Pill Pod 219 - Peter Thiel's Deranged Apocalypticism

In a recent interview with the New York Times Peter Thiel, one of the world's most powerful men, gave ample evidence that he should be institutionalized before he hurts anyone else.

Link to the full interview https://youtu.be/vV7YgnPUxcU?si=qSLrUmKeEblb4jYS

Find all our episodes ad-free at https://www.patreon.com/plasticpills

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take over
the world, right, I'm just we're ending in the apocalyptic.

Speaker 2 (00:06):
My telling of the history is the hippies did win.
That's when progress stopped and the hippies won in the
seventeenth century. I can imagine a doctor Strange Love taking
over the world.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
In our world is far more.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Likely to be Brettathunburg, the breat of Future, Gretathunberg.

Speaker 3 (00:22):
Gretathunburg's on a boat, Brettathuneburg.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
God, God will not leave us eternally being lectured by Gretathunburg.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
Right, he will not abandon us.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
The only three on offer in Europe are green Sharia
and totalitarian communist state, and the Bread of Future is
by far the strongest.

Speaker 4 (00:52):
All Right, we did We've done a few episodes in
a row of kind of some pretty heavy theory, some
pretty hard reading, some pretty homeworky shit. So this is
some less homeworky shit. We watched an interview with someone
who I didn't We all know his name, right, we
all know who he is. He is super funny, but

(01:14):
I didn't know he was a fucking wacko like he
is a he's a boogeyman for the left, you know,
broadly speaking, So we thought it would be fun to
see to see what his psychological state looks like in
a one hour, off the leash kind of interview, because
he's a powerful guy, and uh at best were disturbed.

(01:35):
This was this was very entertaining.

Speaker 5 (01:39):
Yeah, I agree, kind of a nutcase.

Speaker 6 (01:42):
Yeah, it was more than disturbing. Now, we did talk
a lot about Peter Teel in a previous episode, which
was that that was about the mold Bug episode when
we were getting into some of the dark Enlightenment stuff. Yeah,
he's got something called the stagnation thesis, which is basically
saying there is this like extremely fast technological process starting

(02:07):
at seventeen fifty with the Industrial Revolution and going all
the way to the nineteen seventies. We were at this
this like progress, economic growth and technological development and scientific
progress at an accelerating pace, and then it comes to
a halt for various reasons, and we go into a

(02:27):
phase of stagnation. And AI is one of the great exceptions.

Speaker 5 (02:32):
Not just immortality, but also like we're not trying to
go to Mars apparently, and like that's a sign we're
not making progress.

Speaker 6 (02:38):
And we're not investing heavily in nuclear power. And like
the he said, all the research stopped with you know,
the Alamo Los Alamos, like it really stopped progress in
nuclear research. And he's like it's tied into his hatred
of socialism and thinking that like the government and socialism

(02:59):
are the same thing, and anything the government does is socialists.
So regulating AI all that weird, wo gay eye shit,
that's socialism. Regulating nuclear bombs because you know, having everyone
having nukes could be problematic, that's socialism. Anything the government
does is socialism. It's tied in with that kind of

(03:19):
idea as well.

Speaker 4 (03:20):
You're you're making him sound too sane. This is like
the argument that any sane right winger would make socialism
is the enemy.

Speaker 6 (03:28):
But this is I think it is insane.

Speaker 4 (03:30):
This is one of the the top ten most powerful
people in the world probably arguably, right, Is there any argument?

Speaker 6 (03:37):
Probably he's a billionaire, so he's up there.

Speaker 4 (03:40):
He's got one of the one of the most valuable companies,
probably one of the top ten tech companies at least
calendar by market cap, and it's on the increase, unlike
some of the other ones. It's on the increase, But
I just wanted to before we get into his his
his strange theories of escataglogy and his strange theories of history.

(04:03):
I just thought this was he's a very weird vibes guy,
like for being one of the most powerful people on
the world, in the world, he is paranoid. I want
to say, he's extremely paranoid. But also what he fears.
Maybe it's just because I'm not a billionaire, but the

(04:23):
fears he has make no sense. His conspiracy theory will
skip to end. Maybe his conspiracy theory is that the
Antichrist is Greta Thunberg, and Greta Thunberg is going to
end history. But also that history already, as you alluded to,
before history ended in either nineteen forty five or nineteen

(04:50):
sixty nine, because after the moon landing then LSD and
Charles Manson took over I don't know what over they
took over the world.

Speaker 7 (05:01):
That comment was one insane The comment about Charles Manson
like made me pause. The video rewind and it was like,
what the fuck did he just said? He said something
in the line and I think this is probably one
of the most revealing lines in the interview. He has
something in the line that Charles Manson took LSDEP and
became a Dostoyevsky villion. He transcended laws and morals, but

(05:24):
not anyone can be like Charles Manson, Like what the
fuck are you implying, dude? Like like what was he saying?
Like that whole sentence, the sentence by itself, like Charles
Manson took ls DEEP and became a Dostoyevsky villain. He
transcended morals, but not that anybody can be like Charles Manson.
Like the implications of that sentence alone is for an essay.

(05:44):
I swear to god.

Speaker 6 (05:45):
Yeah, everyone became as direct.

Speaker 4 (05:47):
Think we're lying. I can drop in the the citations.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
Here, Baconian science. It ended at los almost and then
it was okay, it ended there, and we didn't want
to have any more. And you know, uh, you know
when Charles Manson took LSD in you know, the late
sixties and started murdering people, what he saw on LSD,
what he learned was that you could be like dosta Yevsky,

(06:14):
an anti hero and Dostayevsky and everything was permitted. And
of course not everyone became Charles Manson but but Charles
the history, everyone became as deranged as Charles man.

Speaker 1 (06:25):
But Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take
over the world. Right, I'm just I'm just we're ending
in the apocalyptic.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
But my telling of the my telling of the history
of the nineteen seventies is the hippies did win.

Speaker 6 (06:38):
Everyone became as deranged as Charles Manson. Charles Manson did
not become the Anti Christ and take over the world.
I'm just, I'm just we're ending, We're ending in the apocalypse.
Like like he's so the anti Christ? Is this coming
apocalyptic figure.

Speaker 4 (06:55):
If anyone's wondering why Victor's camera is off, it's because
he is like Arles Manson on LSD and completely deranged.

Speaker 7 (07:03):
Is in a cabin somewhere.

Speaker 5 (07:04):
Yeah, I mean, I'm so tempted to try my camera
again because I did. I did move close to the house.
I don't know. We can just try see if it works,
but I don't know.

Speaker 4 (07:12):
Look at that Canadian wilderness.

