Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
All right, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is David
Patrick Carey with Church of the Eternal Logos, and today
we're going to be reviewing, deconstructing, and diving into a
recent interview by tech oligarch Peter Teel. He's come up
in multiple previous streams we've discussed regarding transhumanism, technological advance AI,
(00:40):
and our last conversation with Peter around or about Peter
Teal was actually an interview he did with the Hoover Institute,
the conservative think tank over at Stanford University, and in it,
Teal presents himself as a Christian. He actually identifies as
a Christian, and towards the very end of that interview
he talks about his worries of the anti Christ, obviously
(01:05):
a topic of discussion common here on this YouTube channel,
but generally speaking right now regarding the state of the
world and the state of technology. Generally speaking now, Peter
Thiel has some very interesting contradictions despite claiming to be
a Christian and having sort of Catholic sentiments, it appears
(01:27):
he may have been raised Catholic. From my understanding, he's
a big fan of Renee Gerrard One of the traditionalist school,
sort of perennialists, and was really into sort of the
mimetic theory that he puts forth. So despite claiming to
be a Christian, you know, he is an openly homosexual man.
(01:48):
And this got exposed in two thousand and seven through
a Gawker, that website that used to exist sort of
sensational news outlet, and they outed Peter against his wishes
in two thousand and seven that he was a homosexual man.
Peter Teal was so upset about this fact that he
(02:09):
funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker, which escently shut the
website out of business. And so there's a lot of
interesting internal contradictions in Peter Thiel's worldview. For example, he
has notoriously been a sort of conservative libertarian, you know,
speaking to the ills of the woke culture of the
(02:31):
progressive left, the stagnation of true novelty and development, and
how he argues democracies are a place where they actually
curtail and limit individual and personal freedom, and that they
are essentially a failure. Things that, okay, we'd probably agree
with all of that. However, as somebody who's so focused
on American liberty. His company that he funded, Pallanteer, again
(02:56):
named after the Seeing Stones and the Lord of the Rings,
is also the most mass surveilling tech company that we
can actually imagine. And so at the same time he's
talking about American liberty, he's actually spearheading the I mean,
I've talked about it before. Palenteer is a very very
intimate relationship with the IDF, Shinbet, the Masad and the
(03:21):
Israel government generally speaking, and much of the attacks in Gaza,
the West Bank, even Iran, these are being backed by Palenteer.
We know Palenteer has been on the side of Ukraine
testing out new weapon weaponry and automated systems. So Pallenteers
seems to be on the wrong side of many of
the issues that we discussed on the Channel, and especially
(03:44):
threats to human life, again central point being the Ukraine War.
What what the genocide that Israel is committing And so
how ironic that he's talking about freedom and yet one
of the most iconic companies that he's associated with is
notoriously symbolic for mass surveillance and the curtailing of all
(04:06):
American liberty. So he has this weird theory and We're
going to watch this whole interview today, and I put
together a quick little overview of like a personality profile
of Peter Teel, And essentially we're exposing today Peter tel
because his worldview and this idea, I've seen Christians actually
begin to support him. Oh look, we got Peter Teel
(04:28):
on our side. He's Christian. He's worried about the Antichrist.
But if you actually listen to what he's saying, what
does he believe the Antichrist is? Well, he believes he
has a theory of stagnation. He's been talking about this
essentially since two thousand and eight, and his theory is
that Western civilization, America specifically, has experienced a technological advanced stagnation,
(04:50):
a stagnation really in regards to all innovation and novelty.
This conclude art, engineering, technology, science, all these different things.
And he claims that he sort of began to come
to this perspective at the turn of the last century,
so into early two thousands, late nineties, and he believes
(05:10):
that the status quo, the woke left liberal democracies generally speaking,
are leading towards this stagnation, and this therefore threatens an
event that he's very much supportive of is the technological singularity.
So for him, stagnation is the Antichrist. Right when you
(05:31):
start listening to him talking about the Antichrist and the
interview that we're going to be looking at today, it's
actually like a liberal journalist, but he offers more pushback
to Peter Tiel than I've seen in about any other interview,
and at one point talking about AI, talking about the
companies he invests in and projects like life extension and
transhumanism that peel Teal I wouldn't say is theological. I
(05:54):
mean in a way, he is, absolutely, but it's not
an obsessive religion or religious expectation for transcendence like some
of the transhumanists. And so he's kind of critique transhumanism,
but he is still part and parcel of an interplanetary species,
unlimited life expan transhumanism. And the liberal journalist actually asked
(06:15):
him do you think that humanity should continue to exist?
And he pauses for like five six seconds before answering,
which shows you how could someone who identifies as Christian
actually have to contemplate whether or not the biological species
of Homo sapiens should actually be able be able to
(06:35):
persist in the future. This is clearly coming from someone
who's a technocrat and a transhumanist who has a totally
ulterior worldview. And so when he's talking about the end
times and he's talking about the Antichrist, at one point,
the interviewer pushes him and said, well, don't you think
that your company's like Palanteer and the AI companies that
(06:55):
you've invested in. Don't you think that the Antichrist would
find these things benefit something that I've talked about at
nauseum on this YouTube channel. And he's like, well, well,
obviously I don't. I don't think that's the case. I
don't I don't think. You know, he stutters all the time,
you know. I wish maybe he's autistic or something. I'm
not sure, but it is difficult to hear him like
(07:18):
express a thought because he stutters so much. But his
rebuttal is well, well, well, well, well obviously I don't.
I don't think that that's what I'm doing. And it's like, okay,
so this whole thing, so he doesn't. He talks about
the threats of AI and how this could essentially enslave
the human population in the planet. Yet he's really obsessed
(07:42):
with allowing these things to move forward so that we
can curtail the stagnation that we currently reside in. And
yet he believes that these have nothing to do with
his threat, or what he talks about as a worrying
threat of the Antichrist that he views in Christian theological terms.
And then when you really put what his antichrist is
(08:02):
as a figure that essentially would represent it, I mean,
it's almost like some radical leftists who controlled, you know,
a global liberal democracy or something, and it's like, what, No, No,
that is not the Antichrist he imagines. I mean the
example he uses is Greta Thunberg. What if you're talking
(08:25):
about like global power threats to human freedom, mass surveillance,
you know, AI documenting and controlling every aspect, and your
example of the problems in the eels of Western civilization
is Greta Thunberg. I mean, obviously I'm not a Greta fan,
but she is insignificant to the orchestration of Western civilization. Yeah,
(08:51):
she's another autist, probably like Peter Teel, who's obsessed with
climate change narrative and has been indoctrinated into it by
your father and her mother. Okay, she's pretty negligible. I
mean she was what on a flotilla on a ship
outside Israel, advocating for Palestine, and and good for her.
I mean that's an issue. I guess we find a
(09:13):
combatible between us two. But I mean Greta Thurnberg, this
is who this and he mentions her multiple times in
the interview. It's like Peter Tiel is worried that the
world leader is gonna be like Greta Thurnberg, and therefore
we're going to have this continued stagnation in the name
of political correctness and WoT woke culture. And it's like, no, dude,
it's it's the companies that you're funding, it's the it's
(09:37):
the things that you're doing that are way more indicative
from an orthodox perspective, like what actually would be a
threat of the Antichrist. And so I put this little
document together here that is hitting again. It just provides
a little bit and overview. Obviously, he's a he's a
(09:57):
German immigrant, he was his family moved as an infant.
He got a BA in philosophy at Stanford, went to
law school at Stanford, and then of course he's part
of the PayPal mafia. We've discussed this. I did a
whole stream on the background of Elon Musk and so
eventually they sell it for one point five billion to eBay.
(10:19):
And this is what then creates these multi millionaire PayPal
mafias that then invested their money and funded companies like YouTube, LinkedIn,
Tesla paland Heer and so Palenteer in particular. And I
actually have something to show you guys, because Peter Thiel
is getting ready to start a new endeavor, which is
an all digital bank for your crypto and your digital wallet.
(10:41):
And we're gonna come back to it in a second,
because he's also appealing back to the Tolkien universe. It's
funny how like Palenteer are the seeing stones in the
Lord of the Rings. It's funny how he keeps he's
like obsessively using the Tolkien mythology for his companies, which
are clearly going to be used by an authoritative, authoritarian figure.
(11:04):
And so you know one of the things that that
teal talks about that well it'll come up. But he's
actually like not big on liberal democracies, which we could
absolutely agree with him on, and he's actually given lip
service to some type of monarchy. And we've talked about
Curtis Jarvin and some of his ideas that's going to
come up in here. But you know, it's just the
(11:26):
the blind spot of Peter Teel is so astounding that
he doesn't see the companies he's investing in and doesn't
even and in the same breath talking about American liberty,
will not then criticize what Palenteer is doing, or again,
the targets like the IDF was bragging I read an
article is bragging about how Pallenteer was a force multiplier
(11:49):
because it allowed them to identify hamas targets better. Well,
you know how many hundreds of thousands of civilians have
been killed by the IDF and Pallenteer is the one
selecting their targets. So that's wonderful, that's wonderful. I'd be
so proud. And so it's named after, as I said,
(12:11):
the seeing Stones, Pallentteer Technology. It's a big data analytics
company again and who are their biggest clients. So Peter
Thiel is this big critic of liberal democracies, woke culture,
the federal government, and trench bureaucracies, and then who's Palenteer's
biggest clients? The CIA, the FBI, you know, it says ice,
US military, but basically it plays a center role in
(12:35):
mass surveillance, intelligence, law enforcement, and quote unquote predictive analytics,
so they track you know. I watched the CEO one
time of Palenteer talk about how they have a digital
profile on everybody in the United States. I mean this
was specifically on the United States. I'm sure most people
who access the Internet, but at least in the United States,
(12:56):
Palenteer has a profile on you. The ads that you're
getting all these analytics are being purchased from somebody, and
Palenteers the one with the government contracts that allows them
to monitor everything you do digitally and they have the
profile on you. So just FYI, and so why is
(13:19):
Pollunteer so controversial? One of its secret and powerful Considered
one of the most secretive and powerful tech firms. It's
criticized for civil libertarians, which ironically Peter Thiel describes himself
as a conservative libertarian interesting and lauded by national security
hawks and warmongers as a backbone of modern counter terrorism
(13:40):
and defense intelligence. I've yet to see exactly how efficacious
these predictive abilities of palenteers to stop crime. But anyways,
and then he's part of the fund, the Founder's Fund.
It's a venture capital firm, and they are behind Facebook, SpaceX, Airbnb,
Stripe and and and industries which are going to come
(14:01):
back in just a moment. They are an autonomous military
defense system. And this is who the CEO of this company,
which is what's his name, uh, Palmer Lucky. Palmer Lucky
is an he's like this kind of hippie dude, who's
actually the CEO of this AI military defense company, Anderill.
(14:29):
And he is who Peter Thiel is getting ready to
go into work with and partner for creating a new
digital bank. So oh that's great. The founder of Pallantier
who gets all the government contracts, and then the founder
of Anderil, who makes all the autonomous weaponry for the
US military. They're going to control your bank account, your
in your crypto wallet. What could go wrong? And so
(14:56):
of course mithral Capital. This is how he knows, you know, jd. Vance,
vice president of the Trump administration, and that is a
growth stage investment fund, kind of an intermediary between venture
capitalists and private equity. And then he has again other
industries he's invest in. But like I said, he claims
to be a libertarian or now a post libertarian, so
(15:17):
he's big on free markets, anti globalism, anti globalism, and
personal liberty. But as a since his turn to what
he's described as he's a post libertarian. Now he's a
reactionary futurist, as he's described, and he's criticized democracy as
incompatible with technological progress. Now I wouldn't say it's incompatible
(15:39):
with technological progress, but I would say it's incompatible with
human liberty and human freedom. And he said I no
longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. I would
totally agree with that. I think it in the idea
that we can actually have say and control of our
political destiny in various these Western democratic nations. I mean,
(15:59):
that's that has been proven to be false, whether it
be the nationalist populist movements in Europe or obviously that
everything that's happened in the US is we're run by
a deep state, And doesn't matter how many people you
vote for APAC and the entrenched lobbyist groups, they're gonna
ultimately have sway over who does what. It doesn't matter
who you vote for So democracy in a sense is
(16:22):
coming to an end. Like young people, I would say
millennials and gen Zers are way less thrilled about the
expansion of democracy in the Middle East, you know, like
the Bush administration, that rhetoric isn't gonna sell much. In fact,
Peel A. Teal, I keep calling him Peel Teal. Peter
Teal has even give lip service to in the promotion
(16:45):
of monarchy, which I'm gonna highlight in just a second.
So obviously he's been a supporter of Donald Trump, and
even in the interview that we listened to, he's more
a supporter of Donald Trump. Not so much that you know,
some of the nationalist policies Teal is in favor of,
but essentially the tech oligarchs have made an agreement that
if if they're going to change the status quo of
(17:06):
Silicon Valley and kind of their industries, Trump is the
only option. He literally essentially says this in the interview.
And you know he's funded conservative candidates like Blake Masters
and JD. Vance. His big things right now is the
threat of China, wealk capitalism and Silicon Valley's progressive monoculture. Now,
(17:30):
as I said, he is very very much a supporter
of Israel, and Pallentteer is one of their biggest clients
outside of the US government and our intelligence agencies. Is
Israel I mean, Pallanteer is totally embedded and to the
Israel Israeli military and how exactly they go about some
of their combat missions and finding which targets, targets they're
(17:53):
going to terminate, which, as we've seen, has been actually
a significant amount of civilians. So whether that's deliberate, you
would think it would be if Pallanteers, you know, touting
all of the technological advance that they have. So anyways, religiously,
he does identify as Christian, and he's been doing this
(18:13):
more recently in the last three to four years. As
I said the Hoover Institute interview we covered before, Teal
explicitly described himself as a Christian. And I've never heard
him actually face the fact that how do you deal
with Christianity being your professed religious identity and you're almost
(18:34):
you're also a homosexual. I'm just curious how exactly he
squares that circle in his own mind. I've never heard
anybody ask him about that. But he claims to be
again influenced by Renee Girard in his mimetic Desire deeply Shaped,
heals views on competition, violence, human nature, and then you know,
(18:59):
his Christianity is obviously at odds with his transhumanist desires. Now,
I wouldn't say he is one of the most enthusiastic
members of the transhumanist community. He's certainly part of the community.
I mean, even in the interview we're getting ready to
go over here in just a few minutes, he is
specifically talking in favor of transhumanism, life extension or full
(19:24):
human integration with technology. And how exactly does that work
with somebody who's professing that were made in the image
of God. I'm very curious. And that's where this Christianity
it almost feels like it's a form of rhetoric. We've
talked about this with the Elon Musk. They're like the
ultimate gas lighters. They say one thing and do the
(19:47):
exact opposite, or do one thing and then say the
exact ops either way, It's like Elon Musk is totally
gaslighting us in so many different circumstances. I did a
whole stream covering all these different circule ccumstances and Enteel
in some way does the same thing because he uses
the rhetoric of Christian eschatology and yet then claims that
(20:09):
all the enterprises he's building have nothing to do with it.
The Antichrist is just like some Luodite woke, you know,
trans person who controls like a world government or something.
It's like, no, no, that's not and even talks about
like orthodox Christianity in our interview today that would be
going over And so for him, the Christian rhetoric of
(20:30):
the end times is just a way to describe something
that would prevent the technological singularity. I haven't heard him
say these words, but I'm gonna phrase it the way
that I interpret what he says. Essentially, the singularity is
for him the second coming of Christ. And this is
essentially the paradigm in the worldview of what's called Christian transhumanism.
(20:55):
It's a very small, insignificant group actually there I think
they're located. The head of it is in Tennessee. But
it's a group of these progressive, non denominational Christians who
think that by appealing to science and technological advance it
somehow makes them like more in tune and intellectually sophisticated
(21:17):
with their Christian faith, and their platform is that transhumanism
and full transhuman integration into eternal life is the point
of Christian salvation, and that science are gifts of grace
from Christ so that we can then become like Him.
