying motive is unknowable, so whatever point you’re trying to make about the unknown and unknowable is quite literally immaterial.
Setting that aside, what is knowable is one’s actions. If someone contributes to organizations and initiatives, that is sufficient to show material support. Especially so at the financial scale at which Theil provides support.
I’m not interested in whether or not someone is “truly” an X or even if someone “truly believes” X. It’s enough for me to know that someone provides material support for X.
Finally, you didn’t define what “greater nationalism” is supposed to mean, nor is it rigorously defined. In any case, it’s a pretty high bar for anyone, even a billionaire. Petty nationalism is bad enough.
At no point have I discussed motive - I have consistently pointed to the topic of looking at actions. You are deliberately avoiding my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy and provides no evidence to support claims that he is, for example, nationalist. To the contrary, author cites numerous transnational agendas that Thiel is instrumental in.
> A much more cohesive description of Thiel without the internal contradictions (a facist who is a nationalist and a libertarian and a white sepremacist and a technocrat and a globalist elite etc etc) is that of a neoliberal elite capitalist
>my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy
What I’m saying:
You have no way of knowing the underlying “ideology,” or lack thereof, just as the author doesn’t know either. You seem to think that I’m defending the author, when what I’m saying is you’re BOTH wrong for the SAME reason.
I said some other things, but they aren’t the subject of your most recent comment.
Understanding this, reread my comments and respond if necessary.
Thiel clearly isn't a nationalist nor fascist. Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism where individualism is eradicated.
Thiel is an extreme individualist and hasn't done anything to build America's (or any other nations) institutions.
Like Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, Thiel takes individualism to its grotesque extremes, and this causes milquetoast liberals to despise him. He's so familiar, yet grotesque.
15 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 41.9 ms ] threadThey were right that we wouldn't recognise it when it comes to us. Peter Thiel is not hiding his views yet escapes censure and is instead lauded by many, including a significant portion of the tech community who embrace his 'America First' ethos, too giddy at the prospect of permanent US hegemony to notice that this too is supremacism, this too is fascism.
His ideology is not contradictory at all, as the author wants us to believe, unless you were to believe that his actions are somehow a reflection of the true beliefs that he holds. To give an example, his support for populist candidates is not evidence that he himself has a populist ideology. The premise itself is laughable - unless you believe in the kayfabe that is modern US politics. JD Vance is not a populist - though he plays one on TV. Thiel bankrolls what are effectively models, some hired from amateur modeling websites (citation, national (hypen) justice.com), and uses them as mouthpieces to achieve his political and idealogical aims.
> So, let’s sum up. Peter Thiel believes he belongs to an elite group, often understood in implicitly or explicitly racial terms,
Thiel does belong to an elite group. He doesn't just believe he does.
> that is entitled to set aside democratic governance in favor of pursuing a program of technological progress and national restoration.
Author provides zero evidence of Thiel performing any national restoration. How is Thiel's technocratic surveillance apparatus (as described by the author) in any way nationalistic?
> He believes the political means to accomplish this is through a charismatic leader with manipulative, populist appeals
Finally the author is into something here. He is connecting Thiel's use of political puppets to achieve his political aims.
> He envisioned a kind of imperialist world-state controlled not through deliberative bodies like the U.N. but directly by the intelligence and secret police bureaus.
World-state? That sounds like globalism to me, which is the opposite of nationalism.
> He combines the ideology of white collar, petit-bourgeois intermediary class with its emphases direct management techniques and closely-held ownership with the grandiose, world-spanning designs of an industrial titan
Got it, so he's a capitalist.
etc etc
The author has taken the time to chronicle and detail those actions.
The difference as I see it is that while we can speculate about whether someone is a “real X, Y, or Z,” Thiel’s money is being used to really advance the goals of Xs, Ys, and Zs.
To his benefit and our detriment.
Now a whole new breed of populists have arisen but use the same tactic. They play to what people want, but then never deliver. This is the oldest trick in politics.
Not once does the author show a single result of Thiels work that manifests as greater nationalism. Please share what I missed.
Setting that aside, what is knowable is one’s actions. If someone contributes to organizations and initiatives, that is sufficient to show material support. Especially so at the financial scale at which Theil provides support.
I’m not interested in whether or not someone is “truly” an X or even if someone “truly believes” X. It’s enough for me to know that someone provides material support for X.
Finally, you didn’t define what “greater nationalism” is supposed to mean, nor is it rigorously defined. In any case, it’s a pretty high bar for anyone, even a billionaire. Petty nationalism is bad enough.
> A much more cohesive description of Thiel without the internal contradictions (a facist who is a nationalist and a libertarian and a white sepremacist and a technocrat and a globalist elite etc etc) is that of a neoliberal elite capitalist
>my primary thesis - namely that the author provides an inaccurate picture of Thiel's idealogy
What I’m saying:
You have no way of knowing the underlying “ideology,” or lack thereof, just as the author doesn’t know either. You seem to think that I’m defending the author, when what I’m saying is you’re BOTH wrong for the SAME reason.
I said some other things, but they aren’t the subject of your most recent comment.
Understanding this, reread my comments and respond if necessary.
Thiel is an extreme individualist and hasn't done anything to build America's (or any other nations) institutions.
Like Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, Thiel takes individualism to its grotesque extremes, and this causes milquetoast liberals to despise him. He's so familiar, yet grotesque.