Speaker 6 (07:15):
Yeah yeah, yeah, that's that's his backyard.

Speaker 7 (07:17):
I have the place to hide some bodies. Victory.

Speaker 5 (07:20):
I have to hold my mic because I forgot my
mic stent back.

Speaker 6 (07:22):
In Toronto, just at City Hall for the day.

Speaker 4 (07:25):
He's at the Brazoni family compound.

Speaker 6 (07:27):
It's in the woods.

Speaker 5 (07:29):
I'm actually in a house that's made of hey bail.

Speaker 7 (07:31):
Anyway, So, so Peter Till, Peter Till started as a
venture capitalist. Like he raised like a million dollars from
friends and family. He started investing in some shit, he
got into PayPal, like, he started with these anarcho capitalist
libertarian ideas of saying that, like you guys were saying, like,
he's framing socialism in a very carricaturesque way, like anything
the state does is anti natural because it creates boundaries

(07:55):
for human behavior. So libertarians appeal to this notion that
capitalism is is human nature and as we are traders
and we we tend to naturally develop towards capitalism. But
at some point he also says that Ellen must give
up on the dream of going to Mars because socialism
will follow us into Mars. And then it's like, so, dude,

(08:16):
like what the fuck are you saying?

Speaker 8 (08:17):
So, so, if if socialism is going to follow us
into Mars, if we expand as a transplanetary civilization, then
maybe socialism is human nature, you fucking asshole. It's like,
what the fuck, Like, I don't get these guys, Like
they try to make this very deep, like profound sounding arguments,
and they treat them in the most dumb, stupid way possible.

(08:40):
It's it's truly insane, Like they don't even understand the
ideology they're supposed to be defending.

Speaker 7 (08:44):
Like most of what he says is purely schism. It's
not even it's not even meaningful or rooted in a
philosophical system by itself.

Speaker 4 (08:52):
And again, less lest you think that he's making too
much sense by arguing against socialism, No, they're they're actually
there three forces that are fighting. I'll want to insert
the clip too. There are three fight forces that are
currently battling over Europe. The dragons maybe you call them.

Speaker 2 (09:10):
I want to say, it's the only thing people still
believe in in Europe, Like, you know, they believe in
the green thing more than Islamic Sharia law or more
than in you know, the Chinese communists totalitarian takeover and
the future is an idea of a future that looks
different from the present. The only three on offer in
Europe are green Sharia and you know, the totalitarian communist

(09:35):
state and the green one is by far the strongest.

Speaker 4 (09:39):
They are Chinese style communism. Okay, in Europe, right sharia
law and environmentalism. Environmentalism and then supposedly progress is the
one being drowned out here. But environmentalism is winning the
fight against sharia law and Chinese communism for control over
the end times, battle of Europe.

Speaker 7 (10:01):
It's insane. It's beyond insane. It's crazy.

Speaker 4 (10:05):
Yeah, which I love. This is this is genius. The
problem is, Okay, I have a problem with the interviewer here.
I wanted to let's.

Speaker 5 (10:12):
Talk about Rostou.

Speaker 4 (10:13):
I want to quickly bring this up because I I
was like, okay, New York Times, you know, you expect competence.
They went to probably a good journalism school. But this guy,
he's a.

Speaker 5 (10:25):
Token conservative though that's the like Rosstout, it is the
token conservative.

Speaker 4 (10:29):
I didn't know that, but I learned. I learned, uh
from having done some research on him, because there was
no ideological pushback. And then Peter Thiel says offhanded things
like well, credit Tunberg is the Antichrist, and the interviewer goes, well,
she might be the antichrist, but kind of what you're
saying is like the control over economic growth is the antichrist, right,

(10:51):
and Peter Teel's like, no, actually, Cretituneberg, Yeah, he's like sitting.

Speaker 6 (10:57):
There rationalizing his crazy thing. He's like rationalized, and the
be like, yeah, yeah, I understand. I don't agree with
your rhetoric, but I agree with the substance of what
you're saying.

Speaker 4 (11:07):
It's okay, great, look, I'll put it up here. This
is the uh Ross Stoute's last article, which is called
how Israel's War became unjust? First sentence, Israel's war in
Gaza is not a genocide, period, It's a war for
a just cause, the elimination of a cruel, fanatical, potentially

(11:28):
genocidal terrorist organization. Blah blah. So this is lastly the rest.
But I went deeper. Okay, so that's bog standard conservative
media person I found out. First of all, you'll love
this victor adult convert to Catholicism. But why did he

(11:49):
convert to Catholicism. He's quote a huge fan of Lewis,
a mid twentieth century Anglican who penned the Chronicles of
Narnia and JR. Tolki, another anti modern conservative Catholic. So
if you converted to Catholicism because of Lord of the
Rings I personally and the line and the line, the

(12:10):
rich of the word robe, I say you should you
should not be allowed to own a computer and especially
not be allowed to spread your opinions in the New
York Times.

Speaker 5 (12:19):
Well it was weird, though, wasn't There were like weird
conservative themes that were coming out through that interview too,
or sorry, weird Christian themes because I feel like the
debate over what the Antichrist is and I kept feeling
like Ross Deut that kind of wanted to like agree,
but then I don't know if you guys noticed, but
I felt like there were just moments where then like
Peter Teel would say stuff and like you could feel
rosstout it being like that's definitely like that's weird, like

(12:40):
that's not what like like like Christians think kind of
like I felt like he was reacting on behalf of
like a Christian audience and kind of being like, well,
like maybe there's a way that like this could make sense,
and then everybody would crazy and he'd be like, I
don't know, okay, like maybe.

Speaker 7 (12:56):
Is the same like a non prolific argumentation that this
discussing about the density of the mineral and materials of
the one ring being carried to murder, you know, like
they're trying to out Christian themselves. Is like, man, this
is totally bullshitty. This, this being in the New York
Times is beyond pathetic. It's beyond pathetic.

Speaker 5 (13:16):
Yeah, I know, what's New York Times trying to be
trying to be.

Speaker 4 (13:20):
Not just Book of Revelation fanfic, but Lord of the Rings.
This guy, we're actually like, like, I know Eric has
brought this up at nauseum, but if you actually read
Lord of the Rings, this guy is literally Saruman.

Speaker 5 (13:35):
Yeah, he wants to he wants.

Speaker 4 (13:37):
To breed his own workforce. He wants to live in
a private city that he controls. He's the supreme Lord
of check.

Speaker 7 (13:45):
He wants to create a polaneer.

Speaker 4 (13:46):
He wants to cut down all the trees so he
can heat his furnaces, flying fucking cars for technological progress.
There's the fourth one owns Palatineer's Insane, which the devil
used to corrupt sorrowmon at a distance, Like, what are
we doing here, guys?