And this is essentially Christian transhumanism. And it sounds like
(21:39):
Teel is something of this nature, although he doesn't speak
in those terms. He speaks as if he's somehow a
more traditionally minded Christian, even though everything you hear him
advocate totally conflates with that being the case. And so
because technological advance for him fights the forces of evil,
(22:00):
he then views himself and Pallunteer and all the AI
and the tech companies he invests in as fighting the
forces of evil, and therefore they cannot be contributing to
the Antichrist. That's essentially his opinion. And again it's so
ironic that the same liberal democracies that he's criticizing are
the ones that are then the contracts the biggest contractors
(22:20):
with Pallentteer. Again, weird contradiction there, professing to be a
homosexual or professing to be a Christian and living as
a homosexual interesting contradiction there, especially when you're noted. I
mean since his undergraduate times he was known for conservative
libertarian political causes. This was before maybe he was homosexual,
(22:42):
or certainly he was outed by Gawker about being one.
So again, much of him is a contradiction. And when
you hear him talk about Christianity, you wonder if he's
like internally convicted and is conflicted with his sexual orientation
and then the things that he says because they seem
(23:03):
so out of whack sometimes. But you know, he's funded
Aubrey De Gray and the Methuselah in a foundation. This
is Aubrey De Gray's been on Joe Rogan multiple times.
He's a researcher on life extension. And even though he
calls AI the most anti Christian technology, this is Peter Thiel.
(23:26):
He literally invests in it and regarding almost most of
his most of his companies are using it. So again,
what it's just like Elon Musk, like giving lip service
to conservatives in Christianity and then wearing his Halloween costume
called the Devil's Advocate or yeah, it's like you know what, what,
(23:47):
it's just a total contradiction. I almost think they're like
gas lating or something. So, you know, here's a little
bit about the gawker laws. So I'm not going to
get into these details. I want to dive into the
actual interview that we're going to discuss today. But here
(24:07):
is in twenty nineteen, says I no longer believe that
freedom and democracy are compatible. True, and then he endorsed
monarchism as potentially superior to democracy. Well, hey, that's an
orthodox Christian position. I'm all for that. I believe that
monarchy is a superior position. And so he's mentioned about
again Mensius Moldbug Curtis Jarvin in regards to his endorsement
(24:30):
of monarchism, and he funded the Sea Steading Institute, which
seeks to build sovereign floating cities immune from state regulation.
So he's been accused of being anti democratic, elitists, technocratically authoritarian.
His critics have said that he's trying to undermine liberal
(24:52):
democratic institutions through neo feudal ideas and such of that.
I had a little bit section here in regard to
Peter Teel or Pallateer's role in Israel and everything that
they're doing so software, especially Gotham and foundry and meta
(25:14):
constellation has been used for predictive policing, immigration and customs enforcement,
border surveillance, facial recognition and what I told you guys,
And in fact, we could pull the clip up if
you wanted that. When jd Vance was on the latest
or his latest appearance on theo Bahn, the comedian THEO
is actually giving legitimate criticisms of Palateer and asked jd
(25:36):
Vance what his thoughts were, and he immediately says, well,
I think it's going to be a great technology to
prevent illegal immigrants from coming here. And I said this
before these things even came into the news that jd
Vance's association with Peter Thiel makes him the perfect trojan
horse for bringing forth the utilization of these digital technologies
(25:58):
and AI and mass surveillance for predictive policing policies in
the name of conservative political policies, So in the name
of making sure illegals aren't here, are making sure illegals
can't work as undocumented workers, we needed to go ahead
and allow Paalaentteer to mass surveil everything. I mean, that
is jd Vance's essential position. And so it's something to
(26:21):
keep an eye out for domestic international counter terrorism and
again been Palenteer's connections to Israel. I think it's a
little concerning that if there was a false flag operation
inside the domestic United States, and Pallanteer was the basis
for us saying who somebody was working with or affiliated with,
(26:43):
it's not a stretch of the imagination to imagine that
there might be a false flag potentially done by Israel
for the benefit of Israel in the United States and
the military industrial complex to furthering conflict in the Middle East,
which would make Palateer more and more money. You could
get more and more contracts. Uh, you know that doesn't
(27:04):
seem an impossibility to me. Tracking pandemic and vaccine logistics pallunteers,
So get your vax card, guys. Palunteer is going to
be making sure that they can give you access to
your daily necessities. Oh you're you're not you're not. Jab
Pallenteer says, you can't buy groceries today. Oh in your
(27:24):
crypto that's in Teal's new crypto bank digital bank. Oh yeah,
you've you've said naughty things online. Uh, you know, you
criticize him for being a homosexual, which he put Gawker
out of business for UH military targeting, battlefield intelligence. That's
what the IDF touts about Pollunteer and how they've been
(27:48):
using it corporate espionage, financial fraud detections, that type of stuff,
and so their role in the Ukraine conflict. UH, they've
had a strong Palenteers had a strong military relation and
ship with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense since twenty twenty. Again,
same thing, target identification, artillery and drone coordination, satellite imaging, interpretation, logistics,
(28:10):
and troop movement. Again, how interesting that we have somebody
like JD Vance who's, oh, I'm against the Ukraine War,
I'm a against us getting involved in wars, although he's
still kind of warmongers in regards to Iran. And yet
the companies and the peoples that he's associated with in
the circles that he moves in, such as Palenteer, are
(28:31):
literally directly involved in the Ukraine Russian conflict. And the
idea that one they're not utilizing new techniques, new research
techniques and developments that they've come to on the battlefield
to see how effective they are, Like, don't you guys
see how the Palenteer is the establishment? You know if Trump,
(28:52):
if you want to use this, I mean, Trump's part
of the establishment at this point. But Trump was anti Ukraine, right,
anti Ukraine in Russian War. He's gonna he's gonna stop
it in the first couple of days. Well it hasn't stopped.
And the irony is is jd Vance and Teal have
direct connections, you know, Teal in particular to Palaneer, who
(29:14):
then is literally the backbone of the Ukraine military operations
like what we do in here. What of course, very
very close ties, as I said, outside the US military
industrial complex. Israel is the biggest contractor of Palenteer, and
so they have multiple offices in Israel is what I found.
(29:36):
And they've worked closely with the IDF, Massage and BET
and Israeli border control and national security agencies, Modern tem Palestinians,
predictive analytics and GAZA. And again they've touted Pallenteer as
a force multiplier for the Israelis. And what has Pallenteer
(29:57):
what do we know that they've done, Oh, surveillance and
okccupied population, civilian targeting, risk and gods in the West Bank. Wow,
So this predictive crime programming, you know, predictive stopping of
crime before it ever happens. Their technology is actually going
out and literally targeting civilians and gods on the West Bank. Wow.
(30:20):
What a great company, Very very interesting and so last
thing I want to show you, though, is just a
little bit of an overview in regards to his theological
stuff and how we would see it as Orthodox Christians,
because I want this frame to be in mind as
we move through the interview. The interview is only a
little over an hour. I'm sure we'll be stopping and
discussing things multiple times, but this is how we as
(30:44):
Orthodox Christians kind of see. These are just general outlines
regarding eschatology. In the view of history, the world has
fallen but redeemable through Christ. Obviously, human will, our free will,
must be synergized with God's will. That's the goal of
every Christian. The Church is the ark of salvation. It's
again resisting the spirit of the world and calling humanity
(31:06):
to repentance. Obviously, Orthodox Christianity being the only one that
still isn't fully corrupted. Not that there aren't attempts and
influences within the church, but what church as resisting the
spirit of the world more than the Orthodox Church. The
Antichrist is not only a future person, which we absolutely believe,
but is also a general spirit that operates now in
(31:28):
systems of technocratic control, apostasy, and dehumanization, all of which
I would argue the things that feel promotes are actually
doing so. Our eschological vision includes the rise of a
global regime of deceit, where truth is replaced with illusions
and man has offered false immortality without God. I eat
(31:48):
transhumanism perfect. Okay, let's look at Teals and an Orthodox
perspective on Teal in some of his companies. So we
believe man is made in the image of God. Orthodox
anthropology centers on the mystery of the human person. And
here's Teal's contradictions, even though he actually gives lip service
(32:10):
like he's actually speaking for an Orthodox Christian perspective. I
don't know if he meant Eastern Orthodox or just like
a correct Christian position, but he uses that language, that
verbiage in the interview, and that through Pallenteer, Teal promotes
predictive surveillance, treating man as a node in a data
stream rather than a free being. Wouldn't the predictive abilities
(32:31):
predictive surveillance of Palateer insinuate that Teal believes that our
environment is more determined than it is actually causally connected
with human free will. Isn't that the whole basis is
that they can then find what you're going to do
before you do it, because they already know everything you've
looked at. They've analyzed the outputs and inputs, and they
(32:53):
know what inputs are going into your brain, so they
know how you're going to react next. That doesn't sound
like someone totally made in the image of God. And
again this represents a neo gnostic attempt to achieve omniscience
through technology, which he very much talks about a counterfeit
to divine providence. The Orthodox Church teaches that true knowledge
of persons come through love and divine illumination, not through
(33:14):
analytic analytic domination. And so surveillance technology anticipates the mark
of the beast, wherein no one can buy or sell
without being tracked or verified. The system trains souls to
accept total control for the sake of safety and efficiency.
And so what does Palanteer do. They make sure you
have your VAX card. They make sure that they can
(33:35):
track everywhere you go. At any time, they make sure
that they know what ads you've looked at for how long,
and what items you've clicked on, and what was the
latest thing you looked at on Amazon. Wow, that almost
sounds like the total system of control that Christians are
actually worried about regarding the end times and the Antichrist.
Huh wonder, how wonder how Teal doesn't see any of
(33:58):
this at all connected. Again, for him, the Antichrist is
someone who prevents technological advance and what he calls advocates
for a stagnation. So this violates our obviously, our doctrine
of theosis. Our goal is not technological ascension, but theosis
participation and divine energies through repentance. Teals transhumanist affiliations, funds
(34:22):
life extension technology, cryonics, AI, human integration, and radical biotechnology,
and he endorses thinkers who believe death is a disease
to be conquered, not a consequence of sin, to be
transfigured in Christ. So we can see again his renee
Gerrard's mimetic. That's really all his Christianity is. It's like
a Petersonian utilitarian symbol set, and that Christianity just has
(34:49):
really great symbols. They're really powerful mimetic symbols, and that
we just have to use the rhetoric then of the
Book of Revelation for him in Christian eschatology to talk
about secular things, because clearly he doesn't believe in anything literally.
Transhumanism is a Luciferian parody of the Resurrection, you guys know,
that's my general thoughts. They're the attempt to escape death
(35:12):
through technology is rejection of Christ, who conquer death by
becoming man and dying. For us, peals investments and encourage
a vision of the world where man becomes God without
God fulfilling the original sin of Eden. And so his
political vision he advocates for a post democratic, elite driven,
technocratic civilization. So it sounds very much like the Republic
(35:35):
in Plato's terms. Right, We're going to be led by
the oligarchs, the smartest and wisest among us, who also
lived the most debauchrous and immoral lives possible. I'm with
him in regards to being post democratic. I think more
and more young people are jumping onto this bandwagon. I
do think the general support and belief, let's just say,
(35:57):
the cultural belief and expectation and liberal democracies has absolutely diminished.
I don't think that can be a controversial fact. It's
absolutely diminished. And the promise of freedom and like civil
agency through these democratic institutions. We know that this is
(36:19):
all fake. This is absolutely fake. So when he's talking
about a neo monarchy, Okay, I can be in favor
of a monarchy. However, his monarchy is something that's again
like super high tech, it's like a it's like a
Silicon valley monarchy over the general population. Well, my monarchy
(36:39):
has to be submitting to the authority of the church. Right,
monarchy is totalitarian authoritarianism if it's not paired with the
wisdom of Christianity and the wisdom of the of the
Holy Orthodox Church. So yeah, I'm not you know, I
would be really skeptical of the type of monarchy that
(37:00):
they're advocating for. But that is in line with the
general trend of young people, and I would say our
culture speak generally speaking. And so he supports candidates with
this was again what one source set authoritarian tendencies. But
they do certainly fund geopolitical control technologies. So is JD.
(37:22):
Vance an authoritarian? I don't know. If he is, he
might be. I'm certainly skeptical of him regarding the utilization
of these technologies and his association with tel But that
is the irony, right. Teal talks about how he's so
anti globalists, and yet the people he partners with, these
major corporations, these central banks, you know, these powerful elite
(37:44):
figures of various nations, they are globalists. So again, like,
what gives. What's with all the hypocrisy and the contradictions
and people like Peter Teel and Elon Musk Unless it's
all deliberate, it's all sort of a game. It's a
game of chess. It's that they have multiple pieces on
different parts of the game board, and so they can
always shift and maneuver, and so warning signs and teals vision,
(38:10):
the fusion of military power, AI and social control, the
replacement of community with algorithmic management. Again, all these things
that he's contributing to, the replacement of God's providence with
predictive data modeling, the centralization of power in the hands
of elice. Now he's he's against the centralization of global power,
but at the same time constantly speaks of how we
(38:32):
need to centralize power amongst you know, essentially the elite,
those that are capable, those that are competent, and that
the stagnation has to do with the woke culture of
allowing incompetent people to occupy places of power. I don't
disagree with them on that criticism, but I certainly don't
want him and his ilk controlling controlling our civilization or
(38:54):
the federal government. And so, you know, to conclude here,
and then let's get into his actual interview. Teal is
not a cartoon villain. His vision is seductive, partially true,
and deeply dangerous to the Orthodox Christian. His life's work
can be interpreted as a highly intelligent attempt to build
(39:16):
a post human world, one that rejects the repentance and death,
replaces love with surveillance, elevates power over humility, and constructs
a digital kingdom in place of the kingdom of God.
The Saints have warned us that the Antichrist will appeal
not to obvious evil, but to the idolatry of solutions,
false peace, false unity, false immorality, and this sense, Peter
(39:38):
Teel's empire of ideas and machines may be seen as
building the infrastructure for Antichrist's rule, even if he does
so unwittingly. And again he claims that he is not
contributing to these things, that his work is not contributing
to potential power of the Antichrist. But that's why we're
here to expose his line of thought, because from an
(40:00):
actual Orthodox Christian perspective, from the actual ideas and visions
of elders and saints, what he's doing and what he's
building is directly correlative to the centralized control system that
is going to dominate the planet. And the fact that
he thinks these are totally unconnected and that his biggest
threat is Greta Thurnberg. It's like, dude, you are so
(40:23):
out of touch it's unbelievable. So smash that light, guys.
That's what we're going to dive into here today. Pink
like Peachee throws intents as great info. Thinks my hubby
and I are praying about converting to Christian Orthodox Well,
glory to God. Pink like Peachee, you know, I think
(40:44):
that is wonderful, and I hope that you and your
husband do convert to the Orthodox Church. I promise you
won't regret it. Guys, if you want to support my
work today, please send in a super chat using stream labs,
dono Chat or YouTube if you prefer to use YouTube,
would greatly appreciate that as well. So if you would
(41:05):
like to support the time it takes to do work
and research on these various streams, please support my work.
If you have a comment or a question, feel free
to throw it in there. I'd greatly appreciate that and
the notes. This will be going up on my website
and actually I'll be launching a brand new membership community
here soon. Then I'm really excited to kind of show
(41:27):
you guys be using school dot com. There's gonna be
so much value and we're gonna be changing things up.
So I'm gonna say much. I'm not even gonna promote
my memberships unless if you want to get early access
to the school community when it launches, you can become
a premium member to my website right now for twenty
five dollars a month. You'll be able to join all
(41:47):
of our meetings, and I'm going to invite all the
premium members over to the school before I actually launch
it publicly so people can get access and see everything. So,
if you're a fitness member, you're regular website member. Eventually,
we're going to have a few months overlap between how
we're doing things with the website and all the exclusive
content and the school dot com, So don't worry about that.
(42:09):
We'll figure that out in the future. But if you're
going to sign up, sign up as a premium member.
That way you can get access to the school community
through the premium members and then when the school community launches,
the membership price is actually going to be higher than
the premium membership right now, So just throwing that out
there if you guys want to be a part of that. Also,
(42:30):
if anybody would like to set up a one on
one session, you can do so with this link right here.
