Speaker 1: Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take over
Speaker 1: the world, right, I'm just we're ending in the apocalyptic.
Speaker 2: My telling of the history is the hippies did win.
Speaker 2: That's when progress stopped and the hippies won in the
Speaker 2: seventeenth century. I can imagine a doctor Strange Love taking
Speaker 2: over the world.
Speaker 3: In our world is far more.
Speaker 2: Likely to be Brettathunburg, the breat of Future, Gretathunberg.
Speaker 3: Gretathunburg's on a boat, Brettathuneburg.
Speaker 1: God, God will not leave us eternally being lectured by Gretathunburg.
Speaker 3: Right, he will not abandon us.
Speaker 2: The only three on offer in Europe are green Sharia
Speaker 2: and totalitarian communist state, and the Bread of Future is
Speaker 2: by far the strongest.
Speaker 4: All Right, we did We've done a few episodes in
Speaker 4: a row of kind of some pretty heavy theory, some
Speaker 4: pretty hard reading, some pretty homeworky shit. So this is
Speaker 4: some less homeworky shit. We watched an interview with someone
Speaker 4: who I didn't We all know his name, right, we
Speaker 4: all know who he is. He is super funny, but
Speaker 4: I didn't know he was a fucking wacko like he
Speaker 4: is a he's a boogeyman for the left, you know,
Speaker 4: broadly speaking, So we thought it would be fun to
Speaker 4: see to see what his psychological state looks like in
Speaker 4: a one hour, off the leash kind of interview, because
Speaker 4: he's a powerful guy, and uh at best were disturbed.
Speaker 4: This was this was very entertaining.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I agree, kind of a nutcase.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it was more than disturbing. Now, we did talk
Speaker 6: a lot about Peter Teel in a previous episode, which
Speaker 6: was that that was about the mold Bug episode when
Speaker 6: we were getting into some of the dark Enlightenment stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 6: he's got something called the stagnation thesis, which is basically
Speaker 6: saying there is this like extremely fast technological process starting
Speaker 6: at seventeen fifty with the Industrial Revolution and going all
Speaker 6: the way to the nineteen seventies. We were at this
Speaker 6: this like progress, economic growth and technological development and scientific
Speaker 6: progress at an accelerating pace, and then it comes to
Speaker 6: a halt for various reasons, and we go into a
Speaker 6: phase of stagnation. And AI is one of the great exceptions.
Speaker 5: Not just immortality, but also like we're not trying to
Speaker 5: go to Mars apparently, and like that's a sign we're
Speaker 5: not making progress.
Speaker 6: And we're not investing heavily in nuclear power. And like
Speaker 6: the he said, all the research stopped with you know,
Speaker 6: the Alamo Los Alamos, like it really stopped progress in
Speaker 6: nuclear research. And he's like it's tied into his hatred
Speaker 6: of socialism and thinking that like the government and socialism
Speaker 6: are the same thing, and anything the government does is socialists.
Speaker 6: So regulating AI all that weird, wo gay eye shit,
Speaker 6: that's socialism. Regulating nuclear bombs because you know, having everyone
Speaker 6: having nukes could be problematic, that's socialism. Anything the government
Speaker 6: does is socialism. It's tied in with that kind of
Speaker 6: idea as well.
Speaker 4: You're you're making him sound too sane. This is like
Speaker 4: the argument that any sane right winger would make socialism
Speaker 4: is the enemy.
Speaker 6: But this is I think it is insane.
Speaker 4: This is one of the the top ten most powerful
Speaker 4: people in the world probably arguably, right, Is there any argument?
Speaker 6: Probably he's a billionaire, so he's up there.
Speaker 4: He's got one of the one of the most valuable companies,
Speaker 4: probably one of the top ten tech companies at least
Speaker 4: calendar by market cap, and it's on the increase, unlike
Speaker 4: some of the other ones. It's on the increase, But
Speaker 4: I just wanted to before we get into his his
Speaker 4: his strange theories of escataglogy and his strange theories of history.
Speaker 4: I just thought this was he's a very weird vibes guy,
Speaker 4: like for being one of the most powerful people on
Speaker 4: the world, in the world, he is paranoid. I want
Speaker 4: to say, he's extremely paranoid. But also what he fears.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's just because I'm not a billionaire, but the
Speaker 4: fears he has make no sense. His conspiracy theory will
Speaker 4: skip to end. Maybe his conspiracy theory is that the
Speaker 4: Antichrist is Greta Thunberg, and Greta Thunberg is going to
Speaker 4: end history. But also that history already, as you alluded to,
Speaker 4: before history ended in either nineteen forty five or nineteen
Speaker 4: sixty nine, because after the moon landing then LSD and
Speaker 4: Charles Manson took over I don't know what over they
Speaker 4: took over the world.
Speaker 7: That comment was one insane The comment about Charles Manson
Speaker 7: like made me pause. The video rewind and it was like,
Speaker 7: what the fuck did he just said? He said something
Speaker 7: in the line and I think this is probably one
Speaker 7: of the most revealing lines in the interview. He has
Speaker 7: something in the line that Charles Manson took LSDEP and
Speaker 7: became a Dostoyevsky villion. He transcended laws and morals, but
Speaker 7: not anyone can be like Charles Manson, Like what the
Speaker 7: fuck are you implying, dude? Like like what was he saying?
Speaker 7: Like that whole sentence, the sentence by itself, like Charles
Speaker 7: Manson took ls DEEP and became a Dostoyevsky villain. He
Speaker 7: transcended morals, but not that anybody can be like Charles Manson.
Speaker 7: Like the implications of that sentence alone is for an essay.
Speaker 7: I swear to god.
Speaker 6: Yeah, everyone became as direct.
Speaker 4: Think we're lying. I can drop in the the citations.
Speaker 2: Here, Baconian science. It ended at los almost and then
Speaker 2: it was okay, it ended there, and we didn't want
Speaker 2: to have any more. And you know, uh, you know
Speaker 2: when Charles Manson took LSD in you know, the late
Speaker 2: sixties and started murdering people, what he saw on LSD,
Speaker 2: what he learned was that you could be like dosta Yevsky,
Speaker 2: an anti hero and Dostayevsky and everything was permitted. And
Speaker 2: of course not everyone became Charles Manson but but Charles
Speaker 2: the history, everyone became as deranged as Charles man.
Speaker 1: But Charles Manson did not become the Antichrist and take
Speaker 1: over the world. Right, I'm just I'm just we're ending
Speaker 1: in the apocalyptic.
Speaker 2: But my telling of the my telling of the history
Speaker 2: of the nineteen seventies is the hippies did win.
Speaker 6: Everyone became as deranged as Charles Manson. Charles Manson did
Speaker 6: not become the Anti Christ and take over the world.
Speaker 6: I'm just, I'm just we're ending, We're ending in the apocalypse.
Speaker 6: Like like he's so the anti Christ? Is this coming
Speaker 6: apocalyptic figure.
Speaker 4: If anyone's wondering why Victor's camera is off, it's because
Speaker 4: he is like Arles Manson on LSD and completely deranged.
Speaker 7: Is in a cabin somewhere.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, I'm so tempted to try my camera
Speaker 5: again because I did. I did move close to the house.
Speaker 5: I don't know. We can just try see if it works,
Speaker 5: but I don't know.
Speaker 4: Look at that Canadian wilderness.
Speaker 6: Yeah yeah, yeah, that's that's his backyard.
Speaker 7: I have the place to hide some bodies. Victory.
Speaker 5: I have to hold my mic because I forgot my
Speaker 5: mic stent back.
Speaker 6: In Toronto, just at City Hall for the day.
Speaker 4: He's at the Brazoni family compound.
Speaker 6: It's in the woods.
Speaker 5: I'm actually in a house that's made of hey bail.