Speaker 6 (14:04):
The magical stone exactly takes over people's minds.

Speaker 5 (14:08):
With exactly exactly. It's crazy. I also I also feel
like my my overall feeling is like this is like
a rich guy who just like wants to live forever.
Like I feel like that was, you know, like if
I was to oversimplify it, I'm just like, this is
like an obsessive rich guy who wants to live forever,
and he's mad that society isn't like trying to figure

(14:29):
that out sooner, and it's like the environmentalists who are
getting in the way. And like at one point he
even says, I don't know if you guys picked up
on it, but he's like, you know, medical research needs
to take more risks, and in other words, what does
he mean by that? He means like experiment more on humans,
like experiment on marginalize people more like like just get
me that fucking immortality, whatever it takes. And like this market,

(14:52):
like all these environmentalists and ethical concern people, they're getting
in my way of immortality. And like I feel like
that's like his number one, like if I was obviously
over simplification. But that's my feeling of like a obsession.

Speaker 4 (15:04):
Which again is sorumon who bred red orcs in his
like dungeons.

Speaker 7 (15:10):
Yeah, but but Loki, I felt he's like this so
self loading perverts, you know, like, yeah, it's it's it's
I felt this constantly over the interview. There's there's notion
like to be to be a transhumanist, one reading, one
reading of transhumanism from a Marxist background, it would be

(15:30):
this very famous sentence from for Marx, everything that is
solid gets melted into liquid, and everything that is sacred
becomes profane. Yeah yeah, okay, so sorry that my translation
was wrong. Melt comes into air and everything that is
sacred becomes profane. And I think like the second part
is clear. He mentions these dialectics between sacred and profane

(15:52):
constantly from sacred is either progress or stagnatian, and profane
is the is the opposition, you know, like we could
even use like I've been reading Battitle a lot on
the difference between homogeny and heterogeny and the opposition and
the exclusion of otherness, and like, in this sense, I

(16:13):
felt constantly in his discourse these dialectics between stagnation and progress,
sacred and profane. Right, but the self loathing part, according
to me, is the fact that transhumanism in a way
is a loath for flesh or a you know, like
a hate for material limitations to truly believe in transhumanism.

(16:36):
And he makes this point during the interview, you know,
like he says, we can be more trans than transvestise.
You know, I want to change my heart. I want
to you know, like you have to have a certain
degree of detachment from your body or even loathe and
hate for your own self to be able to say
I want to transcend myself to a point where I

(16:59):
leave everything behind, right, just disappear into nothingness. You know.

Speaker 5 (17:03):
But I think that's but that's connected to his immortality.
I think because like his hatred, like I feel likething
not making Yeah.

Speaker 4 (17:10):
I did not pick up the self loathing because I
don't think he considers his body to be himself.

Speaker 5 (17:16):
Yeah, I feel like he hates the fact that his
body is gonna kill him. But it was weird because
because but it was weird because later he said, like,
I don't want to like be in some computer. I
want my body. I want to keep my body. But
I also totally picked up on what you said diego too.
So I was actually confused because on the one hand,
I felt like he was talking about transcending. But then
at other points he said something about how he wanted

(17:36):
to like not live in a computer program or something
like that.

Speaker 6 (17:40):
And the reason he picks up this sort of whole
Christianized argument too with the anti christ is he's saying, like,
orthodox Christianity supports transhumanism, Like it's even more transhumanism than
any ideology, because the idea is that like you die
and you are reborn. Yeah, like it's literally like rebirth

(18:00):
in an afterlife and a promised land.

Speaker 5 (18:03):
Yeah, Christians should be ultra transhumanist, is like kind of
his thesis.

Speaker 6 (18:07):
Yeah, So he's trying to rearticulate this stagnation thesis in
a religious register, saying, the coming Antichrist is whatever the
greta future or whatever, this is exactly, and what we
need to do to avoid that he's saying is separate
between two antichrist views. One of them is he says,
this seventeenth century antichrist view where some evil mad man

(18:30):
is gonna invent kind of like Sauron with the Ring, right,
some evil mad man is going to invent technology doctor
Strange Love style and hold the world hostage. The classic
movie villain of like Marvel but he's saying, no, there's
a new Antichrist now, and the Antichrist is the one
who convinces you to hand over all your technology into

(18:52):
the government safekeeping to regulate everything. And he says that's
the true Antichrist, and that is a like irreparable stagnation
situation that he feels like we need to avoid, but
also that it's kind of here already. It was I
think the interviewer brought that out a little bit, that
that was a kind of unclear, and he's and so

(19:13):
his mission is to like avoid that by developing I
don't know, Palenteer developing surveillance technology and facial recognition technology
and selling AI to Israel to help like bomb Gaza.
I don't understand his reasoning. And it was the funniest
moment is near the end when the interviewer is like,
don't you think like the Antichrist would be doing what

(19:34):
you're doing? Basically, like if you want to avoid the Antichrist,
but you fucking sound like the Antichrist, man, come on.
And then his response is like, ah, well, there's different degrees.

Speaker 1 (19:46):
You're deeply invested in Pallenteer in military technology and technologies
of surveillance and technologies of warfare and so on. Right,
And it just seems to me that when you tell
me a story about out the Antichrist coming to power
and using the fear of technological change to sort of

(20:06):
impose order on the world, I feel like that Antichrist
would be maybe be using the tools that you think
you were that you were building, right, Like, wouldn't the
Antichrist be like, great, you know, we're not gonna have
any more technological progress. But I really like what Palanteer
has done so far. Right, But isn't that isn't that
a concern? Wouldn't that be the you know, the irony

(20:29):
of history would be that the man publicly worrying about
the Antichrist accidentally hastens his or her arrival.

Speaker 3 (20:39):
Uh, They're all they are all these different.

Speaker 2 (20:44):
Scenario.

Speaker 3 (20:44):
I obviously don't think that that's what I'm doing.

Speaker 6 (20:47):
And he goes on to say how the antichrist future
will come about in his view, which is just like
either genetically will just become a more docile species, or like,
through thorough wokeization, we will just give up all technology
to the safekeeping of like an atomic priesthood style of
like like Warhammer forty k the fucking Mars tech priests

(21:09):
or something like that are gonna take all our technology
away from us.

Speaker 3 (21:14):
Insane vision.

Speaker 6 (21:16):
But I'm not surprised that people from Silicon Valley who
love Ann Rand and get invited to do talks by
the end Rand Society believe this shit. It's not surprising.