We can dive into a private Zoom meeting and discuss
any topic your heart desires. And if you would like
to sponsor a street, excuse me, sponsor a stream. We
have a ton of sponsored streams. We got six that
(42:50):
I'm going to be diving through in the next two weeks,
so you're going to be seeing, like I said, like
four streams a week for the next couple of weeks,
and we're doing multiple sponsored stream So if you would
if you have a topic that you would like to sponsor,
Please use this link right here and I will get
back to you and you can give me a little
bit of details on what the topic is that you
(43:10):
would be interested in. And then last thing, if you
guys are looking for the ultimate nicotine pouch, please use
this link right here ouppouch dot com, Ford slash dph.
You'll get a affiliate link, get ten percent off your purchase,
and you'll be able to help me out a little bit.
So use outpouch dot com, Ford slash dph. And if
(43:34):
anybody is in the market for some Orthodox items, check
out orthodox depot dot com. Orthodox depot dot com. They
got prayer robes, incense icons, t shirts, hats. Use promo
code codal C O T e L and you'll get
ten percent off and again another way to help me
out as well as a good Orthodox company here in
the US. So all right, with that being said, now
(43:56):
let's get into some of the things that I wanting
to show you today. So this is the interview. Some
of you guys may have seen clips floating around. We're
gonna be going through a full hour, so it essentially
starts at one hour or one minute and two seconds
and at lasts one hour and two minutes and three seconds.
(44:17):
So we're gonna be here for about an hour and
one minute going over and analyzing this. But here is
something I just saw today, So this is brand new.
This was from yesterday, July second. PayPal co founder Peter
Teel and Underill founder Palmer Lucky are launching Arabor, a
digital bank built for crypto and tech startups, and then
(44:41):
the Middle Earth mixer. So this is a Tolkien Lord
of the Rings account says it's time to stop. People
are upset that they keep making Tolkien names. Reddit colded
and I don't like it. Deals attempted theft of Tolkien's
world by ASSOCIATD to dystopian surveillance state concepts is absolutely criminal.
(45:02):
So again we see this is christis Vincent, so a
Christian again picking up on the themes here that we're
talking about. And so if you didn't know, then you're
in Anderill. You know gom over here it's an American
defense technology company that specializes in autonomous systems. Oh wow,
And Palmer Lucky, the creator of the headset Oculus Rift,
(45:24):
attended the retreat hosted by Founder's Fund, Again by Peter Thiel,
where Lucky met Tray Stevens thirty, who had recently persuaded
to leave Palanteer and join the Founder's Fund by its leader,
Peter Thiel. Lucky and Steffan's discovered to share interest in
seeking defense contracts for companies built like tech startups. Uh huh.
(45:46):
And in twenty fifteen, the Department of Defense and Department
of Homeland Security open Silicon Valley offices. In twenty seventeen
is part of an initiative that had begun the previous year,
the Defense Department unveiled the Algorithm Mcwarfare cross functional team
known as Project Maven to harness the latest AI research
(46:08):
into battlefield technology, starting with a project to improve image
recognition for drones operating in the Middle East. Uh So,
I bring that up because the irony of Peel Teal,
I keep going, Peter Teal being upset about the state
of liberal democracies, and you know, any criticism he has
(46:28):
of the military industrial complex. I mean, how can you
criticize that when this is literally the foundation of Talenteer
and the companies you're harnessing. So with that being said,
we're going to now dive deeper into this interview should
be very interesting. And again keep in mind the entire
frame that I just laid out about his contradictions and
(46:51):
how you know Peter Teal is really him and Elon
Musk have garnered significant support on the conservative right, however
you want to define American politics right or left. But
the fact that these interviews occur a lot of people
on the conservative side actually listen to this and like
(47:12):
think that Tial's kind of speaking for them, as you know,
some technologically sophisticated Christians. So anyways, let's dive in here
and see where this begins to go.
Speaker 2 (47:27):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (47:35):
Let's see here. Hold on.
Speaker 3 (47:41):
All right now, thirteen or fourteen years you wrote an
essay for National Review, the conservative magazine, called the End
of the Future. And basically the argument in that essay
was that the dynamic, fast paced, ever changing modern world
was just not nearly as dynamic as people thought that.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
And so when he responds, remember this is my framing.
I just think it's useful for Peter Teel. Evil. The
forces of evil is stagnation. It's the prevention of technological advancement.
And this dynamism and dynamic opportunity that he believes is
somehow life affirming, even though, as we'll see halfway through here,
he can't even say assertively that human Homo sapiens as
(48:28):
biological entities should persist and exist into the future.
Speaker 3 (48:32):
That actually we entered a period of technological stagnation. That
sort of digital life was a breakthrough, but not as
big a breakthrough as people had hoped, and that sort
of the world was kind of stuck basically. And you
weren't the only person to make arguments like this, but
it had a special potency coming from you because you
(48:55):
were a Silicon Valley insider who had gotten rich in
the digital revolution. So I'm curious in twenty twenty five, right,
do you think that diagnosis still holds.
Speaker 4 (49:07):
Yes, I still broadly believe in the stagnation thesis. It
was it was never an absolute thesis. So the claim
was not that we were absolutely completely stuck. It was
in some ways a claim about that the velocity had slowed.
It wasn't, you know, zero, but that we were I
(49:28):
don't know, from seventeen fifty to nineteen seventy, two hundred
plus years were periods of accelerating change where we're, you know, relentlessly,
we're moving faster. The ships were faster the rail.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
David James Lesa's teal looks like low on old d cells. Yeah,
so if you guys didn't get that. Another company that
Peter Teel has now gone defunk, but it was called Ambrosias,
had to do with para ambrosia, the idea of taking
blood out of young young people people believe it was
(50:02):
like sixteen to twenty five, and then inserting that into
people like forty and older so that their tissue would rejuvenate,
which is a real thing, right, And I did a
whole stream talking about how this is the modern vampire,
right that now we actually have science that Peter Thiel
promotes and had a company that I know is now defunct.
(50:24):
I think it was due to a lawsuit or something.
I forget exactly. FDA I think was involved. But he
had a company that would literally put young people's blood
into your system and it would rejuvenate the tissue and
make you look younger. Well, now when we hear about
myths of witches drinking like young people's and children's blood
adrino chrome, people know what I'm talking about. Makes a
(50:47):
little bit more sense now. But yeah, he looks incredibly Yeah,
actually an Axio says, the guy looks malnourished. He does.
He does look malnourished. There's some one thing unhealthy about,
like around his eyes. I think looking at someone's eyes
is a huge indicator of of their of their overall
(51:10):
general health. And they're just so dark around. I don't
know if he does he have a sleeping problem. Is
he insomniac? I'm not sure, but the guy it's math bro.
Maybe maybe I'm not sure. Shout out to Jay Hamsa
just gifted five total crew memberships. Thank you so much, Jake,
God bless you brother. Thank you so much for your support.
(51:32):
And if anybody else is feeling generous, please give some
total crew memberships in the chat. Everybody appreciates that. Thank
you so much, Jay. But yeah, the guy definitely looks
avoid of a soul. Maybe, I mean, I feel like,
and you guys watch along with me here, doesn't it
feel like? He never says it, it's never a dress.
(51:54):
But with the like the conservative Christian position he's trying
to put forth in this interview, and again like the
second half is really about the Antichrist and his perspective
on Antichrist, which is the main thrust of today's stream.
But he's got to feel convicted about his like own
gay identity, right because he's kind of critical about the
LGBTQ stuff, the woke culture, the woke movement. I don't know.
(52:19):
I feel like the guy is like internally tormented in
some way or another.
Speaker 4 (52:25):
Roads were faster, the cars were faster, the planes were faster.
Culminates in the Concorde and the Apollo missions, and then
and then that in all sorts of dimensions things had slowed.
There was you know, I always made an exception for
the world of bits. So we had you know, computers
and software and internet and mobile internet, and then you know,
(52:49):
the last ten fifteen years you had crypto and the
AI revolution, which I think is is in some sense
pretty big. But the question is, you know, is it
enough to to really get out of this this generalized
sense of stagnation. And there's an epistemological question you can
start with on the you know, the Back to the
(53:09):
Future essays, how do we even how do we even
know whether we're in stagnation or acceleration Because one of
the features of late modernity is that people are hyper specialized,
and so you know, uh, you know, can you say
that we're not making progress in physics unless you've devoted
half your life to studying string theory, or what about
(53:30):
quantum computers or what about uh, you know, cancer research
and biotech and the sort of all these these verticals,
and then how much does you know progress and cancer
count for?
Speaker 1 (53:44):
Okay, So he goes on talking about stagnation and here
we're going to skip to six minutes.
Speaker 3 (53:49):
Let's let's pick up on that. Why should we want
growth and dynamism? Because as as you've pointed out in
some of your arguments on the subject.
Speaker 1 (53:58):
And so this guy, I think he's I don't know
who ross doubtat is. He kind of seems like a liberal,
But I do appreciate his pushback. As you'll see, like
moving forward, he gives teal more pushback than I've seen
in any other interview. It's not significant, it's not a debate,
but he challenges a lot of his ideas. And the
(54:22):
endpoint again that the height the climax of the interview
is when he says, well, don't you see what you're
doing with Palantier contruding to the potential rise of the Antichrist. Clearly,
this guy's not Christian nor does he believe in the
Christian cosmology or eschatology or worldview. But he makes a
point that as orthodox Christian was absolutely Levy at teal.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
Right, there is a kind of cultural change that happens
in the Western world in the nineteen seventies, around the
time you think things slow down, start to stagnate, where
people become very anxious about the costs of growth, the
environmental costs above all, and the idea being you know,
you end up with a widely shared perspective that we're
(55:04):
sort of rich enough and if we try too hard
to get that much richer, the planet won't be able
to support us. We'll have, you know, degradation of various kinds,
and we should be content with where we are.
Speaker 5 (55:17):
So what's wrong with that argument?
Speaker 4 (55:20):
Well, I think there are there are deep reasons the
stagnation happens. So, you know, there are always three questions you
can ask about history what actually happened? And there's a
question get to what should be done about it? But
there's also this intermediate question why did it happen? People
ran out of ideas? I think to some extent, the
institutions degraded and became risk averse, and sort of these
(55:41):
cultural transformations we can describe. But then I think to
some extent also people had some very legitimate worries about
the future where if we continue to have accelerating progress,
where you accelerating towards environmental apocalypse or nuclear apocalypse.
Speaker 5 (55:59):
Or things like that.
Speaker 4 (56:00):
But I think, you know, if we don't find a
way back to the future, I do think the society,
I don't know, it unravels, it doesn't it doesn't work.
Speaker 1 (56:10):
In the world. So again, even though he's going to
criticize the sort of modernist project, because he's getting ready
to describe the sort of beginning of modernity was leading
towards this expectation of unlimited lifespan in utopia, and he's
right on that, but he himself, if you listen throughout
this is totally dependent upon technological advance GDP like growth
(56:34):
as a measure of progress. But what about the moral degradation?
What about again, the familial degradation, the communal degradation of America.
This has nothing to do with technology. In fact, if
you're you know, knowledgeable of mccluan and some of the
technological theories, technology has been one of the biggest catalysts
for the isolation of individuals. So more people are isolated
(56:59):
today than in the other time. Millennials in gen Z.
Gen Z in particular has like less social gatherings for
just general fun, not going to like a concert or
like a big big gathering, but going bowling with your
friends or doing things like that. They have the least
relationships of this sort. So technology is doing the exact opposite.
(57:23):
John Kel throws in twenty. He says, God blessed dph
Glory to God. Thank you very much, brother, Glory to God. Indeed,
we'll pick up the video later today. Well, thank you
so much, John for the twenty dollars super chat. And
Austin Detulio throws in twenty thank you so much, Austin.
God bless you brother with all the support. I really
do appreciate that. And Gorilla Biscuits throws in five just
(57:45):
an Orthodox across. Thank you so much, Gorilla Biscuits. And
Jay Hamza throws in a generous fifty bucks. Thank you
so much. Jay. He says, I want to point out
angels from Heaven visit us according to Hebrews. Yes, and
you have a guardian angel. Wouldn't it be fair to
say that even the fallen angels disguise themselves as people
to sow chaos and feed false narratives. Well, certainly they do,
(58:11):
but they have to For a fallen angel to disguise
itself as a person, I believe it has to inhabit
a person. So do you encounter people that are possessed,
whether consciously or not, by demonic activity, and when that
person encounters you, is the demon looking at you through
that eye, through the eyes of that person? I think
(58:33):
that is true. I've seen people that kind of feel
like demons can be like a sort of apparition of
a man that they can shake their hand and engage with.
I don't believe that to be the case personally, because
they're noedic entities. So I don't think. I don't know. Again,
(58:56):
I don't want to put a limit on God's mystery. Obviously,
there's so many stories of the Old Testament about encounters
with the Angel of God, the Angel of the Lord,
which is Christ, and he did take physical form. But
I can certainly see saints and elders when they talk
about being visited in angels through visions, but taking on
(59:17):
physical form, I think that can only be done through possession.
And I do think that demons, we do engage with
demons and they're inside people. That'd be my perspective on that,
but absolutely in your imagination. So we're being contacted by
angels and demons all the time through our imagination. The
(59:38):
low gives me so once we begin to accept the
warfare that mental images of the thoughts and the patterns,
the demon actually literally begins to take abode within us.
And that's why repentance and purity and the sacraments are
essential for that cleansing. But anyways, thank you so much, Jay,
God bless you brother, and continue on your Ortho journey.
(01:00:02):
Jack the guitar God says, do we have a guardian
angel or just Orthodox? My son asked me, and I
wasn't sure of the answer. What is the Orthodox position
on this? The Orthodox position is that you get a
guardian angel when you're brought into the church. So I've
heard people discuss whether people outside the Orthodox Church have
(01:00:26):
a guardian angel, and I would probably just take the
position that that is kind of like our position on salvation,
you know. But traditionally speaking, the way that the Orthodox
Church traditionally understands the role of guardian angels is that
you are granted a guardian Angel at your baptism. And
so this is why, for example, I have an icon
(01:00:51):
of my Holy Guardian Angel right here, the pink and
blue one that is the uncut Mountain icon for Holy
Guardian Angel. And I got that once I was brought
into the church, because that's when at least we're told
we officially have a holy Guardian Angel. Does that mean,
you know, an angel or the Holy Spirit doesn't protect
or look over people outside the church. Again, that's the
(01:01:12):
mystery of God. Of course they do. But specifically in
regards to tradition, you are given a Holy Guardian Angel
once you're brought into the church, or if you're baptized
as an infant, right because we do infant baptism, So
when you're baptized as an infant, you're already brought into
the family of the church. You then have a holy
Guardian Angel. Yeah, exactly, mister Smirks makes a great point.
(01:01:39):
And I did a whole review of the movie Nefarius,
which is it was made by Glenn Beck's film company,
which you know, Glenn Beck's a Mormon, and I think
there was multiple Mormons in affiliation with the movie and Nefarius.
But we actually showed the movie and Nepharius at one
of our Men groups meetings last year, and it is
(01:02:00):
surprisingly accurate theologically regarding demonic possession, the role of demons,
what they're trying to do, how they take over people,
and so we had a really interesting theological conversation with
all the men and our priest. We watched the movie Nefarius.
So I do think it's a solid film. I do
think it's a solid film. Just know that there's a
(01:02:24):
lot of Mormons and Evangelicals in relation to it. But
as we talked about at church, the theology really isn't
that far off. There's a few things that aren't totally accurate,
but generally speaking, it was actually one of the better movies.
Jay just gifted another five total crew memberships. Jay, God,
bless you brother. Thank you so much. Man. Really really appreciate,
(01:02:46):
really appreciate. Okay, let's continue on here.
Speaker 5 (01:02:51):
The way middle the middle class.
Speaker 4 (01:02:54):
I would define the middle class as the people who
expect their kids to do better than themselves, and that
expectation collapses. We no longer have a middle class society.
And maybe there's maybe there's some way you can have
a feudal society in which things are always static and stuck,
or you know, maybe there's some way you can shift
to some some radically different society.
Speaker 5 (01:03:15):
But it's not the way.
Speaker 4 (01:03:16):
It's not the way the Western world, it's not the
way the United States has functioned for you know, the
first two hundred years of its existence.