Speaker 7: Anyway, So, so Peter Till, Peter Till started as a
Speaker 7: venture capitalist. Like he raised like a million dollars from
Speaker 7: friends and family. He started investing in some shit, he
Speaker 7: got into PayPal, like, he started with these anarcho capitalist
Speaker 7: libertarian ideas of saying that, like you guys were saying, like,
Speaker 7: he's framing socialism in a very carricaturesque way, like anything
Speaker 7: the state does is anti natural because it creates boundaries
Speaker 7: for human behavior. So libertarians appeal to this notion that
Speaker 7: capitalism is is human nature and as we are traders
Speaker 7: and we we tend to naturally develop towards capitalism. But
Speaker 7: at some point he also says that Ellen must give
Speaker 7: up on the dream of going to Mars because socialism
Speaker 7: will follow us into Mars. And then it's like, so, dude,
Speaker 7: like what the fuck are you saying?
Speaker 8: So, so, if if socialism is going to follow us
Speaker 8: into Mars, if we expand as a transplanetary civilization, then
Speaker 8: maybe socialism is human nature, you fucking asshole. It's like,
Speaker 8: what the fuck, Like, I don't get these guys, Like
Speaker 8: they try to make this very deep, like profound sounding arguments,
Speaker 8: and they treat them in the most dumb, stupid way possible.
Speaker 8: It's it's truly insane, Like they don't even understand the
Speaker 8: ideology they're supposed to be defending.
Speaker 7: Like most of what he says is purely schism. It's
Speaker 7: not even it's not even meaningful or rooted in a
Speaker 7: philosophical system by itself.
Speaker 4: And again, less lest you think that he's making too
Speaker 4: much sense by arguing against socialism, No, they're they're actually
Speaker 4: there three forces that are fighting. I'll want to insert
Speaker 4: the clip too. There are three fight forces that are
Speaker 4: currently battling over Europe. The dragons maybe you call them.
Speaker 2: I want to say, it's the only thing people still
Speaker 2: believe in in Europe, Like, you know, they believe in
Speaker 2: the green thing more than Islamic Sharia law or more
Speaker 2: than in you know, the Chinese communists totalitarian takeover and
Speaker 2: the future is an idea of a future that looks
Speaker 2: different from the present. The only three on offer in
Speaker 2: Europe are green Sharia and you know, the totalitarian communist
Speaker 2: state and the green one is by far the strongest.
Speaker 4: They are Chinese style communism. Okay, in Europe, right sharia
Speaker 4: law and environmentalism. Environmentalism and then supposedly progress is the
Speaker 4: one being drowned out here. But environmentalism is winning the
Speaker 4: fight against sharia law and Chinese communism for control over
Speaker 4: the end times, battle of Europe.
Speaker 7: It's insane. It's beyond insane. It's crazy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, which I love. This is this is genius. The
Speaker 4: problem is, Okay, I have a problem with the interviewer here.
Speaker 4: I wanted to let's.
Speaker 5: Talk about Rostou.
Speaker 4: I want to quickly bring this up because I I
Speaker 4: was like, okay, New York Times, you know, you expect competence.
Speaker 4: They went to probably a good journalism school. But this guy,
Speaker 4: he's a.
Speaker 5: Token conservative though that's the like Rosstout, it is the
Speaker 5: token conservative.
Speaker 4: I didn't know that, but I learned. I learned, uh
Speaker 4: from having done some research on him, because there was
Speaker 4: no ideological pushback. And then Peter Thiel says offhanded things
Speaker 4: like well, credit Tunberg is the Antichrist, and the interviewer goes, well,
Speaker 4: she might be the antichrist, but kind of what you're
Speaker 4: saying is like the control over economic growth is the antichrist, right,
Speaker 4: and Peter Teel's like, no, actually, Cretituneberg, Yeah, he's like sitting.
Speaker 6: There rationalizing his crazy thing. He's like rationalized, and the
Speaker 6: be like, yeah, yeah, I understand. I don't agree with
Speaker 6: your rhetoric, but I agree with the substance of what
Speaker 6: you're saying.
Speaker 4: It's okay, great, look, I'll put it up here. This
Speaker 4: is the uh Ross Stoute's last article, which is called
Speaker 4: how Israel's War became unjust? First sentence, Israel's war in
Speaker 4: Gaza is not a genocide, period, It's a war for
Speaker 4: a just cause, the elimination of a cruel, fanatical, potentially
Speaker 4: genocidal terrorist organization. Blah blah. So this is lastly the rest.
Speaker 4: But I went deeper. Okay, so that's bog standard conservative
Speaker 4: media person I found out. First of all, you'll love
Speaker 4: this victor adult convert to Catholicism. But why did he
Speaker 4: convert to Catholicism. He's quote a huge fan of Lewis,
Speaker 4: a mid twentieth century Anglican who penned the Chronicles of
Speaker 4: Narnia and JR. Tolki, another anti modern conservative Catholic. So
Speaker 4: if you converted to Catholicism because of Lord of the
Speaker 4: Rings I personally and the line and the line, the
Speaker 4: rich of the word robe, I say you should you
Speaker 4: should not be allowed to own a computer and especially
Speaker 4: not be allowed to spread your opinions in the New
Speaker 4: York Times.
Speaker 5: Well it was weird, though, wasn't There were like weird
Speaker 5: conservative themes that were coming out through that interview too,
Speaker 5: or sorry, weird Christian themes because I feel like the
Speaker 5: debate over what the Antichrist is and I kept feeling
Speaker 5: like Ross Deut that kind of wanted to like agree,
Speaker 5: but then I don't know if you guys noticed, but
Speaker 5: I felt like there were just moments where then like
Speaker 5: Peter Teel would say stuff and like you could feel
Speaker 5: rosstout it being like that's definitely like that's weird, like
Speaker 5: that's not what like like like Christians think kind of
Speaker 5: like I felt like he was reacting on behalf of
Speaker 5: like a Christian audience and kind of being like, well,
Speaker 5: like maybe there's a way that like this could make sense,
Speaker 5: and then everybody would crazy and he'd be like, I
Speaker 5: don't know, okay, like maybe.
Speaker 7: Is the same like a non prolific argumentation that this
Speaker 7: discussing about the density of the mineral and materials of
Speaker 7: the one ring being carried to murder, you know, like
Speaker 7: they're trying to out Christian themselves. Is like, man, this
Speaker 7: is totally bullshitty. This, this being in the New York
Speaker 7: Times is beyond pathetic. It's beyond pathetic.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I know, what's New York Times trying to be
Speaker 5: trying to be.
Speaker 4: Not just Book of Revelation fanfic, but Lord of the Rings.
Speaker 4: This guy, we're actually like, like, I know Eric has
Speaker 4: brought this up at nauseum, but if you actually read
Speaker 4: Lord of the Rings, this guy is literally Saruman.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he wants to he wants.
Speaker 4: To breed his own workforce. He wants to live in
Speaker 4: a private city that he controls. He's the supreme Lord
Speaker 4: of check.
Speaker 7: He wants to create a polaneer.
Speaker 4: He wants to cut down all the trees so he
Speaker 4: can heat his furnaces, flying fucking cars for technological progress.
Speaker 4: There's the fourth one owns Palatineer's Insane, which the devil
Speaker 4: used to corrupt sorrowmon at a distance, Like, what are
Speaker 4: we doing here, guys?
Speaker 6: The magical stone exactly takes over people's minds.
Speaker 5: With exactly exactly. It's crazy. I also I also feel
Speaker 5: like my my overall feeling is like this is like
Speaker 5: a rich guy who just like wants to live forever.
