The New York Times interview with Peter Thiel, titled 'Peter Thiel and the Antichrist," has indeed sparked considerable discussion, particularly among conservatives. The interview delves into Thiel's complex worldview, touching on technological stagnation, political disruption, and his provocative interpretations of apocalyptic themes.
Thiel's central argument throughout the interview is his stagnation thesis. He believes that despite the apparent rapid advancements in digital technology (like the internet, crypto, and AI), overall societal progress has significantly slowed since the 1970s. He contrasts this with earlier periods, like 1750 to 1970, which saw accelerating change in physical realms (transportation, space exploration, etc.). He argues that this stagnation is problematic because Western society's institutions and expectations are predicated on growth, and without it, society may "unravel."
He views current technological advancements, particularly in Artificial Intelligence, as the "only thing we have" to potentially counteract this stagnation. While he acknowledges the risks of AI, he believes the alternative, total stagnation, is worse. He is sceptical of the "superintelligence cascade theory," which posits that AI will solve all problems, suggesting that the "gating factor" isn't merely intelligence, but rather deeper societal issues, such as a lack of tolerance for "heterodox smart people" and a tendency towards conformism.
Thiel's involvement in politics, particularly his early support for Donald Trump, is presented as an attempt to disrupt the perceived stagnation. He saw Trump as a "disruptive agent" who might challenge the political status quo and spark a necessary conversation about American decline. While he admits his expectations for Trump's positive impact were not fully met, he believes Trump's rise at least opened up a dialogue about stagnation that wasn't happening before.
His pivot from funding "seasteading" (building new societies independent of existing governments) to supporting political figures like Trump and J.D. Vance suggests a shift in strategy. Instead of building alternatives outside the system, he engaged with existing political structures to try and "redirect the Titanic from the iceberg."
The most provocative aspect of the interview is Thiel's discussion of the Antichrist. He reinterprets the traditional understanding of the Antichrist not as an evil technological genius, but as a force that comes to power by exploiting fears of apocalypse (nuclear war, environmental disaster, AI taking over) and promising "peace and safety" through control and regulation. He links this to the idea of a "one-world state" that would impose a universal stagnation, a "degrowth, small Scandinavian village" that would be "super oppressive."
Thiel suggests that the fear of existential risks could lead society to embrace a conformist, controlled future, which to him, is a manifestation of the Antichrist's influence. He even provocatively asks if the world's submission to "peace and safetyism" and 50 years of stagnation is evidence that the reign of the Antichrist may have already begun, referencing 1 Thessalonians 5:3.
The question of whether Thiel is the Antichrist or just a technocrat having fun is at the heart of the debate.
Just a technocrat having fun?
Thiel clearly enjoys engaging in intellectual debates and pushing boundaries. His willingness to discuss such profound and controversial topics with a New York Times columnist suggests a desire to be a public intellectual, to provoke thought, and to shape conversations.
His investments in disruptive technologies and political figures align with a venture capitalist's approach: seeking high-risk, high-reward opportunities that could fundamentally change existing systems. He sees politics, like technology, as a field ripe for innovation and disruption.
His self-professed "schizophrenic" view on funding politicians ("incredibly important, and it's incredibly toxic") hints at an almost playful, yet deeply engaged, approach to the political arena.
The Antichrist?
It's highly unlikely that anyone, including Thiel himself, seriously believes he is the literal Antichrist. The controversy stems from his reinterpretation of the Antichrist figure and its application to modern societal trends.
His critics, particularly conservatives who are upset, may find his ideas about technological progress, his engagement with Trump, and his willingness to reframe religious concepts as a threat to traditional values or as a form of intellectual hubris. Some might see his company, Palantir (named after the "seeing-stones" in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings which could corrupt their users), as emblematic of a concerning drive for control and surveillance.
The "Antichrist" framework allows Thiel to express his deep anxieties about societal decline, the loss of ambition, and the potential for fear-driven conformity to stifle human progress. It's a rhetorical device he uses to highlight what he sees as fundamental dangers in the modern world.
In conclusion, Peter Thiel is not literally the Antichrist. His discussion of the Antichrist is a provocative intellectual framework he uses to articulate his fears about technological stagnation and the societal forces that he believes are preventing humanity from achieving its full potential. He sees the "Antichrist" as a symbol of a future where a desire for "peace and safety" through excessive control leads to a deeply oppressive and stagnant world. His actions and statements position him as a radical technocrat and intellectual who is deeply concerned with the trajectory of Western society and is willing to engage in high-stakes ventures, both technological and political, to try and alter that course.
Be that as it may, his entire world view, a mechanistic technocracy, one which is side stepping human liberty, is incompatible with Christianity. His concerns with just growth are reductionistic.