Speaker 3 (01:03:24):
So you think that ordinary people won't accept stagnation. In
the end, it's that they will rebel and sort of
pull things down around them. In the course of that rebellion, you.
Speaker 1 (01:03:37):
Know, they may rep And this is why Peel essentially
is a progressive. Maybe socially he's not progressive, but his
whole ethos, his whole view of history is about material
progress and that being in advance. And his argument that,
you know, the middle class are people that have children
that expect to do better. I don't disagree with that
type of framing. I mean, yeah, but I don't think
(01:04:00):
the stagnation is why we as the middle class. I
grew up lower middle class, why the middle class is
so frustrated, No, dude, like mass immigration, the degradation of family, culture, society,
these are not even related to the stagnation specifically that
(01:04:20):
he's talking about. And if you were to go back
to a more homogeneous, more traditional, even a less technologically
sophisticated America, if there was better communities and better social
values and connections amongst the inhabitants of our country, we
would be more innovative, We would be more creative because
(01:04:42):
those are again uncreate energies related to God. We would
actually be in a place that would allow us to
come to conclusions and innovative insights that actually propel quote
unquote society forward in his estimation, but he totally divorces
any of the spiritual, any of the CULD and the
social stuff happening, and just thinks it's about GDP. You know,
(01:05:04):
numbers go up and technology advances. That is not why
middle class people are frustrated. I guarantee if you polled
middle class Americans, they would rather have a more luddite
America that was more homogeous and more traditional and went back,
you know, thirty forty years than where we're at now.
So again, for that that critique, I think it's just
(01:05:26):
a little bit off rebel Umbria and throws in five
says I saw nefarious years ago. I couldn't really take
it seriously though, because I thought the demon looked like
Darth Maul. God bless brother. Thanks Rebel. I appreciate that
I did not catch that connection when I watched it,
(01:05:47):
But that's funny. Susie Hickson throws in five says, love
this content. Thank you well, Thank you so much, Susie.
Appreciate you being here. God bless you for the support.
All right, let's continue on here.
Speaker 5 (01:06:00):
Rebel, or our institutions don't work, you.
Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
Know, Yeah, our institutions don't work. But that's not because
of technological stagnation. That's because we have total social breakdown
amongst our inhabitants, and we have an elite ruling class
and in trench bureaucracy that things they deserve to control
and dictate the trajectory of our country. Like, there's deeper
reasons why we've lost faith in institutions. That's not technological
(01:06:27):
or economic stagnation.
Speaker 5 (01:06:29):
All of our institutions are predicated on growth.
Speaker 3 (01:06:32):
Our budgets are certainly predicated on growth.
Speaker 4 (01:06:34):
Yeah, if you say, I don't know Reagan and Obama,
you know, Reagan was was sort of consumer capitalism, which
is oxymoronic. It was you know, you borrow. You don't
save money. As a capitalist, you borrow money. And Obama
is low tax socialism just as oxymoronic as you know,
the uh, the consumerist capitalism of Reagan. And yeah, low
(01:07:00):
like I like low tax socialism way better than high
tax socialism. But I worry that it's it's not sustainable.
At some point you either the taxes go up or
the socialism ends. So it's, uh, it's it's deeply, deeply unstable.
And that's that's why people are. They're not optimistic that
(01:07:20):
they don't think we've hit some stable you know, the
breat of future. Maybe it can work. Greta Thunberg.
Speaker 3 (01:07:28):
Just to be clear, that's a reference to Greta Thunberg,
the activist best known for anti climate change protests, who,
to you, I would say, represents a kind of symbol
of a anti growth, effectively authoritarian, environmentalist dominated future.
Speaker 4 (01:07:47):
Sure, but we're not there yet. We're not there yet,
you know, it would be it would be like a
very very different society if you, if you, if if
you actually lived.
Speaker 5 (01:07:55):
In a kind of de growth, you know, small Scandinavian
I'm not worth Korea, but it would be it would
be super oppressive. One thing that's always struck me is that, well.
Speaker 1 (01:08:09):
You know what I don't disagree in regards to the
environmental activism and the progressive left being authoritarian. They absolutely
are the only thing they believe in is power. But
to use Greta Thornberg as like the archetype of what
we're up against, I think is so incredibly naive when
(01:08:30):
this man literally founded and funded Pallanteer like the disconnect,
the cognitive dissonance, It's like, yeah, Greta Thunberg, Yeah, I
get it, she's annoying autists, obsessed, you know, progressive left causes.
But you know, I'm no socialists, But pure capitalism also,
(01:08:53):
isn't you know, just the answer, and that if we
actually had a more homogeneous society that was under a collective,
sacred canopy of shared values and historical representatives cultural idols,
if you will, that having a socialist you know, net
(01:09:13):
within our society to help people. I don't think that's
something bad. I think again, this this dialectic that if
something is socialist in any regard, that it's inherently bad.
That's that's dumb, that's a dumb thought. I mean, we're Christians,
we want to help the poort. Now, obviously, ideally in
the American context, the churches were supposed to provide that
role within communities, local communities, and as our religious faith
(01:09:37):
as a nation has dried up, the activism of our
churches and our local communities has also dried up, allowing
the federal government to come in and you know, create
a welfare state, which they have, but again blaming like
the state of things on socialism. It's like, dude, what
you are totally missing the mark here on like the
(01:09:58):
greater problems of our society, both political sides are totally controlled.
Like what apak is a much much bigger threat to
American liberties than Greta Thunberg.
Speaker 3 (01:10:11):
When you have this sense of stagnation, a sense of decadence,
right to use to use a word that I like
to use for it, in a society, you then also
have people who end up being kind of eager for
a crisis, right, eager for a moment to come along
where you know they can they can radically redirect society
(01:10:33):
from the path it's on. Because I tend to think
that in rich societies, you hit a certain level of wealth,
people become very comfortable. They become risk averse, and it's
just hard. It's hard to get out of decadence into
something into something new without a crisis. So the original
example for me was after September eleventh, there was this
whole mentality among foreign policy conservatives that we had been
(01:10:56):
decadent and stagnant and now is our time to you know,
wake up and launch a new crusade and remake the world.
Speaker 5 (01:11:02):
And obviously that ended very badly.
Speaker 4 (01:11:05):
But something similar it was it was Bush forty three
just told people to go shopping right away, So it
wasn't anti decadence, and for the for.
Speaker 5 (01:11:11):
The most part, so you know.
Speaker 4 (01:11:13):
There was there was maybe there was some neo Khan
foreign policy enclave in which people were LARPing as a
way to get out of decadence, but the dominant thing
was Bush forty three people telling people just to go shopping.
Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
So what risks should you be willing to take to
escape decadence? It does seem like there's a danger here
where the people who want to be anti decadent have
to take on a lot of risk. They have to say, look,
you've got this nice, stable, comfortable society, but guess what
we'd you know, we'd.
Speaker 5 (01:11:47):
Like to.
Speaker 1 (01:11:49):
Hey, DG, I think you're on the wrong YouTube channel. Bro,
there's no exposing Jay Dyer here, and you came to
the wrong place if you think that your appeal that
Christianity shouldn't be an exclusive form of worship. I'm of
the belief that Orthodoxy is the only one true religion
(01:12:10):
that includes Catholicism and others. So I'm friends with Jay.
There's no jayder exposing here. I apologize. You're going to
have to go somewhere where they have jade arrangement syndrome
or whatnot, So sorry to break it to you.
Speaker 3 (01:12:26):
To have a war or a crisis, or a total
reorganization of government and so on, they have to lean
into danger, right.
Speaker 4 (01:12:35):
I don't know if I have to answer, you know,
I don't know if i'd give you a precise answer,
but my directional answer is a lot more. We should
take a lot more risk. We should be doing a
lot more. And and I don't know I can go
through all these different verticals. It's you know, if you
look at biotech, something like dementia Alzheimer's, we've made zero
(01:12:57):
progress in forty to fifty years. People are completely stuck
on beta amyloids. It's obviously not working. It's just some
kind of a stupid racket where the people are just
reinforcing themselves.
Speaker 3 (01:13:11):
And so yes, we need to take way more risk
in that department. Well, let's I want to ask to
keep us in the concrete. I want to stay with
that example for a minute and ask, Okay, what does
that mean saying we need to take more risks in
anti aging research? Does it mean that the FDA has
(01:13:31):
to step back and say, anyone who has a new
treatment for Alzheimer's, can you go ahead?
Speaker 1 (01:13:37):
Now, keep this in mind, because Trump's big beautiful bill
again last I heard, which was two days ago, still
had the measure that no state had the authority to
write laws against AI or AI development within their states
for ten years. So Peter Thiel here is again, even
though gonna hedge his bets, he's on the same side
(01:14:00):
of these tech oligarchs that the federal governments to stay
out of their way so they can actually develop new
transhumanist technologies. I mean, for him, life extension is a
huge goal.
Speaker 3 (01:14:09):
And sell it on the open market, like what is
what is what is risk in the medical space?
Speaker 4 (01:14:15):
Look like, yeah, you would you would take, you would
take a lot more risk. Uh, you know, if you
if you have some fatal disease, there probably are a
lot more risks you can you can take.
Speaker 5 (01:14:25):
There are a lot more risks the researchers can take.
Speaker 4 (01:14:28):
Culturally, what I imagine it looks like is early modernity,
where people, yeah, they had they thought we would cure diseases,
they thought we would have radical life extension, immortality was
that was part of the project of early modernity. Was
Francis Bacon Condor say, you know it was you know,
and maybe it was maybe it was anti christian maybe
(01:14:48):
it was downstream of Christianity was competitive if if if
Christianity promised you a physical resurrection, you know, science was
not going to succeed unless it promised you the exact
same thing. And then but I don't know. I remember
nineteen ninety nine, two thousand when I was when we
were running PayPal. One of my co founders, Luke knows
that he was into al core and cryonics and people
(01:15:11):
should freeze themselves.
Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
And alcore is the leading research right now in cryonics. Scottsfield,
Arizona or Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm sorry, and it's Max Moore,
who's considered the philosopher of transhumanism, you know, one of
the leading philosophers with Nick Bostrom. That's where he does
a lot of his research and work. You know, people
like Bill Gates, these elites, they've already have paid that
(01:15:35):
the cryonics at Alcore, they you know, freeze these people
at incredibly low temperatures and liquid nitrogen, thinking that the
measures that Teal isn't advocating for will be able to
revive them, bring back them to life, replace their neurons
with synthetic parts, this type of thing.
Speaker 4 (01:15:52):
And we we had one day where we took the
whole company to a freezing party, you know, a Tupperware party.
Speaker 5 (01:15:57):
People sold tupperware policies of the freezing party based there
was it just your heads, what was going to be
fro You could get.
Speaker 4 (01:16:03):
A you could get a full body, or just.
Speaker 5 (01:16:05):
Just that.
Speaker 4 (01:16:07):
It was disturbing with the matrix printer didn't quite work
and so the freezing policies couldn't be couldn't be printed out.
But in retrospect, this was this was still technological stagnation
once again, right, but it was, but it's also a
symptom of the decline because in nineteen ninety nine it
was there was not a mainstream view, but there was
still a fringe boomer view where they still believed they
(01:16:30):
could live forever. And that was the last generation. So
I'm always anti boomer, but maybe there's something we've lost
even in this fringe boomer narcissism, where there were at
least a few boomers who still, you know, believe science
would would would cure all their diseases. No one, no
one who's a millennial believes that anymore.
Speaker 3 (01:16:51):
I think there are some people who believe in a
different kind of immortality though right now, I think part
of the fascination with AI is connected to a specific,
a specific vision of transcending limits. And I'm going to
ask you about that after I ask you about politics,
(01:17:14):
because one of the striking things I thought about your
original argument on stagnation, which was mostly about technology and
the economy, was that it could.
Speaker 5 (01:17:22):
Be applied to a pretty wide range of things.
Speaker 3 (01:17:25):
And at the time you were writing that essay, you
were interested in seesteading this idea of ideas of essentially
building new polities independent of the sclerotic Western world. But
then you made a pivot in the twenty tens, so
you were, you know, one of the few prominent, maybe
the only prominent Silicon Valley supporter of Donald Trump. In
(01:17:47):
twenty sixteen, you supported a few sort of carefully selected
Republican Senate candidates. One of them is now the Vice
President of the United States. And my view as an
observer of what you were doing was that you were
basically being a kind of venture capitalist for politics.
Speaker 1 (01:18:07):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:18:07):
You were saying, here are some disruptive agents who might
change the political status quo, and it's worth a certain
kind of risk here.
Speaker 6 (01:18:17):
Is that?
Speaker 5 (01:18:18):
Is that how you thought about true? There were all
sorts of levels.
Speaker 4 (01:18:20):
I mean, one level was, yeah, it was these hopes
that we could redirect the Titanic from the iceberg was
heading to or whatever. The metaphors you know, really changed
courses society, uh through through maybe a narrower, much narrower
aspiration was that we could maybe at least have a
conversation about this when someone like Trump said make America
(01:18:45):
great again? Okay, is that a positive, optimistic, ambitious agenda
or is it merely you know, a very pessimistic assessment
of where we are, that we are no longer a
great country and Uh. And I didn't have great expectations
(01:19:05):
about what Trump would do in a positive way, but
I thought, at least, uh, for the first time in
a hundred years, we had a Republican who was who
was not giving us this syrupy bush nonsense.
Speaker 5 (01:19:19):
And uh. And that was not the.
Speaker 4 (01:19:21):
Same as progress, but we could at least have a
conversation in retrospect.
Speaker 5 (01:19:25):
This was a preposterous fantasy, you know, I had.
Speaker 4 (01:19:28):
I had these two thoughts, and you know, in twenty sixteen,
and you often have these ideas that are just below
the level of you know, your sort of consciousness. But
the two thoughts I had that I wasn't able to
combine was number one, you know, no nobody would be
mad at me for supporting Trump if he lost. And
number two, I thought he had a fifty to fifty
(01:19:48):
chance of winning.
Speaker 5 (01:19:50):
And then and then I had this implay, I would
nobody even mad at you if he lost. It would
just be such a weird.
Speaker 4 (01:19:56):
Thing and it wouldn't really matter, okay, And and then
but and I thought, you know, he had more than
he had. I thought he had a fifty to fifty chance.
Because the problems were deep and the stagnation was frustrating.
And then the fantasy I had was, yeah, if he won,
we could have this conversation, and the reality was people
weren't ready for it.
Speaker 5 (01:20:16):
And then maybe maybe we've progressed to the point.
Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
Where people weren't ready for a conversation on stagnation. Again,
I have many, many criticisms of Trump, but nobody can
doubt that the first administration, at least according to Trump,
he's notorious at hiring the wrong people. We we've even
seen this in the second Trump administration. But according to
Trump himself the first administration that he was misled by
(01:20:42):
the deep state, by the people around him, by the
entrenched bureaucracies, to hire people that were part of the
team and opposition against him. Of course we know the
Russia Gate, all that stuff was fake, the the dossier,
But you know, stagnation, What was the point?
Speaker 4 (01:21:03):
Because the problems were deep and the stagnation was frustrating,
And then the fantasy I had was, yeah, I think
if you won, we could have this conversation, and the
reality was.
Speaker 1 (01:21:14):
People yeah to have a conversation. Now that the point
is that people were not unwilling to have the conversation.
The point is that Palanteer during that administration was still
again contracted with the CIA, the UH, you know, the
entire military industrial complex, you know, all the three letter agencies.
And so it's like, how is that not the problem.
(01:21:37):
The problem was that the MAGA supporters, the populace wasn't
ready for a conversation about American stagnation. No, dude, no,
it has to do with the power dynamics and the
elite and and the money players in our country, and
that Teal is literally part of them, He's one of them. Like,
it's such a false narrative to like put the onus
(01:21:59):
that character just wasn't ready for the conversation about abobout
about about stagnation. What. No, dude, No, absolutely not. There's
deeper problems here. And again, the enterprises and businesses that
he supports and helps fund and build, they're tied with
the entrenched establishment that he then is out here.
Speaker 5 (01:22:21):
Criticizing people weren't ready for it.
Speaker 4 (01:22:24):
And then it maybe maybe we've progressed the point where
we can have this conversation at this point in twenty
twenty five, a decade after Trump, and of course you're
not you know, you're not you know, sort of a
zombie left wing person ross.
