Obviously, just look at what the Palantir stones did to Saruman and Denethor. They're a corrupting force, both in the middle-earth case and in the our-earth case.
Thiel has made no secret of his intent to use technology to dispense with that pesky democracy problem that billionaires have, and Palantir is pretty obviously his attempt to do just that. It's a reductio-ad-absurdum argument against listening to your citizens:
You put it in the hands of a populist demagogue, the power to apply hyper-targeted pain to their enemies amplifies their darker tendencies, and when evil happens you say: "look, the people can't be trusted." Meanwhile, you use it to direct the pointy end of the state's stick towards people you don't like (because the demagogue is too lazy to actually use those hyper-targeting features themself) so you can interfere with democratic attempts to limit your power without bothering to pay for the pepper spray.
Nobody in their right mind would want their government anywhere near it.
I still don't understand why Theil and Karp decided to name their surveillance tech company after a device that is best known for being used by an evil dark lord to decieve and corrupt. It's like the Mitchell and Webb skit "are we the baddies" except they're the ones who designed the uniforms with skulls on them.
I don't think you have to understand why they made that decision, you just have to understand who they are and what they believe in. Just have a look at what they talk about, and what they are quoted as saying.
You know what? It's all on the public record, and if someone wants to defend these guys or challenge my opinion they can do better than asking for sources of well reported behaviour.
How am I supposed to prove a negative here? Post a transcript of every statement Thiel and Karp have ever made?
You're the one making an assertion about Palantir. Apparently whatever you're referring to is well reported, but not quite well reported enough for you to actually point out the statements you're referring to.
If I was to say "Musk is an asshole just look at what he did at the presidential inauguration in 2025" and you said "you'd make a better point by giving a source for that ominous reference", I would think you were acting in bad faith because of how widely reported Musk's nazi salutes were at the time, and I would feel completely fair in saying "go and find out for yourself, you have all of the necessary information to do so."
I would actually think that you were in a position to defend that person but weren't ready to express that yet. So here we are with Thiel and Karp where 5 minutes of using Google or something would bring up various reports of Karp's recent conference statements. And I could have done that myself originally but "source?" is quite an irksome reply to deal with.
In your example with Musk, you actually gave a concrete reference: doing a Nazi salute. You've yet to do even that with Thiel and Karp.
> 5 minutes of using Google or something would bring up various reports of Karp's recent conference statements
And for the third time, you couldn't even be bothered to actually share those statements.
This is the first result from googling "Alex Karp Conference":
> “And so these disruptions are gonna disrupt every aspect of our society. And to make this work, we have to come to an agreement of what it is we’re going to do with the technology; how are we gonna explain to people who are likely gonna have less good, and less interesting jobs.”
What does this demonstrate about Karp's beliefs, besides the fact that he thinks AI is going to disrupt large parts of society? That's a pretty normal belief, is it not?
Perhaps you can't actually find quotes to match your rhetoric, and that's why you repeatedly fail to actually share any statements from Karp and Thiel.
I'm not sure you can describe somebody who supports ICE in its current incarnation, who profits from surveillance of vulnerable populations, who believes in revenge (cf Gawker), who abuses wealth (NZ citizenship shenanigans) as "a very thoughtful Christian", unless you do a lot of definitional work on "Christian".
Talking about the antichrist doesn't make you Christian.
Yes, when it makes the front page of the FT (2 days ago) you know there's some interesting stuff going on. The whole article is worth a read (I didn't known JD Vance's career was "largely bankrolled by Thiel").
>US tech billionaire and Maga donor Peter Thiel is starting a series of closed-door lectures about the antichrist in Rome on Sunday, putting him on a collision course with Pope Leo XIV, the Catholic Church’s first American pontiff....
>Thiel apparently gives talks about the Antichrist
You forgot to mention the part where Thiel tells, in all seriousness, that the Antichrist is on Earth, now, and may literally be Greta Thunberg [1].
And that's one of the reason Greta Thunberg must be opposed.
> He's actually a very thoughtful Christian
That's one way to upsell "deranged".
Thoughtful he is (as many lunatics are).