Speaker 4 (21:27):
We have two thousand years of eschatology trying to interpret revelation.
Who's the Antichrist? Is it? Is it Nero? Is it?
Is it the Pope? Is it Stalin? Is it Hitler? No,
it's a sweetest Zoomer with autism. That's the Antichrist.

Speaker 7 (21:46):
Yeah, that's just the fucking best man. I swear to god.
The Gritta Dumberg Antichrist thing was like, oh my god,
that's so perfect.

Speaker 2 (21:53):
In the seventeenth century, I can imagine a doctor Strange
love Edward Teller type person taking over the world. In
our world is far more likely to be Gratathunberg.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
Okay, I want to suggest a middle ground. He says it,
like so seriously, Yeah.

Speaker 5 (22:09):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 7 (22:11):
I'm not even being metaphorical here. She's literally Satan, Like, yeah,
the blonde girl in the boat going to help starving
kids in Palestine.

Speaker 5 (22:18):
Yeah, she's literally totally yeah, totally crazy.

Speaker 4 (22:22):
His big thing is the Antichrist sells peace and safety. Bitch,
you have like ten billion dollars in contracts from the
military ice CIA. And the guy's like, well, don't you
think the Antichrist would be doing what you're doing? He goes, yeah,
I don't think so, yeah, nah yeah.

Speaker 7 (22:44):
The other thing. The other thing that I found interesting
is that he mentioned a nation started in the seventies
with like what we normally interpret as.

Speaker 6 (22:52):
The Charles Manson Yeah.

Speaker 7 (22:53):
But with neoliberalism, Like the seventies is probably known as
an as if we take up March reading of history
as the probably the birth stage of neoliberalism with Margaret
Thatcher and Reagan. And it's strange because he's fighting for deregulation.
He truly believes monopoly is the best form of economic development,

(23:14):
because he's like this techno fail the list or like
utopian ascillation something like that. He truly believes monopoly is
the best form of economy. But then at the same
time he's like, yeah, we're not taking enough risks for
to develop technology and not taking like moonshots in science.
It's like dude, that's against the logic of capital. Capital

(23:35):
will always go for short term profit, it will never
take moonshots.

Speaker 4 (23:39):
On the other side, his two examples of when progress
stopped are the Manhattan Project and then Landing, which are
both by the government.

Speaker 7 (23:48):
It's fucking insane exactly. That's why we cannot take these
guys for serials. Like there's very dumb, Like they're very
very stupid.

Speaker 6 (23:55):
Yeah, it's like he failed economics class. Like what happened
in the seventies, the oil shock, which was a massive
which is a massive supply side shock that kinsy and
economist couldn't deal with, and then the beginning of stagflation,
which is the combination of stagnation and inflation. It's like
he failed that economy, didn't show up to that class

(24:16):
in economics or something and was just like, yes, stagnation
and he bullshitted his answer, and now he's run with
it for the rest of his life. No, I mean,
it's it's ridiculous. Yeah, the downturn was neoliberalism. That's usually
we associate with it. I don't I understand hippies and
Charles Manson taking LSD was the beginning of stagnation. It's

(24:36):
very strange. I don't I don't know.

Speaker 7 (24:38):
Yeah, it's it's very dumb. I always get angry at
these people trying to blame WOKE on socialism. It's like, dude,
woke is fully related to liberalism. Is like the division
between body and subject, like the division between the state
intervention and freedom of economics, like all the things these
guys hate about woke. I DI is fully liberal, Like

(25:02):
it's it's fully connected to liberal metaphysics, to liberal economic policies,
to liberal public policies. And it's like, no, no, no, that's socialism,
Like okay, right, whatever.

Speaker 6 (25:12):
He's clearly got the worldview of an oligarch. But this, yeah, this,
you know, like Trump did this executive order on July
twenty third called Preventing Woke AI and Federal Government, which
is basically trying to regulate how AI is used in America,
starting with the government saying, you know, his claim is

(25:34):
that all these these AI companies are putting all these
DEI style parameters into AI and therefore like biasing them
towards like leftism and social justice, which is another massive
cope for the way that you know, is there a genocide,
is there a white genocide going on in South Africa

(25:55):
right now. AI truthfully reports, no, there is not. Well,
that's woke, that's woke. You're ignoring my opinion. It's like,
what do you want? Guys Like, you're mad about post truth,
but you're completely post truth yourself. You're mad about wokeism,
but you're down for regulating the shit out of things
so that you can have these fringe opinions being heard
and having the majority agreed upon opinions that have a

(26:18):
lot of evidence backing them up to be dismissed. And
yet that's the woke side, Like they just their worldview
is like it's it's like trying to reason with an alcoholic.
You just can't do it. They'll just keep repeating their
claims and never listen to what you're saying, and they
go on in a.

Speaker 5 (26:34):
Loop point of order.

Speaker 4 (26:36):
Was this guy against woke at all?

Speaker 5 (26:37):
I didn't. I don't remember. I think so I think AI.

Speaker 4 (26:42):
He is against He Well, he's against woke because it's
a restriction on AI. But he's also super pro trands
because he wants more experiments done on people.

Speaker 7 (26:50):
Yeah, but he says trends enough.

Speaker 4 (26:53):
Yeah, so he wants he wants extreme trands transhuman like
he wants to get a new heart. He wants like
new blood from from healthy teenagers.

Speaker 6 (27:03):
Remember, there there's the woke leftist posthumanism, and then there's
the hard line tech bro transhumanism, which is it's like a.

Speaker 7 (27:11):
Dark heg alien accelerationist. I swear to God, is.

Speaker 5 (27:13):
It worth mentioning his connection to his connection to JD
Vans too, because like Jdvans hung around, yeah, Peter Teel
all the time, and like I saw him as a mentor,
So I think it's worth it's worth bringing that up.
And then like the other thing that I think could
be worth bringing up, and maybe if we want to
do a part two to this, which would be like
slightly more of an exploration, is that Peter Teele's biggest

(27:35):
influence is like rehne Gier art and like this idea
of mimetic desire. You know, I don't know if you guys.

Speaker 6 (27:40):
Ever totally forgot about your art does like a conflict
theory where if you if there's a scarcity, Let's say
there's a scarcity of attractive women, and you see somebody
attracted to that to women those women, you imitate their
desire and therefore create conflict over a scarce resource. That's
like I just read Nicholas Luhman talking about the same

(28:03):
thing earlier, and yeah, so this is Gerard's like conflict theory.

Speaker 5 (28:07):
And Peter Teeal actually desire the actually had Girard as
a professor at Stanford's, like they actually knew each other
and kept in touch. So I think, like, you know,
that's really interesting, and like I don't know that much
about memetic desire. I remember kind of coming across and
being like this is sort of interesting. But like if
I remember or like to oversimplified, it's like the idea
that human desire is like not like its own thing.