Speaker 5 (01:22:37):
But uh, but it's this has I'll take.
Speaker 4 (01:22:42):
I'll take whatever progress I can get.
Speaker 3 (01:22:44):
So from your perspective of so, let's say there's two layers, right,
there's sort of a basic sense of you know, this
society needs disruption, it needs risk.
Speaker 5 (01:22:55):
Trump is disruption.
Speaker 3 (01:22:56):
Trump is risk, and Trump is and the second level
is Trump is actual willing to say things that are
true about American decline. Right, So do you feel like you,
as an investor, as a venture capitalist, got anything.
Speaker 5 (01:23:09):
Out of the first Trump term?
Speaker 3 (01:23:13):
Like what what did Trump do in his first term
that you felt was anti decadent or anti stagnation if anything?
Speaker 5 (01:23:21):
Maybe the answer is nothing.
Speaker 4 (01:23:22):
Well, I think we I think it took longer and
it was slower. I think if we have we have
gotten to the place where where a lot of people
think something's gone wrong. And that was That was not
the conversation I was having in twenty twelve, twenty thirteen,
twenty fourteen. I had a debate with Eric Schmidt in
(01:23:45):
twenty twelve, and Mark and Dreesen in twenty thirteen and
Bezos in twenty fourteen. I was on the there's a
stagnation problem and all three of them were versions of
you know, everything's going great. And I think at least
those three people have to varying degree updated and adjusted
Silicon Valley's adjusted.
Speaker 3 (01:24:05):
And Silicon Valley though has more than adjusted. A big,
a big part of Silicon on the stagnation right, But
then a big, a big part of Silicon Valley ended
up going in for Trump in twenty twenty four, including
obviously most famously Elon Musk.
Speaker 4 (01:24:23):
Yeah, and this is deeply linked to the stagnation issue.
From my telling, I mean, and these things are always
super complicated. But but my telling is, you know, I
don't and again I'm so hesitant to speak for all
these people, but uh, you know, someone like like Mark
Zuckerberg or Facebook meta, and you know, in some ways
I don't think he was. He's very ideologically, he didn't
(01:24:43):
think the stuff. So I threw that much. It was
the default was to be be liberal, and and it
was always what, you know, if the liberalism isn't working,
what do you do? And for year after year after year,
it was you do more. You know, if something doesn't work,
you just need to do more of it, and you
up the dose and you up the dough and you
spend hundreds of millions of dollars and you go completely
woke and everybody hates you, and at some point it's like, Okay,
(01:25:08):
maybe this isn't working, so they pivot.
Speaker 5 (01:25:11):
Yes, they're real. It's not a pro Trump thing. It's
not a pro Trump thing, but it is, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:25:17):
Is he kind of just gave the again we talked
about the Trump administration is basically an agreement between the
Zionists the Maga populace. Again, not that the Maga voter
has any say in this, but Trump and the people
around him and Silicon Valley oligards, and what Teal just
basically said is that they supported Trump not because they're
(01:25:39):
pro Trump per se, or they're pro nationalists or their
pro populism. It's because of the stagnation thing, which really
is just a facade for the fact that stagnation is
the inability to build the technocratic society that they want,
that they think is going to make us space faring
and lead us towards this next phase of life extension
(01:26:01):
and transhumanism. Stagnation is the barrier preventing Teel from his
technocratic dreams. You know, he is a believer in the singularity.
So stagnation is just the thing that's preventing them from
getting there. It has nothing. And that's what I said
about Elon Musk, and you look at his companies, and
you look at Doge and Neuralink. Like Doge was to
make the US government more efficient, which is great cut
(01:26:24):
out spending. They didn't do a great you know, there's
a lot more that they again, if they were truly
in that cause, should have got. But the point is
that these technocrats need an efficient America. They need an
economic engine so that they can build their technocratic dreams.
And that's why the alliance with Trump, that's why they're
in favor of you know, domestic production. It has nothing
(01:26:45):
to do with actual care for American citizens or the
health of the nation. It has to do with their
stagnation problem is them unable to install the full technocratic
surveillance system they think that we need.
Speaker 3 (01:27:00):
Just both in public and private conversations, it is a
kind of sense that trump Ism and populism in twenty
twenty four, maybe not in twenty sixteen, when you know,
Peter was out there as the you know, the loan supporter,
but now in twenty twenty four, they can be a
vehicle for technological innovation, economic dynamism.
Speaker 5 (01:27:23):
That that's that, that's.
Speaker 4 (01:27:24):
You're you're framing it really really optimistically here.
Speaker 5 (01:27:27):
So I well, the people, but I think I know people.
Speaker 4 (01:27:30):
Optimistically, You're You're just some of these people are going
to be disappointed and they'll they're just set up for
failure and things like that.
Speaker 3 (01:27:38):
I mean, people expressed a lot of optimism, that's all
I'm saying. Elon Musk expressed a lot of I mean,
he expressed some apocalyptic anxieties about how budget deficits were
going to kill us all. But he came into government
and people around him came into government basically saying we
have a partnership with the Trump administration and we're pursuing
(01:27:59):
technological great I think they were optimistic, and so I'm
you're coming from a place of greater pessimism or realism.
So I'm just what I'm asking for is your assessment
of where we where we are, not their assessment. But like,
do you think does populism in Trump two point zero
look like a vehicle for technological dynamism to you?
Speaker 4 (01:28:21):
Uh, it's still by far the best option we have.
I don't think I don't know, you know, is Harvard
going to cure dementia by just puttering along doing the
same thing that hasn't worked for fifty years.
Speaker 3 (01:28:38):
So that's just that's just a case for it can't
get it, can't get worse. Let's do disruption, right But
the pritique of the the critique of populism right now
would be Silicon Valley made an alliance with the populists.
But in the end, the populists don't care about science.
They don't want to spend money on science. They want
to kill funding to Harvard just because they don't like right.
Speaker 1 (01:29:02):
Again, what a dumb leftist, somebody said, he he's voicing
the boomer perspective. I mean maybe from the left, the
idea that the average like MAGA supporter is like anti science.
What is this like? What is this rhetoric? It's like
the you know, it takes me back to like the
nineteen nineties or something, or that's just it's just so
(01:29:26):
dumb that the point is that the the MAGA is
not anti science, and the tech oligarchs, you know, hits
their wagon to Trump, but the BASS doesn't in favor
of scientific research. They don't know what the scientific method
is what No, it has to do with Yeah, somebody
says we're anti scientism, absolutely, but the problems are so
(01:29:48):
much deeper. I mean, for to even even categorize like
the MAGA base and the Trump supporter in such like
dumb characteristics, like it's totally missing again the cultural phenomen
on that's happening here. So you have, you know, in
a sense, two people that are kind of out of touch,
and yet they're still following the same news cycle and
events that we're looking at.
Speaker 3 (01:30:10):
And in the end you're not going to get the
kind of investments in the future that Silicon Valley wanted.
Speaker 5 (01:30:16):
Is that wrong?
Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (01:30:18):
But it again we have we have to we have
to we have.
Speaker 4 (01:30:21):
To go back to this question of you know, how
how well is this is the science working in the background.
This is where you know, the New Dealers, whatever was
wrong with them, you know, they pushed science hard and
you funded it, you gave money to people, and you
scaled it and you know whereas today, if you know,
if there was an equivalent of Einstein and he let
(01:30:44):
wrote a letter to the White House, it would get lost.
Speaker 5 (01:30:46):
In the mail room. And the Manhattan Project is unthinkable.
Speaker 4 (01:30:50):
You know, if if we if we call something a
moonshot the way, this is the way Biden talked about
Let's say cancer research. A moonshot in the sixties still
meant that you went to the moon. A moonshot now
means something completely fictional that's never going to happen.
Speaker 5 (01:31:03):
Oh, you need a moonshot for that.
Speaker 1 (01:31:05):
It's not, well, did we go to the moon. Maybe
it's being used in its proper context.
Speaker 4 (01:31:13):
Not like we need an Apollo program. It means it's
never ever going to happen. And so but it seems
like then.
Speaker 3 (01:31:19):
You're still in the mode of for you, as opposed
to maybe for some other people in Silicon Valley, the
value of populism is in tearing away the veils and illusions.
And we're not necessarily in the stage where you're looking
to the Trump administration to to build the new to
do the Manhattan Project, to do the moonshot. It's more
(01:31:41):
like populism helps us see that it was all fake.
Speaker 5 (01:31:44):
You need to try to do both.
Speaker 4 (01:31:45):
And and they're they're very entangled with each other. And
I don't know, there's there's a deregulation of nuclear power
and at some point, at some point we'll get back
to building you know, new nuclear power plants or better
designed ones, or maybe even fusion reactors, and and so yes,
(01:32:07):
there's a deregulatory, deconstructive part and then at some point
you actually you actually get to get to construction.
Speaker 5 (01:32:16):
And it's all things like that. So yeah, in some ways, in.
Speaker 4 (01:32:20):
Some ways you're clearing the field and you've in a movie.
Speaker 5 (01:32:23):
But you've personally stopped funding politicians. I am schizophrenic on
this stuff.
Speaker 4 (01:32:30):
You know, I think it is it is, it's it's
incredibly important, and it's incredibly toxic. And so I I go,
I go, I go back and forth on, you know,
on on again.
Speaker 1 (01:32:42):
There's like another one of his hypocrisies and contradictions, like
it's incredibly toxic that you know, billionaires and people with
a mints of money can actually pay off politicians. But
you know, I still do it. I I still have
my own candidates that just sometimes I think about, man,
this this is really tough, toxic. But yeah, other times
I pay them, and I, you know, I make sure
(01:33:04):
I get my people in the positions I want. But
it's like, well, either it's bad or it's.
Speaker 4 (01:33:09):
Not one for you. For everybody everybody who gets involved.
It's zero sum. It's crazy, and you know, and then
it's and then in some ways.
Speaker 3 (01:33:20):
Because everyone hates you and associates you with Trump, Like what,
how how is it toxic for you personally?
Speaker 4 (01:33:28):
It's it's toxic because it's in a in a zero
sum world. You know, the stakes in it feel feel
really really high and uh.
Speaker 3 (01:33:36):
And you end up having enemies you didn't have before.
Speaker 4 (01:33:40):
Is it's toxic for all the people who get involved
in different ways. There is a political dimension of getting
back to the future. You can't you know, I don't
know this. This is a conversation I had with Elon
back in you know, twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (01:33:53):
Four, and we had all these conversations.
Speaker 4 (01:33:56):
I had this. I had the c steading version with Elon. Right, so, know,
Trump doesn't win, I want to just leave the country.
And then Elon said, there's nowhere to go. There's nowhere
to go. That's the only place. And then, you know,
you always think of the right arguments to make later.
And it was about two hours after we had dinner
and I was home that I thought of, Wow, Elon,
(01:34:17):
you don't believe in going to Mars anymore. Twenty twenty four.
Twenty twenty four is the year where Elon stopped believing
in Mars, not as a you know, as a silly
science tech project, but as a political project. Mars was
supposed to be a political project, was building alternative and
in twenty twenty four Elon came to believe that if
(01:34:37):
you went to Mars, you know, the socialist US government.
Speaker 5 (01:34:41):
The WOKI, it would follow you to Mars.
Speaker 4 (01:34:44):
It was you know, it was the Dems meeting with
Elon that we sort of broke her.
Speaker 5 (01:34:48):
He was doing deep mind, this is an AI com Yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:34:50):
This was the rough conversation was you know, Demis tells Elon,
I'm working on the most important project in the world.
I'm building a superhuman AI. And Elon response to demosl
I'm working on the most important project in the world.
I am turning us into an interplanetary species. And then
Demis said, well, you know, my AI will be able
to follow you to Mars, and and then Elon sort
(01:35:13):
of went quiet. But uh, but my in my telling
of the history, it took years for that to really
hit Elon. It took him till twenty twenty four to process.
But that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in Mars. It
just means that he decided he had to win some
kind of battle. But what what is your deficits to
get to Mars? What does Mars mean?
Speaker 5 (01:35:33):
Is it? A? Yeah? Is it? And again it's what
does Mars mean? Well? It was?
Speaker 7 (01:35:37):
It was?
Speaker 5 (01:35:37):
It's is it? Is it? Just?
Speaker 4 (01:35:40):
Is it just a scientific project? Or is it I
don't know, Is it.
Speaker 3 (01:35:44):
Like a I don't know, high vision of a new
society hind line, you know, populated as a man.
Speaker 5 (01:35:53):
Something from Elon Musk.
Speaker 4 (01:35:54):
Well, I don't know if it was concretized that that specifically,
but if you concretize things, then maybe you realize that
that Mars is supposed to be more than a science project.
Speaker 5 (01:36:05):
It's supposed to be a political project.
Speaker 4 (01:36:08):
And then when you congretize it, you have to start
thinking through well, the ai wok I will follow you,
the socialist government of follow you, and then maybe you
have to do something.
Speaker 1 (01:36:16):
Other than you know, that's nice and all, but Rock
is also pretty woke on a variety of topics. So
you know, it's famous. What was it four or five
years ago when Elon smoked the join on Dreux Rogan
podcast and In that conversation he talked about the apocalyptic
scenario of AI and why it's so dangerous and how
(01:36:36):
he thinks we have a very small chance of surviving.
And then, as I've talked to you more recently, you know,
Tesla AI is leading the world right now in applicable robotics.
So one could say, according to Teal's presentation here, that
Elon changed his tune and now decided that he also
need to get into the AI arms race, so that
(01:36:57):
it isn't quote unquote woke, but GROC is basically the same.
So yeah, they're constantly reprogramming ROC all the time to
be woke. Yeah, especially on you know, certain topics that
I'm sure you could come to a conclusion on what
they may be. And so what are you talking about.
(01:37:18):
It's just this is just a race amongst individuals of
immense wealth and power to make sure it's their vision
and their narrative that moves forward. I mean that's what
Musk is doing. He's just racing other people through his
companies and his investments, so that he leads. You know,
Starlink is going to lead the you know, the state
(01:37:38):
of Internet access. Neuralink is going to lead the fate
the state of brain computer interface. Tesla's going to lead
in regards to EVS.
Speaker 5 (01:37:48):
Right.
Speaker 1 (01:37:48):
The goal is he's creating companies to set a precedent
so he can monopolize the next phase of global economics. Right,
and the technocratic control system.
Speaker 5 (01:37:59):
I'm just going to Okay, So the WOKI.
Speaker 3 (01:38:04):
Artificial intelligence seems like one if we're still stagnant. It's
the biggest exception just stagnation. It's the place where there's
been remarkable progress, surprising to many people progress. It's also
the place we were just talking about politics. It's the
place where the Trump administration is I think, to a
(01:38:24):
large degree giving AI investors a lot of what they
wanted in terms of both stepping.
Speaker 1 (01:38:31):
Absolutely and that is part of Project Stargate. Remember I
did a stream actually with Jay Dyer on his channel
talking about Project Stargate when it revolved around the nineteen
eighty CIA project for remote viewing. Ironic that remote viewing
is also tied with the new AI arms race. That again,
Project Project Stargate is a five hundred billion dollar investment
(01:38:54):
with Larry Ellison of Oracle am Altman and then the
Japanese CEO of soft Bank I believe there's those three gentlemen.
So five hundred billion dollar federal investment into AI. Uh yeah,
I think Trump definitely conceded to some of the tech oligarchs.
(01:39:14):
I think that's fair statement.
Speaker 3 (01:39:16):
Back and doing public private partnerships. So it's a zone
of progress and governmental engagement. And you are an investor
in AI, what do you think you're investing in?
Speaker 5 (01:39:33):
Uh? Well, I I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:39:38):
There's sort of a lot of a lot of a
lot of layers to this, so I I do think
I know there's you know what, one one question we
can frame is just how big? How big it? What?
Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
What you think the guy that has this much money
could have a speech pathologist? Like it's just you know,
I get it. Maybe you had a stuttering problem. Maybe
this is something is plagued you your whole life. But dude,
if you're a billionaire, like, get a speech pathologist, Like,
can we get a thought out without stuttering?
Speaker 5 (01:40:13):
A thing?