As far as religious aspects go, him losing faith in democracy after women and "benefits recipients" got the right to vote[2] doesn't sound very Christian-like to my ears.
Neither does his argument to end affirmative action[3], if you read it carefully, but that's a whole another can of worms.
> following the works of Rene Girard.
Ah yes, the fine fellow who (like Thiel) sees religion as a technology to manage humans by designating sacrificial scapegoats, which is the Girard's final solution to all problems.
In Girard's (and Thiel's) view, scapegoating isn't only an emergent outcome, it is necessary to stave off the end of the world.[3]
Thiel's support of Trump and his influence and backing of the Heritage Foundation / Project 2025 is very consistent with this philosophy.
Trump/Project 2025 make scapegoats out of immigrants, DEI, minorities, trans people, women who don't dedicate their lives to being breeding machines, ... - the list goes on.
So, in Thiel, we have:
- a gay man (who destroyed the paper that outed him out of spite) who thinks women are not just ewww, but are the reason democracy failed and is antithetical to freedom and are to blame for the Great Depression. And one of them (Greta Thunberg) is literally the Antichrist, in all likelihood.
- a white German raised in apartheid South Africa[5], in a city described as "more German than Germany" in 1976 where "Heil Hitler!" salutes were still the norm [6], who thinks that affirmative action has never been a good idea and was utterly unnecessary by the 1990s in the US because, quote [3][7]: “There are almost no real racists . . . in America’s younger generation”, and whose politics have declared "DEI" as an enemy. Here's a reminder that DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
- a Christian who sees Christianity as an instrument of "political theology". See, aside from "let's make scapegoats" Girard, he has been heavily influenced by the writing of Carl "Hitler is good for us" Schmitt[8]. Schmitt was not just a Nazi, but a jurist who provided legal (and moral) basis for Hitler's power grab.
- a self-proclaimed "Libertarian" whose primary source of fortune is selling totalitarian surveillance products to governments
We have that person effectively controlling the US policy and executive actions (Thiel has groomed JD Vance into vice presidency[9]).
I don't see any signs that Thiel has a sense of humor at all, dark or otherwise.
But the universe in which he gets to do all that and be called a "very thoughtful Christian" sure does.
Thiel grew up in what today is Namibia, not South Africa, see your 6. His parents left for the US when the planned opening of a uranium mine nearby made clear that there would be an influx of black people.
On the notion of Thiel being a very thoughtful Christian (your parent poster): if you can define adherence to Nazi philosopher's Carl Schmitt doctrine thoughtful where he fears "the satanic unification of the world", then by all means.
>Slight correction: Thiel grew up in what today is Namibia, not South Africa
What today is Namibia was, when Thiel lived there, called South West Africa as a territory under South African control.
Namibia only gained independence in 1990. By all means, Thiel living there before moving to the US in 1976 was growing up in South Africa (by the same measure as kids living in Donbas region of Ukraine today are growing up in Russia, even if these territories will be reclaimed in the future).
But yes, Namibia deserves recognition, and the more specificity, the better. "Namibia under SA control" would be a better choice of words.
>if you can define adherence to Nazi philosopher's Carl Schmitt doctrine thoughtful where he fears "the satanic unification of the world", then by all means.
O_O
Me: things are bad
Helpful comment: actually, things are worse.
>If you like to read an In-depth article about the influences on Thiel (incl. by Wolfgang Palaver) there is a very thorough article in Wired
Thanks for the reference! I've got a Wired subscription to support their journalism, but I haven't read this article yet. Time to make use of it!
Thiel has made no secret of his intent to use technology to dispense with that pesky democracy problem that billionaires have, and Palantir is pretty obviously his attempt to do just that. It's a reductio-ad-absurdum argument against listening to your citizens:
You put it in the hands of a populist demagogue, the power to apply hyper-targeted pain to their enemies amplifies their darker tendencies, and when evil happens you say: "look, the people can't be trusted." Meanwhile, you use it to direct the pointy end of the state's stick towards people you don't like (because the demagogue is too lazy to actually use those hyper-targeting features themself) so you can interfere with democratic attempts to limit your power without bothering to pay for the pepper spray.
Nobody in their right mind would want their government anywhere near it.