(28:29):
But we basically desire things because other people desire them,
so we're basically copying other people.

Speaker 6 (28:34):
That's where conflict comes. Conflict arises because we imitate other
people's desires in a world where the things we desire
are fundamentally skids exactly.

Speaker 5 (28:45):
And then basically because we're always imitating other people's desires,
that leads to conflict because we're trying to want up
other people. We're trying to like show that we're the
real thing when we're imitating people, and then we end
up scapegoating, like we end up scapegoating people who were
or our rivals, and then like Gerard thinks, the Christianity,
so he's kind of a Christian, breaks this cycle of

(29:07):
scapegoating because Christianity identifies with the scapegoat christ right, Like
so it's like that's like, so that's the idea anyway.
Like I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that's
like my memory of sort of the idea. I don't
know how that fits in with what fucking Teal is
saying now, but I know it's like a huge influence
on Teal and it could be something fun to read later.

Speaker 6 (29:25):
I think I think it connects maybe with Teal's earlier thinking.
One of the interesting things about this video was just
hearing him do a bit of reflecting on his supporting
Vance and being a very very one of the first
major supporters of Trump. Like this guy's a billionaire, gets
to decide how politics, who gets funding and who doesn't,
and he basically funded the careers of JD. Vance and Trump,

(29:50):
and so he's decided how our political landscape is now.
But he's a But the interviewer asked him, saying, Okay,
you don't really do that sort of thing anymore. He's like, no,
got out of politics because it's incredibly important but incredibly toxic.
He so he pulls out of this incredibly toxic political

(30:10):
zero sum game of funding politicians and reflects that what
he thought he was doing didn't actually work out. He
thought Trump was going to get in there like just
basically destroy the government, break everything down, and maybe free
him all his lovely research areas that have been regulated
out of existence, like AIS and danger of becoming woke,

(30:33):
no more nuclear, no human testing in biotech and medicine,
like all those areas that he feels like the government
has now put off limits. Trump was going to be
like the savior, almost like a QAnon light theory of
Trump coming in being the savior. And then he thinks
that that kind of all went off the rails and
now he's not funding politics anymore. But it's that, Yeah,

(30:56):
I don't know, maybe that conflict theory stuff fed into
his earlier thinking where there's like an artificial scarcity being
created by government regulation and Trump was going to be
his man to get in there and change that conversation, right,
That's all he thinks. He's accomplished at least a little bit.
Is changed the conversation a bit.

Speaker 5 (31:16):
And I think that he also is critical of like
the way that corporations in Silicon Valley just kind of
try to copy each other, copy each other's models. Like
I think that's where like he also brings in the
mimetic desire where he's like, all you guys are just
like copying each other, and you should just do something unique,
whatever the fuck that means. I don't know.

Speaker 4 (31:32):
I've I was confused by he wants deregulation, but the
two examples of deregulation he actually just sounds like the
other New York Times people the abundance abundance thing, because
he wants he wants to get rid of the FDA
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I don't know if you

(31:52):
brought up other examples. I just watched the second half.

Speaker 7 (31:55):
Now, well, PayPal is an attempt at deregulation. He wanted
to get rid of central curve and see a control.

Speaker 6 (32:02):
Yeah, and that's like the Bitcoin ideal.

Speaker 4 (32:04):
Is he using the FDA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
as examples of administrative overstep that he wants to get
rid of? Or do you think he has some specific
project in those areas. What I got out of it.
He's terrified of cancer, and he's terrified of Alzheimer's.

Speaker 5 (32:19):
Exactly bringing those things said, he wants to live forever.

Speaker 4 (32:23):
He's like like actually paranoid, Like you can tell. You
can tell he's sleep He's like laying in bed thinking
about getting Alzheimer's. And Greta Dunberg he's probably forgetting about stuff,
so always forgetting about stuff, and he's becoming paranoid about it.

Speaker 5 (32:39):
Well, in my mind right now, I'm kind of all
of a sudden making this on the fly connection that
I'm realizing because maybe the reason why he worries about
like or he's so obsessed with progress and like the
stagnation is connected to the my metic theory, because he
might have a criticism of capitalism that like all they're
ever doing is copying each other and doing things that
are so to make money, that are like kind of

(33:01):
tried and true. And he's like worried now that no
one's doing anything crazy and new because they just want
to be safe. They want to copy everyone else. And
because he's so obsessed with dying, he's like, we need
to you know, we need to have some radical company,
like a moonshot that's going to do something that's not safe. Right.
So I feel like his criticism of capitalism, if there
is one, is that it's too safe, it's too risk

(33:24):
averse because people just want to make money on things
that are like easy.

Speaker 7 (33:27):
Right.

Speaker 5 (33:28):
And then he's like, so his criticism doesn't come from
like egalitarianism. Probably like us, all of us at least
to some extent, have a criticism of capitalism that's at
least about like the fact that it leads to very
inegalitarian outcomes. But for him, it's like he doesn't really
care about that. He's just like, why aren't people doing
crazy enough stuff? It's like, too it leads to too
much mediocrity, and I don't want to die. So where

(33:50):
are the people working on immortality?

Speaker 7 (33:52):
Right?

Speaker 5 (33:52):
Where are the fucking people working on a martial? Yeah?

Speaker 6 (33:54):
Yeah? And and economic growth is going to slow as
a result.

Speaker 7 (33:59):
There's a moment where the interviewer ask him like, so
do you believe humanity needs to survive?

Speaker 5 (34:05):
And he takes it, Oh, yeah, that was an amazing moment.
That was an amazing moment.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
Is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something you
worry about you. I think you you would prefer the
human race to endure, right, Uh h, you're hesitant.

Speaker 5 (34:19):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (34:21):
I I would, I would. This is a long hesitation.
It's so long hesitation. There's so many questions and plays.
Would the human race survive?

Speaker 2 (34:33):
Uh? Yes, okay, but but uh I I also would.
I I also would like us to to radically solve
these problems and uh and so you know, it's always
I don't know, you know, yeah, transhumanism.

Speaker 7 (34:52):
And then even the interview like intervenes and say, like, man,
that's a very long time to respond to us to
a rather simple.

Speaker 6 (34:58):
Question, long hesitation.