Speaker 5: Like I feel like that was, you know, like if
Speaker 5: I was to oversimplify it, I'm just like, this is
Speaker 5: like an obsessive rich guy who wants to live forever,
Speaker 5: and he's mad that society isn't like trying to figure
Speaker 5: that out sooner, and it's like the environmentalists who are
Speaker 5: getting in the way. And like at one point he
Speaker 5: even says, I don't know if you guys picked up
Speaker 5: on it, but he's like, you know, medical research needs
Speaker 5: to take more risks, and in other words, what does
Speaker 5: he mean by that? He means like experiment more on humans,
Speaker 5: like experiment on marginalize people more like like just get
Speaker 5: me that fucking immortality, whatever it takes. And like this market,
Speaker 5: like all these environmentalists and ethical concern people, they're getting
Speaker 5: in my way of immortality. And like I feel like
Speaker 5: that's like his number one, like if I was obviously
Speaker 5: over simplification. But that's my feeling of like a obsession.
Speaker 4: Which again is sorumon who bred red orcs in his
Speaker 4: like dungeons.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but but Loki, I felt he's like this so
Speaker 7: self loading perverts, you know, like, yeah, it's it's it's
Speaker 7: I felt this constantly over the interview. There's there's notion
Speaker 7: like to be to be a transhumanist, one reading, one
Speaker 7: reading of transhumanism from a Marxist background, it would be
Speaker 7: this very famous sentence from for Marx, everything that is
Speaker 7: solid gets melted into liquid, and everything that is sacred
Speaker 7: becomes profane. Yeah yeah, okay, so sorry that my translation
Speaker 7: was wrong. Melt comes into air and everything that is
Speaker 7: sacred becomes profane. And I think like the second part
Speaker 7: is clear. He mentions these dialectics between sacred and profane
Speaker 7: constantly from sacred is either progress or stagnatian, and profane
Speaker 7: is the is the opposition, you know, like we could
Speaker 7: even use like I've been reading Battitle a lot on
Speaker 7: the difference between homogeny and heterogeny and the opposition and
Speaker 7: the exclusion of otherness, and like, in this sense, I
Speaker 7: felt constantly in his discourse these dialectics between stagnation and progress,
Speaker 7: sacred and profane. Right, but the self loathing part, according
Speaker 7: to me, is the fact that transhumanism in a way
Speaker 7: is a loath for flesh or a you know, like
Speaker 7: a hate for material limitations to truly believe in transhumanism.
Speaker 7: And he makes this point during the interview, you know,
Speaker 7: like he says, we can be more trans than transvestise.
Speaker 7: You know, I want to change my heart. I want
Speaker 7: to you know, like you have to have a certain
Speaker 7: degree of detachment from your body or even loathe and
Speaker 7: hate for your own self to be able to say
Speaker 7: I want to transcend myself to a point where I
Speaker 7: leave everything behind, right, just disappear into nothingness. You know.
Speaker 5: But I think that's but that's connected to his immortality.
Speaker 5: I think because like his hatred, like I feel likething
Speaker 5: not making Yeah.
Speaker 4: I did not pick up the self loathing because I
Speaker 4: don't think he considers his body to be himself.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I feel like he hates the fact that his
Speaker 5: body is gonna kill him. But it was weird because
Speaker 5: because but it was weird because later he said, like,
Speaker 5: I don't want to like be in some computer. I
Speaker 5: want my body. I want to keep my body. But
Speaker 5: I also totally picked up on what you said diego too.
Speaker 5: So I was actually confused because on the one hand,
Speaker 5: I felt like he was talking about transcending. But then
Speaker 5: at other points he said something about how he wanted
Speaker 5: to like not live in a computer program or something
Speaker 5: like that.
Speaker 6: And the reason he picks up this sort of whole
Speaker 6: Christianized argument too with the anti christ is he's saying, like,
Speaker 6: orthodox Christianity supports transhumanism, Like it's even more transhumanism than
Speaker 6: any ideology, because the idea is that like you die
Speaker 6: and you are reborn. Yeah, like it's literally like rebirth
Speaker 6: in an afterlife and a promised land.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Christians should be ultra transhumanist, is like kind of
Speaker 5: his thesis.
Speaker 6: Yeah, So he's trying to rearticulate this stagnation thesis in
Speaker 6: a religious register, saying, the coming Antichrist is whatever the
Speaker 6: greta future or whatever, this is exactly, and what we
Speaker 6: need to do to avoid that he's saying is separate
Speaker 6: between two antichrist views. One of them is he says,
Speaker 6: this seventeenth century antichrist view where some evil mad man
Speaker 6: is gonna invent kind of like Sauron with the Ring, right,
Speaker 6: some evil mad man is going to invent technology doctor
Speaker 6: Strange Love style and hold the world hostage. The classic
Speaker 6: movie villain of like Marvel but he's saying, no, there's
Speaker 6: a new Antichrist now, and the Antichrist is the one
Speaker 6: who convinces you to hand over all your technology into
Speaker 6: the government safekeeping to regulate everything. And he says that's
Speaker 6: the true Antichrist, and that is a like irreparable stagnation
Speaker 6: situation that he feels like we need to avoid, but
Speaker 6: also that it's kind of here already. It was I
Speaker 6: think the interviewer brought that out a little bit, that
Speaker 6: that was a kind of unclear, and he's and so
Speaker 6: his mission is to like avoid that by developing I
Speaker 6: don't know, Palenteer developing surveillance technology and facial recognition technology
Speaker 6: and selling AI to Israel to help like bomb Gaza.
Speaker 6: I don't understand his reasoning. And it was the funniest
Speaker 6: moment is near the end when the interviewer is like,
Speaker 6: don't you think like the Antichrist would be doing what
Speaker 6: you're doing? Basically, like if you want to avoid the Antichrist,
Speaker 6: but you fucking sound like the Antichrist, man, come on.
Speaker 6: And then his response is like, ah, well, there's different degrees.
Speaker 1: You're deeply invested in Pallenteer in military technology and technologies
Speaker 1: of surveillance and technologies of warfare and so on. Right,
Speaker 1: And it just seems to me that when you tell
Speaker 1: me a story about out the Antichrist coming to power
Speaker 1: and using the fear of technological change to sort of
Speaker 1: impose order on the world, I feel like that Antichrist
Speaker 1: would be maybe be using the tools that you think
Speaker 1: you were that you were building, right, Like, wouldn't the
Speaker 1: Antichrist be like, great, you know, we're not gonna have
Speaker 1: any more technological progress. But I really like what Palanteer
Speaker 1: has done so far. Right, But isn't that isn't that
Speaker 1: a concern? Wouldn't that be the you know, the irony
Speaker 1: of history would be that the man publicly worrying about
Speaker 1: the Antichrist accidentally hastens his or her arrival.
Speaker 3: Uh, They're all they are all these different.
Speaker 2: Scenario.
Speaker 3: I obviously don't think that that's what I'm doing.
Speaker 6: And he goes on to say how the antichrist future
Speaker 6: will come about in his view, which is just like
Speaker 6: either genetically will just become a more docile species, or like,
Speaker 6: through thorough wokeization, we will just give up all technology
Speaker 6: to the safekeeping of like an atomic priesthood style of
Speaker 6: like like Warhammer forty k the fucking Mars tech priests
Speaker 6: or something like that are gonna take all our technology
Speaker 6: away from us.
Speaker 3: Insane vision.
Speaker 6: But I'm not surprised that people from Silicon Valley who
Speaker 6: love Ann Rand and get invited to do talks by
Speaker 6: the end Rand Society believe this shit. It's not surprising.
Speaker 4: We have two thousand years of eschatology trying to interpret revelation.
Speaker 4: Who's the Antichrist? Is it? Is it Nero? Is it?
Speaker 4: Is it the Pope? Is it Stalin? Is it Hitler? No,
Speaker 4: it's a sweetest Zoomer with autism. That's the Antichrist.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's just the fucking best man. I swear to god.
Speaker 7: The Gritta Dumberg Antichrist thing was like, oh my god,
Speaker 7: that's so perfect.