Speaker 4 (01:40:14):
Do I think AI is? And it's I don't know,
my stupid answers. It's somewhere. It's more than a nothing
burger and it's less than.
Speaker 1 (01:40:25):
And by the way, for those watching, this is actually
a much better interview of Peter Thiel, Like if you're
worried about his stuttering or you get annoyed with it
like I do. Sometimes he's actually speaking very clearly in
this interview compared to other ones where the stuttering is
out of control.
Speaker 4 (01:40:40):
The total transformation of our society. So my placeholder is
that it's roughly on the scale of the Internet in
the late nineties, which is, you know, I'm not sure
it's enough to really end the stagnation. It might be
enough to create some great companies, and you know, the
Internet added maybe a few points percentage points to the GDP,
(01:41:03):
maybe one percent to GDP growth every year for ten
to fifteen years. It adds some to productivity. And so
that's sort of roughly my placeholder for AI. It's the
only thing we have. It's a little bit unhealthy that
it's so unbalanced. This is the only thing we have.
I'd like to have more multi dimensional progress. I'd like
us to be going to Mars. I'd like us to
be having cures for dementia. If all we have is AI,
(01:41:25):
I will I will take it. There are risks with it,
there are you know, there are obviously they're.
Speaker 6 (01:41:30):
Dangerous with us technology, so you're skeptic but then you
are a skeptic of the what you might call the
sort of super intelligence cascade theory, which basically says that
if AI succeeds, it gets so smart that it gives
us the progress in the world of atoms that.
Speaker 3 (01:41:52):
It's like, we can't cure dementia. We can't, you know,
figure out how to build the perfect factory that builds
the rockets to go to Mars, but the AI can
and at a certain point it just you pass a
certain threshold and it gives us not just more digital progress,
but sixty four other forms of progress. It sounds like
(01:42:14):
you don't believe that, or you think that's less likely.
Speaker 5 (01:42:17):
Yeah, I I.
Speaker 4 (01:42:22):
I somehow don't know if that's been really the gating factor.
Speaker 5 (01:42:26):
What does that mean? The gating factor?
Speaker 4 (01:42:28):
That's probably a Silicon Valley ideology and maybe maybe in
a weird way it's more liberal than a conservative thing.
But people are really fixated on IQ in Silicon Valley
and that it's all about smart people, right, and if
you have more smart people, they will they'll do great things.
(01:42:50):
And then the economics anti IQ argument is that people
actually do worse the smarter they are the worse they do,
and you know, it's it's just they don't know how
to apply it or our society doesn't know what to
do with them, and they don't fit in. And so
that suggests that the gating factor isn't IQ. That's something
(01:43:10):
you know, that's deeply wrong with our society. So that
that elimina well.
Speaker 1 (01:43:15):
And this is a residue again of the Enlightenment, the
elevation of reason as the sole source and authority of
knowledge and of certainty. It's kind of a presupposition of
even the modern Silicon Valley elite that are so obsessed
with IQ pattern recognition and that IQ this is the
(01:43:35):
basis for their functionalist theories that if if we whatever
we can do, if there's a functional equivalent of the computer,
then the computer is functionally the same level of intelligence.
And this is how they're measuring and this is their
grand theory about assentient AI, is that functionally it will
be identical. But again that reduces human anthropology and in
(01:43:57):
the essence of personhood to pattern recognition, which I think
is again is false from the get go. That's why
I don't believe in CYNIENTAI as a possibility in the
fact that they're equating the bridge between their anthropology and
their computer construction is it's an IQ bridge, it's a
pattern recognition bridge, it's a functionalist bridge, a philosophy of
(01:44:19):
mind theory. So it's like, that's not what constitutes a
human person. We are way more complex. And in fact,
this is where the Eugenics residue of transhumanism is still present,
because Eugenics was, you know, they were trying to find
objective measuring systems to evaluate the different races and ethnicities
(01:44:39):
of the planet, and IQ was one of the barometers
that they tended to focus on, as you know, and
there are IQ differences. Read the Bell curve if you're
not familiar with that. However, especially from a Christian perspective
and belief in the Amgodagenus is one twenty six. We
cannot be just reduced to a system of pattern reci
(01:45:00):
and this is essentially a biological algorithm, which is what
data ism is professing. In Homodus by yvonnoh Harari.
Speaker 3 (01:45:08):
On intelligence or a problem of the sort of personality
types will as human superintelligence creates.
Speaker 5 (01:45:15):
I mean, I'm I'm very sympathetic to.
Speaker 3 (01:45:17):
The idea and i made this case when I did
an episode of this of this podcast with a sort
of AI accelerationist that just throwing that certain problems can
just be solved if you ramp up intelligence. It's like
we ramp up intelligence and boom, Alzheimer's is solved. We
ramp up intelligence and the AI can you know, figure
out the automation process that builds you a billion robots overnight.
(01:45:40):
I'm an intelligence skeptic in the sense I don't think yeah,
I think you probably have limits.
Speaker 4 (01:45:46):
It's it's it's hard to prove one where it's always
hard to prove these things. But I until we have intelligence,
I share your intuition because I think we've had a
lot of smart people and things been stuck for other reasons.
And so maybe maybe the problems are unsolvable, which is
the pessimistic view. Maybe there is no cure for dementia
(01:46:09):
at all, and it's a deeply unsolvable problem. There's no
cure for mortality. It's maybe it's an unsolvable problem, or
maybe it's these cultural things. So it's not you know,
it's not the individividually smart person, but it's how this
fits into our society. Do we tolerate heterodox smart people.
Maybe it's maybe you need heterodox smart people too, you know,
(01:46:32):
do do crazy experiments and and and if the you know,
if the AI is just conventionally smart, if it's sort
of if we define wokeness again, wokeness is too ideological.
But if you just define it as conformist, maybe that's
not the kind of smartness that's going to make a difference.
Speaker 3 (01:46:52):
So do you fear then a plausible future where AI
in a way becomes its self staged nationist. But it's
like highly intelligent, creative in a conformist way. It's like,
you know, the Netflix algorithm. It makes infinite okay movies
that people watch, It generates infinite okay ideas. It puts
(01:47:14):
a bunch of people out of work and makes them obsolete,
but it doesn't it like deepens stagnation in some way.
Speaker 5 (01:47:20):
Is that is that a fear?
Speaker 1 (01:47:22):
It?
Speaker 4 (01:47:25):
Yeah, it's like people out It's quite possible that that's
that's certainly a risk. But uh but I guess I
guess where I end up is I still think we
should be trying AI, and that the alternative is just
total stagnation. So yeah, there's sort of all sorts of
(01:47:45):
interesting things can happen with maybe drones and a military
context are combined with AI, and Okay, this is kind
of scary or dangerous or dystopian or it's going to
change things. But if you don't if you don't have AI, wow,
there's just nothing going on. And I don't know this
is this there's like a version of this discussion on
(01:48:06):
the Internet where you know, did the Internet lead to
more conformity and more wokeness? And yeah, there are all
sorts of ways where it didn't lead to quite the cornicopian,
you know, diverse explosion of ideas that libertarians fantasized about
in nineteen ninety nine. But counterfactually, I would argue that
(01:48:28):
it was still better than the alternative, that if we
hadn't had the Internet, maybe it would.
Speaker 5 (01:48:35):
Have been worse.
Speaker 4 (01:48:36):
AI is better, It's better than the alternative, and the
alternative is nothing at all because the stag Look, here's
one place where the stagnationist arguments are still reinforced, the
fact that we're only talking about AI. I feel it
is always an implicit acknowledgment that but for AI, we
are like in almost total stagnation.
Speaker 5 (01:48:57):
But the world of AI is.
Speaker 3 (01:49:00):
It is clearly filled with people who, at the very
least seem to have a more utopian, transformative, whatever word
you want to call it, a few of the technology
than you're expressing here.
Speaker 1 (01:49:13):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:49:14):
And you were mentioned earlier the idea that the modern
world used to promise radical life extension and doesn't anymore.
It seems very clear to me that a number of
people deeply involved in artificial intelligence see it as a
kind of mechanism for transhumanism, for transcendence of our mortal flesh,
and either some kind of creation of a successor species,
(01:49:37):
or some kind of merger of mind and machine. And
do you think that's just all kind of irrelevant fantasy
or do you think it's just hype? Do you think
people are trying to raise money by pretending that we're
going to build a machine god?
Speaker 5 (01:49:56):
Right? Is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something
you worry about?
Speaker 1 (01:50:00):
You?
Speaker 5 (01:50:01):
I think you would you would prefer the human race
to endure? Right? Uh? Huh, you're hesitating? Well, yes, I
don't know. I I would, I would. This is a
long hesitation.
Speaker 1 (01:50:15):
Imagine that he asked, do you want the human species
to exist? A? Oh?
Speaker 2 (01:50:22):
Well, you know, well, no. The other thing I would
like is maybe I mean, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (01:50:41):
It's so long hesitation, there's so many questions and place,
wouldn't the human race survive?
Speaker 5 (01:50:47):
Uh? Yes, okay, but but uh.
Speaker 4 (01:50:51):
I I also would I I also would like us
to to radically solve these problems.
Speaker 5 (01:50:58):
And uh and so you know, it's always is.
Speaker 1 (01:51:00):
I don't know, how is that the alternative? Do you
want the human rights to survive?
Speaker 5 (01:51:05):
Well?
Speaker 1 (01:51:05):
I want him to radically solve these problems. Don't they
have to survive and exist to solve the problems. It's
because he knows that his vision is ultimately transhuman, Zoe.
That's where he's like trying to toe the line here.
Oh yeah, I mean yeah, yeah. He wants the humans
(01:51:29):
to exist in a transhuman form so that they can
solve his utopian problems. You know.
Speaker 4 (01:51:37):
Yeah, transhumanism is this, you know, the ideal was this
radical transformation where your human natural body gets transformed into
an immortal body. And there's a critique of let's say
the trans people in a sexual context, or a transvestite
(01:51:59):
is someone who changed their clothes and cross dresses, and
a transsexual is someone where you change your penis into
a vagina, and we can then debate how well those
surgeries work. But we want more transformation than that. It's
the critique is not that it's weird and unnatural. It's, man,
it's so pathetically little, and okay, we want more than
(01:52:20):
cross dressing or changing or sex work.
Speaker 8 (01:52:23):
He's like, just you know, you know, you know me
as you know a gay man, you know, the transvestites
and the transsexuals I hang out with.
Speaker 1 (01:52:38):
It's just not enough. It's just not enough. We have
to go further, you know, and you know the the
the penises that turn into vaginas. I'd say it's not enough.
I mean it. I mean when I like a woman,
she has to have X y chromosomes. But you know,
(01:53:03):
we need more change than just transvestites and transsexuals organs.
Speaker 4 (01:53:08):
We want you to be able to change your heart
and change your mind and change your whole your whole body.
And then Orthodox Christianity, by the way.
Speaker 1 (01:53:19):
Tell us, tell us, Peter, what is it about Orthodox
Christianity that's so insightful to this transvestite and transsexual conversation.
Speaker 4 (01:53:29):
The critique Orthodox Christianity has of this is these things
don't go far enough. Like the transhumanism is just changing
your body, but you also need to transform your soul,
and you need to transform your your whole self.
Speaker 1 (01:53:41):
Oh so this is the Christian Transhumanist Association, the CTAs.
Again Hodgepodge taking up theosis and saying, well, transhumanism is theosis.
It's a total transformation of the human Okay, And here
we're seeing the same rhetoric out of Peter Teel. Oh well, well,
(01:54:03):
orthodox Christianity, you know, believes in like a total transformation
of the person. Yeah, that's spiritual and it's biologically instantiated.
You know, this isn't something that just happens by a
technological transformation.
Speaker 3 (01:54:22):
And so right, but the other wait, wait, sorry, I
generally agree with your what I think is your belief
that religion should be a friend to science and ideas
of scientific progress. I think any idea of divine providence
has to encompass the fact that we have progressed and
(01:54:43):
achieved and done things that would have been unimaginable to
our ancestors. But it still also seems like, yeah, the
promise of Christianity in the end is you get you
get the perfected body and the perfected soul through God's grace,
and the p who tries to do it on their
own with a bunch of machines is likely to end
(01:55:05):
up as a dystopian character.
Speaker 1 (01:55:07):
True, So I who would have thought that the liberal
boomer would actually be able to steal man our position
better than the Christian Peter Thiel?
Speaker 9 (01:55:18):
Well, uh it's let's let's articulate this, and you can
have a heretical form of Christian right that says something else.
Speaker 5 (01:55:30):
I I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:55:31):
I I think the word in nature does not occur
once in the Old Testament and so uh.
Speaker 1 (01:55:39):
So, So this is an argument that Christianity doesn't value
a natural human body over transformed transhumanist body.
Speaker 4 (01:55:48):
You know, if you if you you know, and there
is you know, there is a word in which a
sense in which the way I understand you know, the
you know, the Judeo Christian inspiration is it.
Speaker 1 (01:56:01):
Is Judeo Christian here we go here, you guys are
definitely gonna get something really insightful and traditional.
Speaker 4 (01:56:09):
It is it is. It is about transcending nature. It
is about overcoming things.
Speaker 1 (01:56:14):
And you know, yeah, you transcend the fall of nature,
but it's through natural means. It's through the way in
which God created the universe. It's not through transhumanism.
Speaker 4 (01:56:28):
And the closest thing you can say to nature is
that people are fallen and that that's the natural thing, And.
Speaker 1 (01:56:36):
No, it's actually unnatural. It's the state of nature itself.
But that was not the full intention of nature. So
nature and its true ideal natural form is not fallen.
Speaker 4 (01:56:48):
The Christian sense is that you're messed up, and that's true,
but you know there's some ways that you know, with
God's help, you are supposed to transcend that and overcome that.
Speaker 3 (01:57:04):
People if you just president company accepted, present Company accepted.
Most of the people working to build the hypothetical machine
God don't think that they're cooperating with Yahweh Jehovah, the
Lord of hosts. They think they think that they're building
immortality on their own.
Speaker 5 (01:57:23):
We're jumping around a lot lot of things.
Speaker 4 (01:57:25):
So the critique I was saying is they're not ambitious enough. Right,
from a Christian point of view, these people are not
ambitious enough.
Speaker 1 (01:57:34):
There you go. From a Christian point of view, Silicon
Valley AI development and transhumanism is not ambitious enough. The
Christian's view the transvestites and the transsexuals is not ambitious enough.
You guys have heard it here, Peter Thiel, you're Christian
prophet telling you that if you're a Christian, you actually
(01:57:56):
see these people as not going far enough. We need
to go further.
Speaker 4 (01:58:00):
Now, then we get into this question, well are they
Are they not?
Speaker 3 (01:58:03):
But they're not morally and spiritually ambitious enough?
Speaker 4 (01:58:07):
And are they? And then are they Are they still
physically ambitious enough? And are they? Are they even still
really transhumanists? And this is where okay, you know, man,
the cryonics thing that seems like a retro thing from
nineteen ninety nine, There isn't that much of that going on,
So they're not transhumanists on a physical body. And then okay,
(01:58:28):
well maybe it's not about cryonics. Maybe it's about uploading.
It's okay, well it's not quite I'd rather have my body.
I don't want just a computer program that simulates me,
so that.
Speaker 1 (01:58:37):
Cloating, Uh, President elect says Peter speaks for Christians. Now, well, yes,
if you haven't seen since what was it six months ago?
I did a video on Peter Teal with an interview
he did with the Hoover Institute at Stanford, and that's
where he like really came out and professed himself as
(01:58:58):
a Christian, and he's worried about the anti Christ and
he thinks that we need to normalize Christian eschaological rhetoric.
And so yeah, I mean, is he Christian? I wouldn't
consider him one. But has he been utilizing his platform
and voice to be a voice for Christians in regards
(01:59:19):
to tech and AI, Yes he has been, so if
you didn't know, yes, he certainly has been presenting himself
as that.
Speaker 5 (01:59:29):
Seems like a step down from cryonics.
Speaker 4 (01:59:31):
But but then even that's you know, it's it's part
of the conversation.
Speaker 5 (01:59:37):
And this is where it gets very hard to score.
Speaker 4 (01:59:39):
And I don't want to say they're all making it
up and it's all fake, but I.