Speaker 7 (34:59):
Yes, yes, but you know, yes, but what do you mean? Yes?
But like yeah, Like he's he's truly a true a
transhumanist in that sense. And it's also connected to his
theology in the sense that he doesn't believe in the
necessity for materiality to transcend, So probably he's already either
unconsciously feeling the decay of his own physical matter, and

(35:22):
and he has this pipe dream about transcendence that is
non material and is also supported by his believing Christianity,
but also that you know, like almost ontological terror of
being non material it's already providing him with the notion
of the Antichrist as a result of his own logic,

(35:43):
you know, like is this ischatological idea where he's he
wants to get rid of materiality to have like these
metaphysical transcendence, but at the same time the terrors bring
him back to dementia and cancer. Like what he truly
feels is not the entry Christ is the mensia and cancer,
but he wants trusting his physical Boddy like the the

(36:03):
like he's unconscious is very is very noticeable in the
way he structured his responses, I.

Speaker 4 (36:08):
Think, which is not Orthodox Christianity, because orthodox Christianity one
of the early heresies I don't recall the name, but
one of the early Gnostic heresies was to say that
Christ could not have been an actual flesh and blood
human being. He had to only have appeared. I think
it's like Arianism or one of those. He could only

(36:29):
have appeared to be flesh and blood because it's impossible
for physical matter to be redeemed. So he he keeps
using Christianity as a as a as a touchstone, but
in fact he's probably more of a Gnostic. A Gnostic
anti humanist rather than a Christian humanist.

Speaker 6 (36:48):
It isn't kind of christianized neo liberalism because yeah, like
the reason his his views are framed this way is
because he's fundamentally like a libertarian or whatever you want
to call it, anarcho capitalist like views like you know,
Atlas Shrugged is about how human flourishing is bogged down

(37:09):
by by bureaucracy, you know, rules, red tape and regulation,
and that you've got to like shrug all that shit off.
And that's basically, you know, the neoclassical neoliberal view market fundamentalism,
like the free market is the fundamental natural state of
like human interchange, right, which is not true. That's that's

(37:33):
part of our confusion here, is that's not true. The
free market requires loads of regulation to exist. And if
you eliminated the government and the bureaucracy and the central
Bank and the treasury and all that stuff, there'd be
no more money, there'd be no more free market. We'd
be we'd be bartering and trading bottle caps like Fallout style.
But he thinks that anything bureaucracy is bad, and he's

(37:57):
christianized that now into like this creative, wonderful Oh, it's
like the Antichrist. It's like paving the way for the Antichrist.
All this, all this bureaucracy leading to I don't know,
either like one world Chinese style Greta Thunberg Scandinavian socialism
right on the one hand, or complete because scarcity. Right,

(38:19):
what's the basic thing about what's the basic neoliberal idea
about scarcity? The best way to distribute limited resources under
conditions of scarcity is a completely free and unregulated market.
That's the basic kernel of neoliberal ideology. And he's just
turned that into a religious view, which is like explicitly religious.
It was implicitly all long religious and it was wrong,

(38:43):
but now he's making it explicitly religious. And anything that
opposes that fundamental kernel of his worldview is like preparation
for the Antichrist. That's like, yeah, you're a servant of
the Antichrist, which is reality. He's the anti Christ, as
the fucking interviewer pointed out.

Speaker 7 (39:02):
Yeah, so in that sense, it's true, communism is the Antichrist.

Speaker 6 (39:06):
Yeah, it's it's an anti socialist view to say the least.

Speaker 4 (39:09):
Yeah, exactly, I want to go out on a limb here,
I don't I don't think. I think he is so
rich and has like so little material need that capitalism
doesn't actually exist for him anymore. All this talk about
markets and neoliberally like this, it's gone from his mind
because he has the afterlife and the Battle of the

(39:32):
Three Dragons. That is the only thing that exists in
his mind now. And if you compare him, like I
did a lot of I put a YouTube video and
I did a lot of reading of like Gilded Age
capitalists and these guys like Henry Ford, the Rockefellers, they're
very uh Calvinists, you know, the Calvinist the vapor thesis,

(39:55):
just like put your head down, I'm not going to talk.
I'm not going to be in the public eye. Yeah,
there's no like afterlife. It's just their attitude is I'm rich.
Fuck unions. They know they know the market, they know
what markets are. They're very involved in like the the
capitalist aspect of the capitalist life. Feel is like he

(40:18):
needs to be an intellectual and an eschatologist. He's like
he's leaving the material world and it's so funny to
have him like have to talk and articulate his views.
And the guy is even even the guy who's his fanboy,
is like, bro, that's a little crazy, and he just
he continues.

Speaker 6 (40:35):
This just made me think, you know, Calvinism is the
view that you're predestined either to go to hell or
to heaven, and that there is nothing in this life
that you can do about it. It's different from Lutherans, right, well,
Lutherans believe, you know, sola fide, right, you just have
to have faith and you'll go to heaven. But Calvinists

(40:55):
are like, you cannot know if you're going to heaven
or hell, and it's all already predetermined anyway, and there's
nothing you can do about it. So great, I can
be a horrific capitalist and treat my workers like shit
and destroy the environment and do all kinds of terrible shit,
and there's nothing I can do to change my fate.
That's why he thinks it's like a deterministic worldview. And

(41:16):
it was interesting that Tel said, no, like, I'm not
a determinist. I believe that there's a lot of room
for human action and choice in history. So he's kind
of pushing back on being identified as a Calvinist, saying, no,
like I believe in free choice.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
Yeah, he straight up says we shouldn't give too much
agency to God because it's our yees.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
If we interpret this as a ultimate causation verse, they
want to say, I'm persunty because God caused me to
do this. God is causing everything, and the Christian view
is anti calvinist. God is not behind history. God is
not causing everything. If you say God's causing everything, God,

(41:58):
you're scapegoing God.

Speaker 1 (41:59):
But God, but God is behind Jesus Christ entering history
because God was not going to leave us in a stagnationist,
decadent Roman empire. Right, so at some point, at some point,
at some point, God is going to step in. I
am not I'm not I am not that Calvinist and
that's not a passinism though, that's just Christianity.

Speaker 6 (42:22):
Yeah, Like there's no God standing behind history. Like but
then then this was the smart kind of move that
the interviewer did, was that, but but he sent But
God is responsible for putting Christ into history, like he
placed Christ there. So the fact that you're saying it's
all about like human choice and what you're doing it
pallanteer to prevent the coming of the Antichrist, and that

(42:44):
there's no God in history I mean, this is a
silly religious like one one version of Christianity versus another.
But I thought it was interesting anyway to say. But
you're saying there's no God behind any of this, but
Christ and the Antichrist seemed pretty connected to a decision
that God has made.