Speaker 2: In the seventeenth century, I can imagine a doctor Strange
Speaker 2: love Edward Teller type person taking over the world. In
Speaker 2: our world is far more likely to be Gratathunberg.
Speaker 1: Okay, I want to suggest a middle ground. He says it,
Speaker 1: like so seriously, Yeah.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 7: I'm not even being metaphorical here. She's literally Satan, Like, yeah,
Speaker 7: the blonde girl in the boat going to help starving
Speaker 7: kids in Palestine.
Speaker 5: Yeah, she's literally totally yeah, totally crazy.
Speaker 4: His big thing is the Antichrist sells peace and safety. Bitch,
Speaker 4: you have like ten billion dollars in contracts from the
Speaker 4: military ice CIA. And the guy's like, well, don't you
Speaker 4: think the Antichrist would be doing what you're doing? He goes, yeah,
Speaker 4: I don't think so, yeah, nah yeah.
Speaker 7: The other thing. The other thing that I found interesting
Speaker 7: is that he mentioned a nation started in the seventies
Speaker 7: with like what we normally interpret as.
Speaker 6: The Charles Manson Yeah.
Speaker 7: But with neoliberalism, Like the seventies is probably known as
Speaker 7: an as if we take up March reading of history
Speaker 7: as the probably the birth stage of neoliberalism with Margaret
Speaker 7: Thatcher and Reagan. And it's strange because he's fighting for deregulation.
Speaker 7: He truly believes monopoly is the best form of economic development,
Speaker 7: because he's like this techno fail the list or like
Speaker 7: utopian ascillation something like that. He truly believes monopoly is
Speaker 7: the best form of economy. But then at the same
Speaker 7: time he's like, yeah, we're not taking enough risks for
Speaker 7: to develop technology and not taking like moonshots in science.
Speaker 7: It's like dude, that's against the logic of capital. Capital
Speaker 7: will always go for short term profit, it will never
Speaker 7: take moonshots.
Speaker 4: On the other side, his two examples of when progress
Speaker 4: stopped are the Manhattan Project and then Landing, which are
Speaker 4: both by the government.
Speaker 7: It's fucking insane exactly. That's why we cannot take these
Speaker 7: guys for serials. Like there's very dumb, Like they're very
Speaker 7: very stupid.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's like he failed economics class. Like what happened
Speaker 6: in the seventies, the oil shock, which was a massive
Speaker 6: which is a massive supply side shock that kinsy and
Speaker 6: economist couldn't deal with, and then the beginning of stagflation,
Speaker 6: which is the combination of stagnation and inflation. It's like
Speaker 6: he failed that economy, didn't show up to that class
Speaker 6: in economics or something and was just like, yes, stagnation
Speaker 6: and he bullshitted his answer, and now he's run with
Speaker 6: it for the rest of his life. No, I mean,
Speaker 6: it's it's ridiculous. Yeah, the downturn was neoliberalism. That's usually
Speaker 6: we associate with it. I don't I understand hippies and
Speaker 6: Charles Manson taking LSD was the beginning of stagnation. It's
Speaker 6: very strange. I don't I don't know.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's it's very dumb. I always get angry at
Speaker 7: these people trying to blame WOKE on socialism. It's like, dude,
Speaker 7: woke is fully related to liberalism. Is like the division
Speaker 7: between body and subject, like the division between the state
Speaker 7: intervention and freedom of economics, like all the things these
Speaker 7: guys hate about woke. I DI is fully liberal, Like
Speaker 7: it's it's fully connected to liberal metaphysics, to liberal economic policies,
Speaker 7: to liberal public policies. And it's like, no, no, no, that's socialism,
Speaker 7: Like okay, right, whatever.
Speaker 6: He's clearly got the worldview of an oligarch. But this, yeah, this,
Speaker 6: you know, like Trump did this executive order on July
Speaker 6: twenty third called Preventing Woke AI and Federal Government, which
Speaker 6: is basically trying to regulate how AI is used in America,
Speaker 6: starting with the government saying, you know, his claim is
Speaker 6: that all these these AI companies are putting all these
Speaker 6: DEI style parameters into AI and therefore like biasing them
Speaker 6: towards like leftism and social justice, which is another massive
Speaker 6: cope for the way that you know, is there a genocide,
Speaker 6: is there a white genocide going on in South Africa
Speaker 6: right now. AI truthfully reports, no, there is not. Well,
Speaker 6: that's woke, that's woke. You're ignoring my opinion. It's like,
Speaker 6: what do you want? Guys Like, you're mad about post truth,
Speaker 6: but you're completely post truth yourself. You're mad about wokeism,
Speaker 6: but you're down for regulating the shit out of things
Speaker 6: so that you can have these fringe opinions being heard
Speaker 6: and having the majority agreed upon opinions that have a
Speaker 6: lot of evidence backing them up to be dismissed. And
Speaker 6: yet that's the woke side, Like they just their worldview
Speaker 6: is like it's it's like trying to reason with an alcoholic.
Speaker 6: You just can't do it. They'll just keep repeating their
Speaker 6: claims and never listen to what you're saying, and they
Speaker 6: go on in a.
Speaker 5: Loop point of order.
Speaker 4: Was this guy against woke at all?
Speaker 5: I didn't. I don't remember. I think so I think AI.
Speaker 4: He is against He Well, he's against woke because it's
Speaker 4: a restriction on AI. But he's also super pro trands
Speaker 4: because he wants more experiments done on people.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but he says trends enough.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so he wants he wants extreme trands transhuman like
Speaker 4: he wants to get a new heart. He wants like
Speaker 4: new blood from from healthy teenagers.
Speaker 6: Remember, there there's the woke leftist posthumanism, and then there's
Speaker 6: the hard line tech bro transhumanism, which is it's like a.
Speaker 7: Dark heg alien accelerationist. I swear to God, is.
Speaker 5: It worth mentioning his connection to his connection to JD
Speaker 5: Vans too, because like Jdvans hung around, yeah, Peter Teel
Speaker 5: all the time, and like I saw him as a mentor,
Speaker 5: So I think it's worth it's worth bringing that up.
Speaker 5: And then like the other thing that I think could
Speaker 5: be worth bringing up, and maybe if we want to
Speaker 5: do a part two to this, which would be like
Speaker 5: slightly more of an exploration, is that Peter Teele's biggest
Speaker 5: influence is like rehne Gier art and like this idea
Speaker 5: of mimetic desire. You know, I don't know if you guys.
Speaker 6: Ever totally forgot about your art does like a conflict
Speaker 6: theory where if you if there's a scarcity, Let's say
Speaker 6: there's a scarcity of attractive women, and you see somebody
Speaker 6: attracted to that to women those women, you imitate their
Speaker 6: desire and therefore create conflict over a scarce resource. That's
Speaker 6: like I just read Nicholas Luhman talking about the same
Speaker 6: thing earlier, and yeah, so this is Gerard's like conflict theory.
Speaker 5: And Peter Teeal actually desire the actually had Girard as
Speaker 5: a professor at Stanford's, like they actually knew each other
Speaker 5: and kept in touch. So I think, like, you know,
Speaker 5: that's really interesting, and like I don't know that much
Speaker 5: about memetic desire. I remember kind of coming across and
Speaker 5: being like this is sort of interesting. But like if
Speaker 5: I remember or like to oversimplified, it's like the idea
Speaker 5: that human desire is like not like its own thing.
Speaker 5: But we basically desire things because other people desire them,
Speaker 5: so we're basically copying other people.
Speaker 6: That's where conflict comes. Conflict arises because we imitate other
Speaker 6: people's desires in a world where the things we desire
Speaker 6: are fundamentally skids exactly.