Speaker 5 (01:59:45):
Do you think you think some of it's faith?
Speaker 4 (01:59:47):
I don't think it's fake implies people are lying, but
it's I want to say, it's not the center of gravity. Yeah,
And so there is, Yeah, there is a Cornucopean language.
You know, there's an optim stick language. A conversation I
had with Elon you know a few weeks ago about
this was was, you know, he said, you know, we're
(02:00:07):
gonna have a billion humanoid robots in the US in
ten years. And I said, well, you know, if that's true,
you don't need to worry about the budget deficits because
we're gonna have so much growth. The growth will take
care of this. And then, well, he's still worried about
the budget deficits. And then and then this doesn't prove
that he doesn't believe in the billion robots, but it
(02:00:28):
suggests that, you know, maybe he hasn't thought it through,
or that he doesn't think it's going to be as
transformative economically, or that there are big error bars around it.
But yeah, there's there's some way in which these things
are are not quite thought through. If I had to
give a critique of Silicon Valley, it's it's always bad
at you know what the meaning of tech is, and
(02:00:50):
and the conversations they tend to go into this microscopic
thing where it's okay, it's like what are the iq
ELO scores the AI and you know, exactly how do
you define a GI? And we get into all these
endless technical debates, and there is there are a lot
of questions that are at an intermediate level of meaning
(02:01:13):
that seemed to me to be very important, which is
like what does it mean for the budget deficit, What
does it mean for the economy, What does it mean
for geopolitics? You know, one of one of the conversations,
you know, we had a few, you know recently, was
you and I had, was you know, does it change
the calculus for China invading Taiwan? Where you know, if
(02:01:34):
we have an accelerating Ai revolution in the military, it's
China falling behind and will this And maybe on the
optimistic side, it deters China because they've they've effectively lost,
And on the pessimistic side, it accelerates them because they
know it's now or never. If they don't grab Taiwan now,
(02:01:54):
they will fall behind. And either way, this is a
pretty important thing. It's not thought through. We don't think
about what AI means for geopolitics.
Speaker 1 (02:02:04):
And this is where again you can see the sentiments
aligned with essentially the military industrial complex. I'm not saying
China is not a threat. Anybody who's saw like their
one hundred to two hundred year plan for the you know,
the destruction of the United States. I mean, they're thinking
long term, and they are an existential threat to some degree.
But I'm against as an American and nationalists. I'm against
(02:02:29):
us being this global military police, and you know, we
need to let these things kind of work themselves out.
But he's very big on the threat of China, and
they are a threat. I'm not downplaying that China doesn't
have nefarious intentions and plans. But who do you think then,
is trying to monitor this situation? Pallenteer, right, I mean,
(02:02:53):
is it really that far off from like the neo
con talking points. I mean, we need to invest in
this and our biggest threat is China may take Taiwan,
and then it gets back to the superconductors and all
that stuff that Taiwan's able to make. I think we
have other problems as well.
Speaker 4 (02:03:12):
We don't think about what it means for the macro economy,
and those are the kinds of questions I'd want us
to push more.
Speaker 3 (02:03:19):
There's also a very macroscopic question that you're interested in
that you know, We'll pull on the religion thread a
little bit here. You have been giving talks recently about
the concept of the Antichrist, which is a Christian concept
and apocalyptic concept. What does that mean to you? What
(02:03:41):
is the Antichrist? How much time do we have We've got.
Speaker 1 (02:03:44):
Okay, here we go. So he's got Bible versus. He's
gonna now present his Christian case for the Antichrist being
basically some blue haired liberal who runs a one world
government and prevents technological advancement. I mean, he doesn't use
those terms, but just listen now to how he describes
what the Antichrist would be.
Speaker 3 (02:04:06):
At as long as much time as you have to
talk about the Antichrist.
Speaker 4 (02:04:11):
All right, Well, I have a I could talk about that,
but you know, I think, uh, I think there's always
a question, you know, how how do we articulate, you know,
some of these existential risks, some of the challenges we have,
and they're all framed to sort of run away dystopian
(02:04:34):
science text. There's a risk of nuclear war. There's a
risk of environmental disaster, maybe something specifical like climate change. O.
There are lots of other ones we've come up with.
There's a risk of uh, you know, bioweapons. You have
all the different sci fi scenarios. Obviously there are certain
types of risks with AI. But I always think that
if we're gonna have this frame of talking about existential risks,
(02:04:59):
perhaps we should also talk about the risk of another
type of a bad singularity, which I would describe as
the one world totalitarian state, because I would say the
political solution, the default political solution people have for for
(02:05:19):
all these existential risks is one world governance. You know,
what do you do about nuclear weapons? We have United
Nations with real teeth that controls them, and it's it's
they're they're controlled by an international political order.
Speaker 5 (02:05:35):
It's uh.
Speaker 4 (02:05:36):
And and then something like this, you know, is is
also uh, you know what do we do about AI?
Speaker 5 (02:05:43):
And we need global compute governance.
Speaker 4 (02:05:46):
We need, you know, a one world government to control
all the computer's log every single key strum.
Speaker 1 (02:05:53):
Again, mind you, he's now going to once you get
pushed back here in a few minutes, he's going to
reject the idea that the technologies and the companies he's
investing in are actually contributing to what he's describing right now.
So for him, it's all about a centralized political governmental
control that he believes is going to be like woke, left,
(02:06:13):
progressive and stagnant in regards to his stuff. And the
irony is that if anybody were to create or even
move towards creating a total centralized government, they're going to
need all the tools that he himself is aiding to
be built right now, and.
Speaker 7 (02:06:34):
Yet he sees no connection between these joke to make
sure people don't program, you know, a dangerous AI And
I've been wondering whether that's sort of a you know,
going from the frying pan into the fire.
Speaker 4 (02:06:47):
And so the atheist philosophical framing is one world or None.
That was a short film that was put out by
the Federation of American Scientists in the late forties. Starts
the nuclear bomb blowing up the world and obviously you
need a one world government to uh to stop it.
Speaker 5 (02:07:05):
One world or none?
Speaker 4 (02:07:06):
And the Christian framing, which I in some ways the
same question, is Antichrist or armageddon? You have the one
world state of the Antichrist or we're sleepwalking towards armageddon?
Speaker 1 (02:07:21):
What what what escheological frame says that we have to
choose between the Antichrist and armageddon? Both events are going
to occur. What we don't have to choose one or
the other?
Speaker 4 (02:07:39):
One world or none? Antichrist or armageddon on one level
are the same question. Now I have a lot of
thoughts on this topic, but uh, but sort of one
one question is and this was a plot hole in
all these Antichrist books people wrote, how does the Antichrist
take over the world. It's he gives these demonic, hypnotic
(02:08:02):
speeches and people just fall for it. And so it's
this plot hole, it's this modium. It's totally it's implausible.
It's a very implausible plot hole. Right, But I think
we have an answer to this plot hole. The way
the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk
about armageddon NonStop, you talk about existential risk NonStop, and
this is what you need to regulate.
Speaker 1 (02:08:24):
It's the wait, wait, wasn't the first three fourths of
this interview about Peter Teal talking about the existential threat
of stagnation, the existential thread of China, the existential thread
of the lack of innovation, and where liberal democracies in
(02:08:46):
the status quo is moving us towards. You know, that's
where the framing on what he says the Antichrist would do. Now, obviously,
Peter Teel is not the Antichrist, you know, Elon Musk
is not the Antichrist. Donald Trump is not the Antichrist.
But Peter Teel, at least within the theological framing, he's
(02:09:07):
presented here certainly presenting something that is similar to the
spirit of Antichrist. I mean the delusion, and I would
say the sort of spiritual prelast that he sees, the
things he invests in what he's doing is totally unconnected
with a potential rise of an Antichrist figure. It's like, dude,
how do you not see that? How do you not
see that? Palanteer and you know, automated AI military equipment
(02:09:32):
would be used for a certain group of people to
take over the planet. That what what do you mean?
Speaker 4 (02:09:40):
Opposite of the picture of Baconian science from the seventeenth
eighteenth century, where you know, the Antichrist is like some
evil tech genius, evil scientists who invents this machine.
Speaker 5 (02:09:53):
To take over the world. People are way too scared
for that.
Speaker 4 (02:09:57):
In our world, the thing that has political resid is
the opposite.
Speaker 1 (02:10:01):
But that's what we just talked about. How many people
view AI being that machine? He just said, people won't
buy into, you know, the machine. What we just again
throughout this contry, we just talked about the state of
AI and that certainly some people developing and many people
using I have the expectation that AI is going to
(02:10:24):
be a sort of mechanical God, what.
Speaker 4 (02:10:27):
What what it is? It is the thing that has
political resonances. We need to stop science, We need to
just say stop to this. And this is where Yeah,
I don't know. In the seventeenth century, I can imagine
a doctor Strangelove Edward Teller type person taking over the world.
In our world, it's far more likely to be Breta Thunberg.
Speaker 1 (02:10:51):
That is so naive, that is so naive for somebody
that is in those elite circles gone to the Buildeberg
group knows, you know, his rubbed shoulders with the elite
of the world that our biggest threat is the Greta Thunberg.
She's more likely to be an antichrist figure. No, no, no, no, no, no,
(02:11:18):
we just he literally admitted about his schizophrenia regarding lobbyist
groups and how American politics work because wealthy people can
influence it. How dare you how day.
Speaker 5 (02:11:33):
Peter Tills?
Speaker 3 (02:11:35):
Okay, I want to suggest a middle ground between those
two options. It used to be that the reasonable fear
of the Antichrist was a kind of wizard of technology,
and now the reasonable fear is someone who promises to
control technology, make it safe and sort of usher in
what from your point of view, would be a kind
of universal stagnation of right.
Speaker 4 (02:11:58):
Well, it's more that's all my description of how it
would happen. Right, So I think I think people still
have a fear of a seventeenth century Antichrist.
Speaker 5 (02:12:07):
We're still Doctor Strangelawd. Right.
Speaker 3 (02:12:08):
But you're saying you're saying the real Antichrist would say
would play on that fear and say you must come
with me to avoid Skynet, to avoid the terminator, to
avoid nuclear armourgedon. Yes, And I guess my view would
be looking at the world right now, that you would
need a certain kind of novel technological progress to make
(02:12:30):
that fear concrete. Right, So I can buy that the
world could turn to someone who promised peace and regulation
if the world became convinced that AI was about to
destroy everybody.
Speaker 5 (02:12:45):
Right.
Speaker 3 (02:12:46):
But I think to get to that point you need
one of the accelerationist apocalyptic scenarios to start to play out. Right,
to get your peace and safety Antichrist, you need more
technological progress. Like one of the key fails years of
totalitarianism in the twentieth century was it had a problem
of knowledge.
Speaker 5 (02:13:05):
It couldn't know.
Speaker 3 (02:13:05):
What was going on all over in the world, right,
So you need the AI or whatever else to be
capable of helping the peace and safety to talitarian rule.
So don't you think you need essentially, you need your
worst case scenario to involve some burst of progress that
(02:13:27):
is then tamed and used to impose stagnant totalitarianism. You
can't just get there from where we are right now.
Speaker 1 (02:13:36):
Exactly. The guy's making that again, the boomer journalist left.
This is making the point even in your scenario with
the Antichrist having global control, we would need immense technological
advance in the areas that you support and fund for
that to be the case. And of course we're going
to see that. He doesn't want to answer that and
(02:13:58):
doesn't really think that he's he's part and parcel of it.
Adam Smith throws in five bucks. Thank you so much, Adam.
He says, Elon Musk will make an AI version of
Donald Trump that will deceive billions. Jesus' lord, I don't know.
They're kind of on the outskirts now. I don't think.
I don't think Elon wants to do anything that promotes
or helps advance Donald Trump. Right now, Chair throwing Italian
(02:14:22):
throws in five, says joined late, what's the deal with
the grimlin interviewing that goal? Well, thank you very much,
we got the chair throwing angry Italian on our hands.
Do appreciate the support, brother, Thanks for the laugh. Jay
Hamza throws in twenty and says, I guess they don't
remember Nimrod or aug Amelek. They think it's a joke. Yeah,
(02:14:45):
they really do. The price they're willing to pay is
gambling with our lives exactly. And as somebody was saying
in the chat, and I think a few people are saying,
I mean, this is driven. The reason why he's so
obsessed about life extension and again had the company Ambrosia,
which is about infusing older people with young people's blood,
is because he has an existential fear of death. And
(02:15:08):
that's what a true Christian is trying to overcome, right,
That's what our goal is, to align with God so
that we embrace the inevitability of our own personal finitude,
our own death. And I think a lot of these
transhumanists are driven by this at an unconscious level. Maybe
it's conscious to him, but certainly at an unconscious level
(02:15:31):
they need to implement this on themselves. Yeah, well some
of them kind of do, but others certainly are waiting
for others to take the fall of the you know,
version one, and then they'll adopt version two or three.
And then Jay followed and says, I would suggest checking
out Project Bluebem. Yeah. Absolutely, there was a book about
it as well. Yeah, there was a university researcher I forget.
(02:15:55):
I think it was Mit who actually worked on some
of the hologram technologies that would be used for Project Bluebeam.
So that is a real thing. So Ivy might calls
you a you're a conspiracy theorist because you brought up
Project Blue Beam. No, that's a real thing. That's absolutely
real thing that we know about. So make sure don't
(02:16:16):
let anybody try to pull the wool over your eyes
on that. Austin Detulio throws in ten bucks, Thank you
so much, brother, really appreciate that. And Harry Ludwig throws
in five, says, great podcast, Thank you very much, Harry,
and then he threw in another five says check out
Jamie's Out of This World episode sixty five, I sim
(02:16:36):
on social media and AI, all right, I'll check that out.
I didn't catch that episode, so thank you so much,
Harry for that support. Gorilla Biscuits throws in ten. Over
on streamline says have a good stream God blessed well.
Thank you so much, Gorilla Biscuits, God bless you. And
arth Mail throws in five says Teal is homosexual. That
(02:16:57):
is true. A jew is he Jewish? I didn't know
was Jewish. Peter Teel's Jewish fits Antichrist description of the fathers.
The Antichrist will have clause per a prophecy. I feel
it may be able to be interpreted as works that
are technological or artificial e AI technocracy, pallanteer will be
(02:17:19):
ether potential. I mean I me personally, I don't think
the Antichrist is anybody who's already famous. Me personally, I
think whoever the Antichrist will be will have a backstory
and reputation that will be the most palatable for a
global audience. So I personally do not believe somebody like
(02:17:42):
a Peter Teel, a Donald Trump, and Elon Musk are
viable potential Antichrist. Certainly they could be led or developing
aspects inspired by the spirit of Antichrist. I would definitely
agree with that. So anyways, arth Mail, thank you so
much for the five dollars. You're you're right on some
(02:18:03):
of the general characteristics, but me personally, I just don't
think it's a public figure yet. Yeah, I don't. Emmy
says Teel isn't Jewish. I didn't think he was. I
know he's German. I don't know. So yeah, other people
are saying, yeah, I think he's of German ancestry, both
(02:18:23):
mom and dad. I don't think. I don't think he
is or Ashkenas or anything like that. So I'm not
sure you guys, can I can stand corrected on that?
I'm not positive. But anyways, here we go. Now he's
going to respond to the accusation. Don't you think for
your own dystopian scenario of the Antichrist and armageddon that
(02:18:47):
technology would have to advance for that to be possible?
And here's his response, Well it can it?
Speaker 3 (02:18:53):
Grenisunberg's on a boat in a Mediterranean right, you know,
like protesting Israel like the I just don't see the
promise of safety from AI, safety from tech, safety, even
safety from climate change right now as a powerful universal
rallying cry absent accelerating change and real fear of total catastrophe.
Speaker 4 (02:19:18):
I mean, these things are so hard to score, but
I think environmentalism is pretty powerful, you know. I don't
know if it's I don't know if it's absolutely powerful
enough to create a one world totalitarian state, but man.
Speaker 5 (02:19:34):
It is.
Speaker 4 (02:19:34):
I think it is. Not it is in its current form,
it is. I want to say, it's the only thing
people still.
Speaker 5 (02:19:40):
Believe in Europe.