Speaker 7 (43:02):
So this is where I got a little bit like
the pervert touch. On his speech. He made an antargeonism
between low tax socialism that he said he was unsustainable
because of Obama and consumer capitalism. So in his mind,
in his libertarian mind, what he wants what he implied
negatively between the opposition of low tax socialism being unsustainable

(43:25):
and consumer capitalism also being unsustainable. In his mind, what
he wants, it's a high savings capitalism, you know, is
a self restraining capitalism system. Because he wants he wants
to go either back to a fieldal order where very
Atlas Shruggi, only the very few visionary men will make

(43:50):
the choices of where to invest all our resources. And
he said the going to Mars in twenty twenty four
was a political project, you know, like it's it's almost
like he's saying, like this, these visionary men have to
take the rein on on top of the others and
impose their will upon others because the other two options

(44:10):
are wrong. Free market is wrong because we don't know
how to do. Consumer capitalism is unsustainable, and low tax
socialism is also unsustainable. He doesn't understand socialism is very clear,
but his antagonism implies that what he wants negatives. Yeah,
what what he implies negatively as a utopia is the
sense of self restraining capitalism, which is which is always

(44:34):
ridiculous because capitalism is at the same is, at the
same spot a system where you're supposed to desire everything
and aspire to to have everything, but at the same time,
a good capitalist is always saving for the future.

Speaker 6 (44:47):
You know, Like he wants low tax capitalism. If you
do the math on what he said, he wants low
tax capitalism, correct, he thinks he thinks low tax, low
tax socialism under Obama. I prefer that to high tax socialism, obviously,
he says, but you know, eventually socialism leads to high taxes.
That's like what he thinks socialism does is you just

(45:10):
have to tax everything out of existence, which is to say,
you know, yeah, low tax. And he doesn't like consumer
capitalism either because consumer capitalism implies borrowing. Right, you're a
capitalist and you're borrowing. No, he thinks capitalists create value only.
Value only comes from capitalists in the free market doing

(45:31):
things outside in the private sphere, and all government is
just leading to socialism and high taxes. It's a very
simplistic worldview that he's hung all these little old bells
and whistles onto and oh atlas shrug doo, the antichrist
ooh cryogenic freezing, Like why don't we get back to that?
That was so great?

Speaker 5 (45:51):
Hey, it's like what again forever? That's the thing that's
the theme here living.

Speaker 6 (45:56):
If you think, yeah, if you think for two seconds
about cryogenics, that's just kicking the bar all down the road,
because oh yeah, the future is going to figure out
how to bring us back to life and cure the
diseases that were supposedly freezing ourselves in the first place
to avoid that doesn't real cancer, but oh yeah, probably
that's it. So I'm going to freeze myself and let
the future deal with that problem. So that's a non solution.

(46:19):
And to him, AI, downloading your brain is a non
solution because I want to keep my body.

Speaker 7 (46:24):
Can I say one good thing about him. I have
one good thing to say about him because of his
material conditions. And it wouldn't be here if I didn't
use that sentence at least once. It's got to drink
deal if it wasn't because of his material conditions and
agreeing with pills as capitalism doesn't exist for him, you know,
like he already has all his material needs probably solved,
unless he has cancer in alzheimer. That will explain a

(46:47):
lot about his speeches as well. But let's suppose he
already has no worries about anything. He already has everything
that he needs. All his material needs are fulfilled, so
he can pipe dream about all this bullshit. He became
a very long term thing, which I think it's conditioned
to scarcity mentality. He doesn't have scarcity mentality because he
said I invent I invested in JD. Vans and in

(47:09):
Trump in twenty sixteen, and he said in twenty sixteen
the probability of of Trump winning was fifty to fifty.
But he said, maybe if I invested him in twenty sixteen,
we can change something about the direction of politics for
twenty twenty five. And you know, only only having those
material conditions that allow you to have a billion dollars

(47:32):
and place a bet under a ten year spam. It's
already like a deservant of price to say to say
something at least, so.

Speaker 4 (47:41):
He is a pervert. He's a anti anti Calvinist. He
hates his body. You know, if there's if there is
a billionaire who's likely to have like an underground bunker
filled with babies harvested for adrina chrome, it is this guy.

Speaker 5 (47:57):
It is this doesn't he does he harvest like his
like young people's blood and like, you know, there's that
thing where.

Speaker 7 (48:03):
Well he's proel, so he's he's already pro organ traffic.

Speaker 5 (48:07):
Is he prois reel.

Speaker 4 (48:10):
I don't know if it's a meme that he has
blood boys, but I have I have heard it said,
it's been alleged.

Speaker 6 (48:16):
I think Palenteer is happy to do business with Israel.

Speaker 4 (48:20):
Like you're saying that he's a pervert. His pervert structure,
in contrast to other billionaires who do things because they
want to self aggrandize, or because they want power, or
because they're just like selfish assholes, he kind of doesn't
have that. He's kind of like left the register of

(48:42):
normal concerns and he's at a level of neuroses where
he's like a cosmic entity. His perversion is that he's
not as much of a cosmic entity as he as
he wishes he was. And he's like extremely focused on
the last he is saruman.

Speaker 5 (49:00):
This is Yeah, he's like he wants to be a
transhuman abomination. He wants to be a transhuman amount.

Speaker 7 (49:07):
There's there's a sentence from Freud that for me, it's
always key to identifying perverse personalities, which is I recognize
the existence of laws, but they don't apply to me. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (49:18):
It's like it's like he's refusing you can he can
do anything he wants. And this is he's like reading
about the or writing and reading and thinking constantly about
the end of the world. He has unlimited resources, but
his perversion is to not enjoy anything.

Speaker 6 (49:35):
And he's got he thinks this deep clever argument about
stagnation and the anti Christ and this like new form
of evil that's like, yeah, one world government regulating technology
out of existence and guaranteeing stagnation for all time. But
he's just a classic doctor evil figure. Like there's people

(49:55):
outside of Palenteer protesting him. He's making technologies that help
police states and military states do what they do. He's
literally doing the most evil shit you can imagine, and
he thinks he's saving the world. He thinks he I
don't know what he thinks. I like him saving a
small chunk of the world anyway, saving humanity in the abstract,

(50:19):
not human beings as we saw from the interview, Do
you think humanity should survive?

Speaker 7 (50:24):
Well?

Speaker 6 (50:26):
No, Like he wants to save humanity by making it immortal,
but he doesn't care about human beings as they exist
separate from him.

Speaker 7 (50:35):
It's insane that he's libertarian and he believes we don't
live in a libertarian society, but he already owns a
president and a vice president. He's like, good, Like, what
else do you want to buy? Like, really, what power
do you think American politics have all regulating companies. If
you are literally funding politicians for the past ten years

(50:57):
and you're already placing them into office, what do you
believe in libertarian society will look like?

Speaker 5 (51:02):
Idiot?