Speaker 5: And then basically because we're always imitating other people's desires,
Speaker 5: that leads to conflict because we're trying to want up
Speaker 5: other people. We're trying to like show that we're the
Speaker 5: real thing when we're imitating people, and then we end
Speaker 5: up scapegoating, like we end up scapegoating people who were
Speaker 5: or our rivals, and then like Gerard thinks, the Christianity,
Speaker 5: so he's kind of a Christian, breaks this cycle of
Speaker 5: scapegoating because Christianity identifies with the scapegoat christ right, Like
Speaker 5: so it's like that's like, so that's the idea anyway.
Speaker 5: Like I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that's
Speaker 5: like my memory of sort of the idea. I don't
Speaker 5: know how that fits in with what fucking Teal is
Speaker 5: saying now, but I know it's like a huge influence
Speaker 5: on Teal and it could be something fun to read later.
Speaker 6: I think I think it connects maybe with Teal's earlier thinking.
Speaker 6: One of the interesting things about this video was just
Speaker 6: hearing him do a bit of reflecting on his supporting
Speaker 6: Vance and being a very very one of the first
Speaker 6: major supporters of Trump. Like this guy's a billionaire, gets
Speaker 6: to decide how politics, who gets funding and who doesn't,
Speaker 6: and he basically funded the careers of JD. Vance and Trump,
Speaker 6: and so he's decided how our political landscape is now.
Speaker 6: But he's a But the interviewer asked him, saying, Okay,
Speaker 6: you don't really do that sort of thing anymore. He's like, no,
Speaker 6: got out of politics because it's incredibly important but incredibly toxic.
Speaker 6: He so he pulls out of this incredibly toxic political
Speaker 6: zero sum game of funding politicians and reflects that what
Speaker 6: he thought he was doing didn't actually work out. He
Speaker 6: thought Trump was going to get in there like just
Speaker 6: basically destroy the government, break everything down, and maybe free
Speaker 6: him all his lovely research areas that have been regulated
Speaker 6: out of existence, like AIS and danger of becoming woke,
Speaker 6: no more nuclear, no human testing in biotech and medicine,
Speaker 6: like all those areas that he feels like the government
Speaker 6: has now put off limits. Trump was going to be
Speaker 6: like the savior, almost like a QAnon light theory of
Speaker 6: Trump coming in being the savior. And then he thinks
Speaker 6: that that kind of all went off the rails and
Speaker 6: now he's not funding politics anymore. But it's that, Yeah,
Speaker 6: I don't know, maybe that conflict theory stuff fed into
Speaker 6: his earlier thinking where there's like an artificial scarcity being
Speaker 6: created by government regulation and Trump was going to be
Speaker 6: his man to get in there and change that conversation, right,
Speaker 6: That's all he thinks. He's accomplished at least a little bit.
Speaker 6: Is changed the conversation a bit.
Speaker 5: And I think that he also is critical of like
Speaker 5: the way that corporations in Silicon Valley just kind of
Speaker 5: try to copy each other, copy each other's models. Like
Speaker 5: I think that's where like he also brings in the
Speaker 5: mimetic desire where he's like, all you guys are just
Speaker 5: like copying each other, and you should just do something unique,
Speaker 5: whatever the fuck that means. I don't know.
Speaker 4: I've I was confused by he wants deregulation, but the
Speaker 4: two examples of deregulation he actually just sounds like the
Speaker 4: other New York Times people the abundance abundance thing, because
Speaker 4: he wants he wants to get rid of the FDA
Speaker 4: and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I don't know if you
Speaker 4: brought up other examples. I just watched the second half.
Speaker 7: Now, well, PayPal is an attempt at deregulation. He wanted
Speaker 7: to get rid of central curve and see a control.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and that's like the Bitcoin ideal.
Speaker 4: Is he using the FDA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Speaker 4: as examples of administrative overstep that he wants to get
Speaker 4: rid of? Or do you think he has some specific
Speaker 4: project in those areas. What I got out of it.
Speaker 4: He's terrified of cancer, and he's terrified of Alzheimer's.
Speaker 5: Exactly bringing those things said, he wants to live forever.
Speaker 4: He's like like actually paranoid, Like you can tell. You
Speaker 4: can tell he's sleep He's like laying in bed thinking
Speaker 4: about getting Alzheimer's. And Greta Dunberg he's probably forgetting about stuff,
Speaker 4: so always forgetting about stuff, and he's becoming paranoid about it.
Speaker 5: Well, in my mind right now, I'm kind of all
Speaker 5: of a sudden making this on the fly connection that
Speaker 5: I'm realizing because maybe the reason why he worries about
Speaker 5: like or he's so obsessed with progress and like the
Speaker 5: stagnation is connected to the my metic theory, because he
Speaker 5: might have a criticism of capitalism that like all they're
Speaker 5: ever doing is copying each other and doing things that
Speaker 5: are so to make money, that are like kind of
Speaker 5: tried and true. And he's like worried now that no
Speaker 5: one's doing anything crazy and new because they just want
Speaker 5: to be safe. They want to copy everyone else. And
Speaker 5: because he's so obsessed with dying, he's like, we need
Speaker 5: to you know, we need to have some radical company,
Speaker 5: like a moonshot that's going to do something that's not safe. Right.
Speaker 5: So I feel like his criticism of capitalism, if there
Speaker 5: is one, is that it's too safe, it's too risk
Speaker 5: averse because people just want to make money on things
Speaker 5: that are like easy.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 5: And then he's like, so his criticism doesn't come from
Speaker 5: like egalitarianism. Probably like us, all of us at least
Speaker 5: to some extent, have a criticism of capitalism that's at
Speaker 5: least about like the fact that it leads to very
Speaker 5: inegalitarian outcomes. But for him, it's like he doesn't really
Speaker 5: care about that. He's just like, why aren't people doing
Speaker 5: crazy enough stuff? It's like, too it leads to too
Speaker 5: much mediocrity, and I don't want to die. So where
Speaker 5: are the people working on immortality?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 5: Where are the fucking people working on a martial? Yeah?
Speaker 6: Yeah? And and economic growth is going to slow as
Speaker 6: a result.
Speaker 7: There's a moment where the interviewer ask him like, so
Speaker 7: do you believe humanity needs to survive?
Speaker 5: And he takes it, Oh, yeah, that was an amazing moment.
Speaker 5: That was an amazing moment.
Speaker 1: Is it hype? Is it delusion? Is it something you
Speaker 1: worry about you. I think you you would prefer the
Speaker 1: human race to endure, right, Uh h, you're hesitant.
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I I would, I would. This is a long hesitation.
Speaker 3: It's so long hesitation. There's so many questions and plays.
Speaker 3: Would the human race survive?
Speaker 2: Uh? Yes, okay, but but uh I I also would.
Speaker 2: I I also would like us to to radically solve
Speaker 2: these problems and uh and so you know, it's always
Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, yeah, transhumanism.
Speaker 7: And then even the interview like intervenes and say, like, man,
Speaker 7: that's a very long time to respond to us to
Speaker 7: a rather simple.
Speaker 6: Question, long hesitation.
Speaker 7: Yes, yes, but you know, yes, but what do you mean? Yes?
Speaker 7: But like yeah, Like he's he's truly a true a
Speaker 7: transhumanist in that sense. And it's also connected to his
Speaker 7: theology in the sense that he doesn't believe in the
Speaker 7: necessity for materiality to transcend, So probably he's already either
Speaker 7: unconsciously feeling the decay of his own physical matter, and
Speaker 7: and he has this pipe dream about transcendence that is
Speaker 7: non material and is also supported by his believing Christianity,
Speaker 7: but also that you know, like almost ontological terror of
Speaker 7: being non material it's already providing him with the notion
Speaker 7: of the Antichrist as a result of his own logic,
Speaker 7: you know, like is this ischatological idea where he's he
Speaker 7: wants to get rid of materiality to have like these
Speaker 7: metaphysical transcendence, but at the same time the terrors bring
Speaker 7: him back to dementia and cancer. Like what he truly
Speaker 7: feels is not the entry Christ is the mensia and cancer,
Speaker 7: but he wants trusting his physical Boddy like the the
Speaker 7: like he's unconscious is very is very noticeable in the
Speaker 7: way he structured his responses, I.