Speaker 4 (02:19:41):
Like, you know, they believe in the green thing more
than Islamic sharia law or more than in you know,
the Chinese communist 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 state, and the green
(02:20:04):
one is by far the strongest and in declining, decaying.
Speaker 1 (02:20:11):
You know. And I would push back on on that
a little bit. I would say the nationalist narrative or
the nationalist sovereign narrative, that that nations are sovereign able
to make their own decision. I think that's actually the
more powerful narrative than global climate change, even in Europe.
(02:20:31):
But is made he is true in the fact that
the Europeans are much more driven by that issue than
maybe the American populis per se so, but I think
there's other narratives that can equally rival the climate change
native fact, I think the climate change narrative is actually dissipated,
(02:20:51):
Like I'm thinking when I was in my undergrad during
the Bomb administration, like I almost feel like that was
the peak of the climate warming narrative. Of course it's
now rebranded as climate change. But I'm curious what you
guys think. I mean, don't you feel like the climate
change narrative is actually kind of waning in its ultimate
political power and that people are more interested in like
(02:21:14):
political sovereignty. And I feel like this has even been
true in America regarding people are so much more in
favor of like drilling for oil and fracking and things
like this that were kind of polarizing issues environmentally before.
I don't know. Oh, Jay Homsa just gifted five more
(02:21:36):
total crew memberships. Thank you so much, Jay, God bless you. Brother,
really really appreciate your support. And Haley's in the chat
throws in five. Thank you so much, Haley. God bless
you guys, and God bless you Jay. Really appreciate your support, brother,
Thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (02:21:54):
It's always in a context, right, and then I would
you know, I don't know, you know, we had we
had this really complicated history with the way nuclear technology worked,
and you know, we okay, we didn't you know, we
didn't really get to you know, a totalitarian one world state.
But you know, by the nineteen seventies. One one account
(02:22:15):
of the stagnation is that the runaway progress of technology
had gotten very scary and that you know, Baconian science.
It ended at Los almost and then it was okay,
it ended there, and.
Speaker 5 (02:22:29):
We didn't want to have any more.
Speaker 4 (02:22:31):
And you know, uh, you know when Charles Manson took
LSD and 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, an anti hero and
dosta Yevsky and everything was permitted. And of course not
everyone became Charles Manson, but Charles, in my hanging of
(02:22:53):
the history, everyone became as deranged as Charles Manson.
Speaker 3 (02:22:56):
Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take over
the world.
Speaker 5 (02:22:59):
Right, I'm just I'm just we're ending in the apocalyptic.
Speaker 4 (02:23:03):
But my telling of the my telling of the history
of the nineteen seventies is the hippies did win, and
they but you know, we landed. We landed on the
moon in July of nineteen sixty nine. Woodstock started three
weeks later, and with the benefit of hindsight, that's when
progress stopped and the Hippies won.
Speaker 5 (02:23:22):
And it was not literally.
Speaker 3 (02:23:24):
But you're you're just I want to stay with the
Antichrist just to end right because and you're retreating. You're saying, Okay,
you know, environmentalism is already pro stagnation and so on, Okay,
let's let's.
Speaker 5 (02:23:36):
Let's let's let's see with all that. So we're not.
Speaker 3 (02:23:39):
Living under We're not living under the Antichrist right now,
We're just stagnant, right, And you're positing that something worse
could be on the horizon that would make stagnation permanent,
that would be driven by fear, and I'm suggesting that
for that to happen, there would have to be some
burst of technological progress that was akin to most almos
(02:24:02):
that people are afraid of. And I guess this is
my my very specific question for you, right, is that, well,
you're you're you're you're an investor in AI, You're you know,
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
(02:24:24):
me a story about the Antichrist coming to power and
using the fear of technological change to sort of impose
order on the world, I feel like that Antichrist would
be maybe be using the tools that you that you
were that you were building, right, Like, wouldn't the Antichrist
be like, great, you know, we're not going to have
(02:24:45):
any more technological progress. But I really like what Palenteer
has done so far right now, Isn't that Isn't that
a concern? Wouldn't that be the you know, the irony
of history would be that the man publicly worrying about
the Antichrist acts dently hastens his or her arrival.
Speaker 4 (02:25:05):
Uh, exactly, They're all Look, they are all these different scenario.
Speaker 5 (02:25:12):
I obviously don't think that that's what I'm doing. I Uh,
I mean to be clear, I don't think that's I
don't think that's what you're doing either. I'm just interested
in how you get to will.
Speaker 1 (02:25:22):
I do think that's what they're doing.
Speaker 5 (02:25:24):
A world willing to submit to permanent authoritarian rule. Will.
Speaker 4 (02:25:29):
But but again, uh, there there are these different gradations
of this week and describe. But is this so preposterous
what I've just told you as a broad account of
the stagnation that the entire world has submitted for fifty
(02:25:51):
years to peace and safetysm this is a first Thessalonians
five three. The slogan to be Antichrist his peace and
safety because and and we've submitted to you know, the
FDA regulates not just drugs in the US, but the
facto in the whole world, because.
Speaker 1 (02:26:08):
The oh peace and safety, like Pallanteer's promise for predictive
surveillance so that they can predict, predict that crimes will
occur before they do, so that they can protect us
and save us. You mean, like maybe technologies like that
that are literally built in the name of peace and safety.
Like again the cognitive dissonance here in the internal blindness
(02:26:31):
to see he quotes Thesalonians and talks about that the
Antichrists will promote peace and safety, and that's literally what
his companies are doing. What like you think the FDA's
the antichrist.
Speaker 4 (02:26:49):
Oh, come on, bro Russ the world of first, the FDA,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, effectively regulates nuclear power plants all
over the world.
Speaker 5 (02:26:58):
People.
Speaker 4 (02:26:59):
You can't, you know, you can't design a modul and
nuclear reactor and just build it an Argentina. They won't
trust the Argentinian regulators. They're going to defer to the US.
And so it is at least it's at least a
question about why we've had fifty years of stagnation. And
one answer is we ran out of ideas. The other
(02:27:19):
answers to something happened culturally where it wasn't allowed. And
then the cultural answer can be sort of a bottom
up answer that it was just some transformation of humanity
into this sort of more docile kind of a species,
or it can be at least partially top down that
(02:27:40):
there is this uh, you know, this machinery of government
that that got changed into this into the stagnation's thing.
I think something like this nuclear power was supposed to
be the power of the twenty first century, and you
know it somehow has gotten off ramped all over the
world on a worldwide basis.
Speaker 1 (02:28:00):
You know, Wow. Could that potentially be to corporate interest
in money or that just due to the FDA and
bureaucratic institutions that are supposed to monitor these programs. I mean,
obviously it's both, because the corporations control these institutions, these
government institutions that he's talked about that the public has
(02:28:21):
lost trust in, and therefore then regulate so that the
corporations can make sure that they get their kickbacks and
are making money. I mean, allah, big pharma. I mean
this goes back to Edison in Tesla regarding ac verus DC,
like what what.
Speaker 5 (02:28:39):
What?
Speaker 4 (02:28:41):
No?
Speaker 3 (02:28:41):
So, in a sense, we're already living under a moderate
rule of the Antichrist in that in that telling, we
don't think God is in control of history.
Speaker 4 (02:28:53):
I uh man, this is again like we I I
I think that I think there's always room for human
freedom and human choice. These things are you know, or
at least where we are today, these things are you know,
(02:29:14):
they're they're they're not you know, they're not absolutely predetermined
one way or another.
Speaker 5 (02:29:20):
Right.
Speaker 3 (02:29:21):
I but God wouldn't leave us forever under the rule
of a mild, moderate stagnationist Antichrist.
Speaker 5 (02:29:30):
Right, that can't be how the story ends right.
Speaker 4 (02:29:34):
It's it's attributing too much causation to God is always
a problem.
Speaker 5 (02:29:41):
You know, you know, they're different Bible verses.
Speaker 4 (02:29:43):
I can give you, but I'll give you John fifteen
twenty five where Christ says they hated me without cause,
and and and and so it's all these people are
persecuting Christ, have no reason, no cause for why they're
p secuting Christ. And if we interpret this as a
ultimate causation verse, they want to say I'm persuty because
(02:30:07):
God cause 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 is.
Speaker 1 (02:30:21):
But wait, and this is where it's again. This is
a much more delicate conversation about free will and causality
and relationship to creation. God is the cause of all things.
God's will allows all events to occur. At the same time,
God's will is for us to have free will and
in which we can be our own unmoved mover and
(02:30:43):
have a causal effect in creation as well. So it's
both and and definitely we're not Calvinists. We don't believe
in predeterminism. But yeah, God is behind history. Miracles do happen.
God saves certain groups, and battles and weird occurrences occur,
so God's not divorced from history. But also God's imminent
(02:31:09):
presence in history doesn't nullify our free will in history either.
Speaker 5 (02:31:15):
That God is.
Speaker 3 (02:31:18):
But God is behind Jesus Christ entering history because God
was not going to leave us in a stagnationist, decadent
Roman empire.
Speaker 5 (02:31:27):
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 it's not Calvinism though,
that's just Christianity God, it is.
Speaker 1 (02:31:41):
It is just Christianity. God became man so that man
can become God by grace. That is history, that is Christianity.
That is that does not make one a Calvinist.
Speaker 3 (02:31:58):
God will not leave us eternally, say, you know, staring
into screens and being lectured by Gretath Thunberg.
Speaker 5 (02:32:04):
Right, he will correct, will not abandon us, correct to
that fate.
Speaker 1 (02:32:12):
Unless the again. God never abandons us, because the Second
Coming essentially saves us from wherever this is going, but
certainly us making the free will choice to stare into
our black mirrors is going to move us closer to
the point in which the anti Christ arrives. So again
it's both and God will allow us to make the choices.
(02:32:34):
But again as people repent too, that that date is
pushed further back. It's much more dynamic.
Speaker 5 (02:32:40):
It is, it is.
Speaker 4 (02:32:42):
There is a great you know, I don't know, for
better and for worse. I think there's a great deal
of scope for for human action, for human human freedom.
If if I thought these things were deterministic, you might
as well, you know, maybe just accepted the lines are coming.
You should just have some yoga and prayer, full meditation,
(02:33:05):
and wait, will the lines eat you up? And I
don't think that's what you're supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (02:33:09):
It's that's true. Yeah, you're not supposed to allow it
to happen. That's where repentance and notice for a Christian
presenting his Christian view on the Antichrist, morality, repentance, relationships
with God, family children, none of these things are mentioned
by Peter Teel. The whole thing is about GDP go
(02:33:32):
up and technicality, technological advance goes forward. That's literally the
only metric. It looks like he's judging the world.
Speaker 3 (02:33:40):
By It's no I agree with that, and I think
on that note, I'm I'm just trying to be hopeful
and suggesting that, you know, in trying to resist the
Antichrist using your human freedom, you should have hope that
you'll succeed.
Speaker 5 (02:33:55):
Right, we can agree on that. Good Peter, tele thank
you for joining us.
Speaker 1 (02:34:01):
And so that pretty much wraps up today's stream. Guy. So,
I mean, what are your guys' thoughts? I thought this
was an important conversation because Teal calling Peel, I'm getting
Peter and Teel Peter Teel. Teal is presenting himself as
a Christian right and giving voice to worries about AI
(02:34:22):
and the problems of woke culture and Silicon Valley and stagnation,
and he's pro Trump, and he's a mentor of aance,
and yet his Christian I mean, what exactly is Christian?
He knows Bible verses. I mean, in the Hoover Institute interview,
he quoted multiple Bible verses. You know, for the last
(02:34:43):
six months he's been on this kick about Antichrist and
yet rejects any association that his technology is like Palentier
and his investments could actually facilitate the thing that he's
telling us to worry about, and in fact telling us
that the biggest thing we should worry about are people
like Greta Hernberg.
Speaker 4 (02:35:03):
What.
Speaker 1 (02:35:05):
Yeah, you know that Swedish autist is not the highest
on my list of existential threats to me and my
family and my prosperity and my potential to facilitate growth
in my parish and my religious community. You know, Greta
(02:35:25):
Thurnberg is annoying, but that's who I should be worried about,
and not people like Peter Teel and Elon Musk and
Neuralink and Pallanteer. What absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, Vasiliki says the
devil knows the Bible versus Yeah. I think that super
Chatter summed it up nicely. Peter Teeal is homosexual. Yeah, no,
(02:35:50):
I that's where I made that point in the beginning.
I mean there's already a massive contradiction there. Jay Homsa says,
to be honest, these guys are nuts and I might
be broke now well, Jay, thank you so much, bro
for the support. God bless you man. And we had
a new Codal crew member. Silvar has become a total
(02:36:12):
crew member. Thank you so much, brother for joining us.
Welcome to the community. And yeah, so what his like
Elon cries about the dangers of AI then wants to
stick a chip in the brain exactly exactly, And it's
powered by Tesla AI and GROC is Tesla AI rebranded
(02:36:33):
within the X platform. And so the advantage that GROC
and Tesla AI has is they have access to the
entire ex database for their LM. So because they have
all of that data that their data set that the
AI is pulling from, you know, that's pretty valuable. And
(02:36:56):
that's gonna that's one of the things that sets their
AI apart from the other ones. Dp h Raid Jay
Dyer before we wrap up, all right, Yeah, so anyways,
I'm sure this is gonna come up more in future
conversations because pel Teal I did it again. Teal keeps
(02:37:18):
presenting this Antichrist narrative about how essentially us to embrace
his technologies, right, I mean, it's just this dumb sort
of boomer dialectic that what we really need to worry
about is stagnation. The wild radical woke left and these
progressives like Greta Thunberg who are enamored by the global
(02:37:42):
climate change narrative. I don't know. I don't think that's
going to be the highest on my list. Teeter Peel,
that's probably what I'll start saying. Thanks, Charlie. Yeah, Greta
is islamo fascism. I mean, I'm Palestine in regards to Israel,
so I don't know if that makes me islamo fascist.
(02:38:04):
I'm not pro Islam or Judaism. Gandolf warned about using
the palanteer. I think we should listen to the Wizard exactly.
And again, if you guys didn't see what he's branding
his new digital bank, another Tolkien themed the Arabor and
(02:38:26):
so you know, you just scroll through the comments. Everybody's
upset that he keeps using the Lord of the Rings
for his tech companies. But he's doing the same thing again,
you know, and it's like disappointing. But anyways, guys, I'm
gonna send you all over to Jay Dyer. I got
(02:38:47):
tons of streams coming out this next week and the
week after to try to catch up on all all
the work and content that I need to create. So
I just want to thank everybody for the support today
in the chat. Throw in another five dollars over on
stream labs. Thank you so much, Hailey. In the chat,
God bless you, sister, In throws in five dollars on
(02:39:08):
stream Labs and says his creations are one hundred percent
projections of his fears. He is attempting to set up
a self fulfilling prophecy, whether malicious or ignorant or a
combination is bad. No, no good time out for Peter. Yeah,
I totally agree. In uh, that's exactly my opinion. And
(02:39:28):
Jewish Skeptic throws in seven over on Dono chat and says,
showing some love after that, w got on whatever. God
Blesseddph and make Christ preserve you and your wife. Well,
thank you very much. Jewish Skeptic really appreciate that. And guys,
I'm let me change the settings. Send you guys over
to Dyer's channel. I assume what's he have an open
(02:39:51):
panel today? He was in the chat earlier. Oh, he's
reputing Trent Horne Austin Detulio in ten more bucks. Thank
you so much, Austin. God bless you, brother. I really
appreciate you. Guys. We only got half the goal today.
I'm gonna have to start coming up with something unique
to offer you guys to reach a goal. I see
(02:40:14):
all my friends are able to reach their goals so
much easier the the financial goals you can set on YouTube.
So I'm gonna have to come up with something really
clever that you guys are gonna want, so maybe we
can finally reach some goals. But anyways, I want to
thank you all so much for the support today, Thank
you all for being here. Smashed that, like I hope
(02:40:34):
it was insightful and just kind of keeping you up
to speed on Peter Thiel and kind of this conversation
around Christianity, MAGA support and AI transhumanist technological development and
stuff like that. So I will catch you all in
the next one as always, until then, God bless