Speaker 6 (51:03):
Yeah, you can shape the most powerful empire in the
world with money, and yet we're not neoliberal enough for
this fucking guy.

Speaker 7 (51:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (51:13):
No, he wants to buy life he wants to buy.

Speaker 7 (51:17):
Everything that is into air, everything that is sacred, that's profane.
I swear about that. That sentence is like the like
what you say that the pernicle, like the roots of
transhumanism in the sense of how capital turns everything into merchandises.
I swear to God, in this guy's mind, utopia will
be something like I can you offer you ten million

(51:40):
dollars for your body, and you will disappear and your
consciousness will be transferred to someone else, and ninety nine
of the population of the world will say, yes, give
me ten million dollars, fuck my body. Like this is
what utopia looks like for Peter Tiel, like the full mercantilization,
Like even quantum clouds will be sellable under his idea
of a perfect society.

Speaker 5 (52:00):
I do love it. I do love it when you
see people that are like stereotypes, like living stereotypes, and
I just feel like Peter Tale watching it. It's just
like the most delightfully perfect billionaire super villain stereotype that
exists in real life, and you look at them and
you're like wow, Like it's amazing that you're real and
you're not like in some superhero movie.

Speaker 7 (52:22):
How powerful they are, they are and who they're connected to,
and that's insane, you know, connecting to Pills. Last video
on the channel, which is by the way, fucking amazing,
brilliant and everybody should fucking see it. I'm going to
do a live review on the video on Monday. But
like this notion of how much capital interest shapes our
worldview and we are not even aware, like the sense

(52:42):
that you have an even to be critical about your
ability to be critical about it because your knowledge of
the tools that you have to be critical about your
worldview are also in a way pre shaped by what
you can or cannot see about the reality of society.
Like we I don't think we can even understand the
amount of reach these guy has on all our worldview.

Speaker 4 (53:04):
It's a it's you can you can see from his concerns,
his neuroses, his what he's paranoid about. It's just a
complete world of abstraction. And he's not He's not any happier, right,
But just like, oh, the three dragons of Europe are
sharia law, China and environmentalism, Like that's what's at stake, Yeah, current.

Speaker 6 (53:25):
The same, the same thing that Frederick Jameson does with postmodernism,
we need to do with this guy's ideology as well,
which is to see how it is a product of
the economic configuration, the mode of production, and the specific
woes of our era, not just generally two hundred years
of capitalism, but like, like what's happening since the seventies

(53:46):
that he thinks he's got all figured out what he
really doesn't. It's weird, but all all this stuff is funny,
but coming from this guy, with having being one of
the wealthiest guys in the world, having the in lewence
he does, basically being able to found a presidency, found
a new party within the Republican Party, and fund an ideology.

(54:11):
Remember how involved he was all with like Jarvin and
all them. Like, it's scary that this guy's out here
saying this stuff, even though it's kind of objectively.

Speaker 5 (54:21):
It's an interesting alliance though on the right that this
guy is kind of influencing JD. Vance. And you know,
maybe this is also a way in which I feel
like the Right is just so much better at building alliances,
because I mean, Peter Teel is like, like I said,
he wants trans human abominations. He's also like gay. Right,
It's like it's like and this guy's like a bit

(54:42):
like built somehow built an alliance with like Catholic you know, JD. Vance.
It's just interesting to me.

Speaker 6 (54:50):
Oh yeah, interesting material for psychoanalysis, that's for sure. I
got to read Bruce Fink and stuff and try to
figure out what's going on.

Speaker 5 (54:58):
I would love to do Bruce.

Speaker 4 (55:00):
I thought, I thought this would be boring, like if
Zuckerberg were doing this, it would be totally boring or Bezos.
But this is a this is a madman, this is
a this is the Faustian, the guy who made the
Faustian bargain. And we're just seeing now, we're seeing the
end of the story doctor Faustus. Yeah, doctor Fausta's last moments.

Speaker 6 (55:22):
And he's got Mephistopheles coming after him.

Speaker 4 (55:25):
We got through eschatology, we got through the different interpretations
of revelation, we got through his various forms of mysticism.
But that's a good place to lock her up, I think.

Speaker 5 (55:37):
Yeah, And you know those who are there's there's a
video of this. You can see him at a cottage
right now. So I'm excited to get back out there.

Speaker 6 (55:44):
And yeah, he's got his Charles Manson LSD hippie cult
to get back to because remember they won in the
seventies and they're here in Canada. Yeah, exactly, he's there
in Queen's Park.

Speaker 4 (55:57):
Now, well if he gets if he gets a drone striked,
then we'll we'll know where it came from.

Speaker 5 (56:04):
Also, if people want to know more about AI and
like Palenteer actually just quick shout out. I think Friend
of the Show or like We're in Hell has a
great video that came out called AI Weapons and it's
all about like does a deep dive into Peter Tiel?

Speaker 4 (56:19):
Is that a YouTube?

Speaker 5 (56:20):
Yeah, a YouTube video. Yeah, We're in Hell is a
YouTube channel.

Speaker 4 (56:23):
Epoch Philosophy also made one that I didn't finish, but
it was on Palenteer. Really good editing, really good editing.

Speaker 5 (56:32):
Nice stuff out there.

Speaker 6 (56:34):
If you want more, there's good stuff out there from
a non proselitizing content creators.

Speaker 4 (56:42):
So next one, next one we're going to have to
get back into. I think we're going to look at psychoanalysis, but.

Speaker 5 (56:48):
Maybe we'll be down for psychoanalysis. Also rein Asia art
if you guys want to do it, if you want
to keep this theme going, I'd be curious to read you,
breen Asia.

Speaker 6 (56:54):
I mean, it came up twice in two completely different
contexts today. That can't be a coincidence. That's is that
that's got to.

Speaker 5 (57:01):
Be a psychonel adjacent Also, it's adjacent.

Speaker 9 (57:04):
He's a polarizing figure, though I can already tell just
from our brief explanations of his uh, that can tell yeah,
that that can lend itself to some pretty right wing shit.

Speaker 6 (57:16):
Too, exactly, which which makes it interesting, Yes, exactly.

Speaker 4 (57:21):
Well, this fan boying, I don't know if you want
to call him a boot licker, this boot licker interview
called Peter Thiel not just a billionaire but one of
the most important right wing thinkers of the age.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Despite the slight handicap of being a billionaire, there's a
good case that he's the most influential right wing intellectual
of the last twenty years.

Speaker 4 (57:41):
Amazing, all right, amazing, cheers, guys, have fun, Victor everyone else,
thank you, Thank you very much, guys.

Speaker 5 (57:47):
Later, all right,