Speaker 4: Think, which is not Orthodox Christianity, because orthodox Christianity one
Speaker 4: of the early heresies I don't recall the name, but
Speaker 4: one of the early Gnostic heresies was to say that
Speaker 4: Christ could not have been an actual flesh and blood
Speaker 4: human being. He had to only have appeared. I think
Speaker 4: it's like Arianism or one of those. He could only
Speaker 4: have appeared to be flesh and blood because it's impossible
Speaker 4: for physical matter to be redeemed. So he he keeps
Speaker 4: using Christianity as a as a as a touchstone, but
Speaker 4: in fact he's probably more of a Gnostic. A Gnostic
Speaker 4: anti humanist rather than a Christian humanist.
Speaker 6: It isn't kind of christianized neo liberalism because yeah, like
Speaker 6: the reason his his views are framed this way is
Speaker 6: because he's fundamentally like a libertarian or whatever you want
Speaker 6: to call it, anarcho capitalist like views like you know,
Speaker 6: Atlas Shrugged is about how human flourishing is bogged down
Speaker 6: by by bureaucracy, you know, rules, red tape and regulation,
Speaker 6: and that you've got to like shrug all that shit off.
Speaker 6: And that's basically, you know, the neoclassical neoliberal view market fundamentalism,
Speaker 6: like the free market is the fundamental natural state of
Speaker 6: like human interchange, right, which is not true. That's that's
Speaker 6: part of our confusion here, is that's not true. The
Speaker 6: free market requires loads of regulation to exist. And if
Speaker 6: you eliminated the government and the bureaucracy and the central
Speaker 6: Bank and the treasury and all that stuff, there'd be
Speaker 6: no more money, there'd be no more free market. We'd
Speaker 6: be we'd be bartering and trading bottle caps like Fallout style.
Speaker 6: But he thinks that anything bureaucracy is bad, and he's
Speaker 6: christianized that now into like this creative, wonderful Oh, it's
Speaker 6: like the Antichrist. It's like paving the way for the Antichrist.
Speaker 6: All this, all this bureaucracy leading to I don't know,
Speaker 6: either like one world Chinese style Greta Thunberg Scandinavian socialism
Speaker 6: right on the one hand, or complete because scarcity. Right,
Speaker 6: what's the basic thing about what's the basic neoliberal idea
Speaker 6: about scarcity? The best way to distribute limited resources under
Speaker 6: conditions of scarcity is a completely free and unregulated market.
Speaker 6: That's the basic kernel of neoliberal ideology. And he's just
Speaker 6: turned that into a religious view, which is like explicitly religious.
Speaker 6: It was implicitly all long religious and it was wrong,
Speaker 6: but now he's making it explicitly religious. And anything that
Speaker 6: opposes that fundamental kernel of his worldview is like preparation
Speaker 6: for the Antichrist. That's like, yeah, you're a servant of
Speaker 6: the Antichrist, which is reality. He's the anti Christ, as
Speaker 6: the fucking interviewer pointed out.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so in that sense, it's true, communism is the Antichrist.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's it's an anti socialist view to say the least.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly, I want to go out on a limb here,
Speaker 4: I don't I don't think. I think he is so
Speaker 4: rich and has like so little material need that capitalism
Speaker 4: doesn't actually exist for him anymore. All this talk about
Speaker 4: markets and neoliberally like this, it's gone from his mind
Speaker 4: because he has the afterlife and the Battle of the
Speaker 4: Three Dragons. That is the only thing that exists in
Speaker 4: his mind now. And if you compare him, like I
Speaker 4: did a lot of I put a YouTube video and
Speaker 4: I did a lot of reading of like Gilded Age
Speaker 4: capitalists and these guys like Henry Ford, the Rockefellers, they're
Speaker 4: very uh Calvinists, you know, the Calvinist the vapor thesis,
Speaker 4: just like put your head down, I'm not going to talk.
Speaker 4: I'm not going to be in the public eye. Yeah,
Speaker 4: there's no like afterlife. It's just their attitude is I'm rich.
Speaker 4: Fuck unions. They know they know the market, they know
Speaker 4: what markets are. They're very involved in like the the
Speaker 4: capitalist aspect of the capitalist life. Feel is like he
Speaker 4: needs to be an intellectual and an eschatologist. He's like
Speaker 4: he's leaving the material world and it's so funny to
Speaker 4: have him like have to talk and articulate his views.
Speaker 4: And the guy is even even the guy who's his fanboy,
Speaker 4: is like, bro, that's a little crazy, and he just
Speaker 4: he continues.
Speaker 6: This just made me think, you know, Calvinism is the
Speaker 6: view that you're predestined either to go to hell or
Speaker 6: to heaven, and that there is nothing in this life
Speaker 6: that you can do about it. It's different from Lutherans, right, well,
Speaker 6: Lutherans believe, you know, sola fide, right, you just have
Speaker 6: to have faith and you'll go to heaven. But Calvinists
Speaker 6: are like, you cannot know if you're going to heaven
Speaker 6: or hell, and it's all already predetermined anyway, and there's
Speaker 6: nothing you can do about it. So great, I can
Speaker 6: be a horrific capitalist and treat my workers like shit
Speaker 6: and destroy the environment and do all kinds of terrible shit,
Speaker 6: and there's nothing I can do to change my fate.
Speaker 6: That's why he thinks it's like a deterministic worldview. And
Speaker 6: it was interesting that Tel said, no, like, I'm not
Speaker 6: a determinist. I believe that there's a lot of room
Speaker 6: for human action and choice in history. So he's kind
Speaker 6: of pushing back on being identified as a Calvinist, saying, no,
Speaker 6: like I believe in free choice.
Speaker 4: Yeah, he straight up says we shouldn't give too much
Speaker 4: agency to God because it's our yees.
Speaker 2: If we interpret this as a ultimate causation verse, they
Speaker 2: want to say, I'm persunty because God caused me to
Speaker 2: do this. God is causing everything, and the Christian view
Speaker 2: is anti calvinist. God is not behind history. God is
Speaker 2: not causing everything. If you say God's causing everything, God,
Speaker 2: you're scapegoing God.
Speaker 1: But God, but God is behind Jesus Christ entering history
Speaker 1: because God was not going to leave us in a stagnationist,
Speaker 1: decadent Roman empire. Right, so at some point, at some point,
Speaker 1: at some point, God is going to step in. I
Speaker 1: am not I'm not I am not that Calvinist and
Speaker 1: that's not a passinism though, that's just Christianity.
Speaker 6: Yeah, Like there's no God standing behind history. Like but
Speaker 6: then then this was the smart kind of move that
Speaker 6: the interviewer did, was that, but but he sent But
Speaker 6: God is responsible for putting Christ into history, like he
Speaker 6: placed Christ there. So the fact that you're saying it's
Speaker 6: all about like human choice and what you're doing it
Speaker 6: pallanteer to prevent the coming of the Antichrist, and that
Speaker 6: there's no God in history I mean, this is a
Speaker 6: silly religious like one one version of Christianity versus another.
Speaker 6: But I thought it was interesting anyway to say. But
Speaker 6: you're saying there's no God behind any of this, but
Speaker 6: Christ and the Antichrist seemed pretty connected to a decision
Speaker 6: that God has made.
Speaker 7: So this is where I got a little bit like
Speaker 7: the pervert touch. On his speech. He made an antargeonism
Speaker 7: between low tax socialism that he said he was unsustainable
Speaker 7: because of Obama and consumer capitalism. So in his mind,
Speaker 7: in his libertarian mind, what he wants what he implied
Speaker 7: negatively between the opposition of low tax socialism being unsustainable
Speaker 7: and consumer capitalism also being unsustainable. In his mind, what
Speaker 7: he wants, it's a high savings capitalism, you know, is
Speaker 7: a self restraining capitalism system. Because he wants he wants
Speaker 7: to go either back to a fieldal order where very
Speaker 7: Atlas Shruggi, only the very few visionary men will make
Speaker 7: the choices of where to invest all our resources. And
Speaker 7: he said the going to Mars in twenty twenty four
Speaker 7: was a political project, you know, like it's it's almost
Speaker 7: like he's saying, like this, these visionary men have to
Speaker 7: take the rein on on top of the others and
Speaker 7: impose their will upon others because the other two options
Speaker 7: are wrong. Free market is wrong because we don't know
Speaker 7: how to do. Consumer capitalism is unsustainable, and low tax
Speaker 7: socialism is also unsustainable. He doesn't understand socialism is very clear,
Speaker 7: but his antagonism implies that what he wants negatives. Yeah,
Speaker 7: what what he implies negatively as a utopia is the
Speaker 7: sense of self restraining capitalism, which is which is always
Speaker 7: ridiculous because capitalism is at the same is, at the
Speaker 7: same spot a system where you're supposed to desire everything
Speaker 7: and aspire to to have everything, but at the same time,
Speaker 7: a good capitalist is always saving for the future.
Speaker 6: You know, Like he wants low tax capitalism. If you
Speaker 6: do the math on what he said, he wants low
Speaker 6: tax capitalism, correct, he thinks he thinks low tax, low
Speaker 6: tax socialism under Obama. I prefer that to high tax socialism, obviously,
Speaker 6: he says, but you know, eventually socialism leads to high taxes.
Speaker 6: That's like what he thinks socialism does is you just
Speaker 6: have to tax everything out of existence, which is to say,
Speaker 6: you know, yeah, low tax. And he doesn't like consumer
Speaker 6: capitalism either because consumer capitalism implies borrowing. Right, you're a
Speaker 6: capitalist and you're borrowing. No, he thinks capitalists create value only.
Speaker 6: Value only comes from capitalists in the free market doing
Speaker 6: things outside in the private sphere, and all government is
Speaker 6: just leading to socialism and high taxes. It's a very
Speaker 6: simplistic worldview that he's hung all these little old bells
Speaker 6: and whistles onto and oh atlas shrug doo, the antichrist
Speaker 6: ooh cryogenic freezing, Like why don't we get back to that?
Speaker 6: That was so great?
Speaker 5: Hey, it's like what again forever? That's the thing that's
Speaker 5: the theme here living.
Speaker 6: If you think, yeah, if you think for two seconds
Speaker 6: about cryogenics, that's just kicking the bar all down the road,
Speaker 6: because oh yeah, the future is going to figure out
Speaker 6: how to bring us back to life and cure the
Speaker 6: diseases that were supposedly freezing ourselves in the first place
Speaker 6: to avoid that doesn't real cancer, but oh yeah, probably
Speaker 6: that's it. So I'm going to freeze myself and let
Speaker 6: the future deal with that problem. So that's a non solution.
Speaker 6: And to him, AI, downloading your brain is a non
Speaker 6: solution because I want to keep my body.
Speaker 7: Can I say one good thing about him. I have
Speaker 7: one good thing to say about him because of his
Speaker 7: material conditions. And it wouldn't be here if I didn't
Speaker 7: use that sentence at least once. It's got to drink
Speaker 7: deal if it wasn't because of his material conditions and
Speaker 7: agreeing with pills as capitalism doesn't exist for him, you know,
Speaker 7: like he already has all his material needs probably solved,
Speaker 7: unless he has cancer in alzheimer. That will explain a
Speaker 7: lot about his speeches as well. But let's suppose he
Speaker 7: already has no worries about anything. He already has everything
Speaker 7: that he needs. All his material needs are fulfilled, so
Speaker 7: he can pipe dream about all this bullshit. He became
Speaker 7: a very long term thing, which I think it's conditioned
Speaker 7: to scarcity mentality. He doesn't have scarcity mentality because he
Speaker 7: said I invent I invested in JD. Vans and in
Speaker 7: Trump in twenty sixteen, and he said in twenty sixteen
Speaker 7: the probability of of Trump winning was fifty to fifty.
Speaker 7: But he said, maybe if I invested him in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 7: we can change something about the direction of politics for
Speaker 7: twenty twenty five. And you know, only only having those
Speaker 7: material conditions that allow you to have a billion dollars
Speaker 7: and place a bet under a ten year spam. It's
Speaker 7: already like a deservant of price to say to say
Speaker 7: something at least, so.
Speaker 4: He is a pervert. He's a anti anti Calvinist. He
Speaker 4: hates his body. You know, if there's if there is
Speaker 4: a billionaire who's likely to have like an underground bunker
Speaker 4: filled with babies harvested for adrina chrome, it is this guy.
Speaker 5: It is this doesn't he does he harvest like his
Speaker 5: like young people's blood and like, you know, there's that
Speaker 5: thing where.
Speaker 7: Well he's proel, so he's he's already pro organ traffic.
Speaker 5: Is he prois reel.
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's a meme that he has
Speaker 4: blood boys, but I have I have heard it said,
Speaker 4: it's been alleged.
Speaker 6: I think Palenteer is happy to do business with Israel.
Speaker 4: Like you're saying that he's a pervert. His pervert structure,
Speaker 4: in contrast to other billionaires who do things because they
Speaker 4: want to self aggrandize, or because they want power, or
Speaker 4: because they're just like selfish assholes, he kind of doesn't
Speaker 4: have that. He's kind of like left the register of
Speaker 4: normal concerns and he's at a level of neuroses where
Speaker 4: he's like a cosmic entity. His perversion is that he's
Speaker 4: not as much of a cosmic entity as he as
Speaker 4: he wishes he was. And he's like extremely focused on
Speaker 4: the last he is saruman.
Speaker 5: This is Yeah, he's like he wants to be a
Speaker 5: transhuman abomination. He wants to be a transhuman amount.
Speaker 7: There's there's a sentence from Freud that for me, it's
Speaker 7: always key to identifying perverse personalities, which is I recognize
Speaker 7: the existence of laws, but they don't apply to me. Yeah.
Speaker 4: It's like it's like he's refusing you can he can
Speaker 4: do anything he wants. And this is he's like reading
Speaker 4: about the or writing and reading and thinking constantly about
Speaker 4: the end of the world. He has unlimited resources, but
Speaker 4: his perversion is to not enjoy anything.
Speaker 6: And he's got he thinks this deep clever argument about
Speaker 6: stagnation and the anti Christ and this like new form
Speaker 6: of evil that's like, yeah, one world government regulating technology
Speaker 6: out of existence and guaranteeing stagnation for all time. But
Speaker 6: he's just a classic doctor evil figure. Like there's people
Speaker 6: outside of Palenteer protesting him. He's making technologies that help
Speaker 6: police states and military states do what they do. He's
Speaker 6: literally doing the most evil shit you can imagine, and
Speaker 6: he thinks he's saving the world. He thinks he I
Speaker 6: don't know what he thinks. I like him saving a
Speaker 6: small chunk of the world anyway, saving humanity in the abstract,
Speaker 6: not human beings as we saw from the interview, Do
Speaker 6: you think humanity should survive?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 6: No, Like he wants to save humanity by making it immortal,
Speaker 6: but he doesn't care about human beings as they exist
Speaker 6: separate from him.
Speaker 7: It's insane that he's libertarian and he believes we don't
Speaker 7: live in a libertarian society, but he already owns a
Speaker 7: president and a vice president. He's like, good, Like, what
Speaker 7: else do you want to buy? Like, really, what power
Speaker 7: do you think American politics have all regulating companies. If
Speaker 7: you are literally funding politicians for the past ten years
Speaker 7: and you're already placing them into office, what do you
Speaker 7: believe in libertarian society will look like?
Speaker 5: Idiot?
Speaker 6: Yeah, you can shape the most powerful empire in the
Speaker 6: world with money, and yet we're not neoliberal enough for
Speaker 6: this fucking guy.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 6: No, he wants to buy life he wants to buy.
Speaker 7: Everything that is into air, everything that is sacred, that's profane.
Speaker 7: I swear about that. That sentence is like the like
Speaker 7: what you say that the pernicle, like the roots of
Speaker 7: transhumanism in the sense of how capital turns everything into merchandises.
Speaker 7: I swear to God, in this guy's mind, utopia will
Speaker 7: be something like I can you offer you ten million
Speaker 7: dollars for your body, and you will disappear and your
Speaker 7: consciousness will be transferred to someone else, and ninety nine
Speaker 7: of the population of the world will say, yes, give
Speaker 7: me ten million dollars, fuck my body. Like this is
Speaker 7: what utopia looks like for Peter Tiel, like the full mercantilization,
Speaker 7: Like even quantum clouds will be sellable under his idea
Speaker 7: of a perfect society.
Speaker 5: I do love it. I do love it when you
Speaker 5: see people that are like stereotypes, like living stereotypes, and
Speaker 5: I just feel like Peter Tale watching it. It's just
Speaker 5: like the most delightfully perfect billionaire super villain stereotype that
Speaker 5: exists in real life, and you look at them and
Speaker 5: you're like wow, Like it's amazing that you're real and
Speaker 5: you're not like in some superhero movie.
Speaker 7: How powerful they are, they are and who they're connected to,
Speaker 7: and that's insane, you know, connecting to Pills. Last video
Speaker 7: on the channel, which is by the way, fucking amazing,
Speaker 7: brilliant and everybody should fucking see it. I'm going to
Speaker 7: do a live review on the video on Monday. But
Speaker 7: like this notion of how much capital interest shapes our
Speaker 7: worldview and we are not even aware, like the sense
Speaker 7: that you have an even to be critical about your
Speaker 7: ability to be critical about it because your knowledge of
Speaker 7: the tools that you have to be critical about your
Speaker 7: worldview are also in a way pre shaped by what
Speaker 7: you can or cannot see about the reality of society.
Speaker 7: Like we I don't think we can even understand the
Speaker 7: amount of reach these guy has on all our worldview.
Speaker 4: It's a it's you can you can see from his concerns,
Speaker 4: his neuroses, his what he's paranoid about. It's just a
Speaker 4: complete world of abstraction. And he's not He's not any happier, right,
Speaker 4: But just like, oh, the three dragons of Europe are
Speaker 4: sharia law, China and environmentalism, Like that's what's at stake, Yeah, current.
Speaker 6: The same, the same thing that Frederick Jameson does with postmodernism,
Speaker 6: we need to do with this guy's ideology as well,
Speaker 6: which is to see how it is a product of
Speaker 6: the economic configuration, the mode of production, and the specific
Speaker 6: woes of our era, not just generally two hundred years
Speaker 6: of capitalism, but like, like what's happening since the seventies
Speaker 6: that he thinks he's got all figured out what he
Speaker 6: really doesn't. It's weird, but all all this stuff is funny,
Speaker 6: but coming from this guy, with having being one of
Speaker 6: the wealthiest guys in the world, having the in lewence
Speaker 6: he does, basically being able to found a presidency, found
Speaker 6: a new party within the Republican Party, and fund an ideology.
Speaker 6: Remember how involved he was all with like Jarvin and
Speaker 6: all them. Like, it's scary that this guy's out here
Speaker 6: saying this stuff, even though it's kind of objectively.
Speaker 5: It's an interesting alliance though on the right that this
Speaker 5: guy is kind of influencing JD. Vance. And you know,
Speaker 5: maybe this is also a way in which I feel
Speaker 5: like the Right is just so much better at building alliances,
Speaker 5: because I mean, Peter Teel is like, like I said,
Speaker 5: he wants trans human abominations. He's also like gay. Right,
Speaker 5: It's like it's like and this guy's like a bit
Speaker 5: like built somehow built an alliance with like Catholic you know, JD. Vance.
Speaker 5: It's just interesting to me.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, interesting material for psychoanalysis, that's for sure. I
Speaker 6: got to read Bruce Fink and stuff and try to
Speaker 6: figure out what's going on.
Speaker 5: I would love to do Bruce.
Speaker 4: I thought, I thought this would be boring, like if
Speaker 4: Zuckerberg were doing this, it would be totally boring or Bezos.
Speaker 4: But this is a this is a madman, this is
Speaker 4: a this is the Faustian, the guy who made the
Speaker 4: Faustian bargain. And we're just seeing now, we're seeing the
Speaker 4: end of the story doctor Faustus. Yeah, doctor Fausta's last moments.
Speaker 6: And he's got Mephistopheles coming after him.
Speaker 4: We got through eschatology, we got through the different interpretations
Speaker 4: of revelation, we got through his various forms of mysticism.
Speaker 4: But that's a good place to lock her up, I think.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And you know those who are there's there's a
Speaker 5: video of this. You can see him at a cottage
Speaker 5: right now. So I'm excited to get back out there.
Speaker 6: And yeah, he's got his Charles Manson LSD hippie cult
Speaker 6: to get back to because remember they won in the
Speaker 6: seventies and they're here in Canada. Yeah, exactly, he's there
Speaker 6: in Queen's Park.
Speaker 4: Now, well if he gets if he gets a drone striked,
Speaker 4: then we'll we'll know where it came from.
Speaker 5: Also, if people want to know more about AI and
Speaker 5: like Palenteer actually just quick shout out. I think Friend
Speaker 5: of the Show or like We're in Hell has a
Speaker 5: great video that came out called AI Weapons and it's
Speaker 5: all about like does a deep dive into Peter Tiel?
Speaker 4: Is that a YouTube?
Speaker 5: Yeah, a YouTube video. Yeah, We're in Hell is a
Speaker 5: YouTube channel.
Speaker 4: Epoch Philosophy also made one that I didn't finish, but
Speaker 4: it was on Palenteer. Really good editing, really good editing.
Speaker 5: Nice stuff out there.
Speaker 6: If you want more, there's good stuff out there from
Speaker 6: a non proselitizing content creators.
Speaker 4: So next one, next one we're going to have to
Speaker 4: get back into. I think we're going to look at psychoanalysis, but.
Speaker 5: Maybe we'll be down for psychoanalysis. Also rein Asia art
Speaker 5: if you guys want to do it, if you want
Speaker 5: to keep this theme going, I'd be curious to read you,
Speaker 5: breen Asia.
Speaker 6: I mean, it came up twice in two completely different
Speaker 6: contexts today. That can't be a coincidence. That's is that
Speaker 6: that's got to.
Speaker 5: Be a psychonel adjacent Also, it's adjacent.
Speaker 9: He's a polarizing figure, though I can already tell just
Speaker 9: from our brief explanations of his uh, that can tell yeah,
Speaker 9: that that can lend itself to some pretty right wing shit.
Speaker 6: Too, exactly, which which makes it interesting, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 4: Well, this fan boying, I don't know if you want
Speaker 4: to call him a boot licker, this boot licker interview
Speaker 4: called Peter Thiel not just a billionaire but one of
Speaker 4: the most important right wing thinkers of the age.
Speaker 1: Despite the slight handicap of being a billionaire, there's a
Speaker 1: good case that he's the most influential right wing intellectual
Speaker 1: of the last twenty years.
Speaker 4: Amazing, all right, amazing, cheers, guys, have fun, Victor everyone else,
Speaker 4: thank you, Thank you very much, guys.
Speaker 5: Later, all right,