Latest news with #Antichrist
New York Times
11-07-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Interesting Times: A Mind-Bending Conversation with Peter Thiel
Hosted by Ross Douthat Produced by Sophia Alvarez BoydAndrea BetanzosElisa Gutierrez and Katherine Sullivan Edited by Jordana Hochman Engineered by Isaac JonesSophia Lanman and Tim Brow Original music by Isaac JonesSonia HerreroPat McCusker and Aman Sahota This week, we're bringing you a recent interview from 'Interesting Times with Ross Douthat,' one of The New York Times's newest podcasts. In this episode, Ross sits down with Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal and Palantir and one of the most contrarian thinkers in tech. Together, they unpack Thiel's theory that we're living through an era of technological stagnation, and debate whether President Trump's populism and the development of artificial intelligence will help us unlock new progress. Guest: Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal and Palantir. Additional Reading: Peter Thiel and the Antichrist 'Hard Fork' is hosted by Kevin Roose and Casey Newton and produced by Whitney Jones and Rachel Cohn. The show is edited by Jen Poyant. Engineering by Alyssa Moxley and original music by Dan Powell, Elisheba Ittoop, Marion Lozano, Sophia Lanman and Rowan Niemisto. Special thanks to Paula Szuchman, Pui-Wing Tam, Dahlia Haddad and Jeffrey Miranda.
CNN
29-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. In the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bibe's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'
CNN
29-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. In the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bibe's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'
Gizmodo
27-06-2025
- Business
- Gizmodo
Peter Thiel on Whether He's Ushering in the Antichrist: Um, Uhh, Buh, Um Uhh, th th, Uhhhh
Peter Thiel has been talking about the Devil a lot lately. Over the past few years, the eccentric tech billionaire has made it a habit of showing up at events sponsored by Christian organizations, where he has proceeded to espouse a bizarre brand of New Age-y faith. The tech magnate's preoccupation with God has only become more prominent as time has passed. During a recent appearance on the Hoover Institution's podcast, Thiel went on at length about his views on Apocalypse, Armageddon, and, pivotally, the Antichrist, who he feels could usher in the end of the World. This week, an interview with New York Times columnist Ross Douthat gave Thiel yet another opportunity to wax on about the Evil One, though the conversation ultimately did not go exactly the way the billionaire wanted it to. When questioned by Douthat about what sort of qualities the Antichrist might have, he gave a very odd answer. It was, in part: …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 default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance. What do you do about nuclear weapons? We have a United Nations with real teeth that controls them, and they're controlled by an international political order. And then something like this is also: What do we do about A.I.? And we need global compute governance. We need a one-world government to control all the computers, log every single keystroke, to make sure people don't program a dangerous A.I. And I've been wondering whether that's going from the frying pan into the fire. Thiel's suggestion seems to be that, if political organizations attempt to regulate the kinds of technology that he is invested in, they may actually be doing the Devil's work. These so-called religious views are obviously interesting for how closely they hew to the billionaire's political and economic interests. In the Palantir founder's eyes, Satan's vicar on Earth will be a loud supporter of stuff like nuclear non-proliferation, international law, and the regulation of AI. Later in the conversation, Thiel also suggested that the Antichrist could very well be someone like Greta Thunberg—in other words, a prominent social activist who cares less about stuff like profit margins and stock value and more about climate change and dead Palestinians. But is Thiel's preoccupation with supernatural evil even real? Frankly, it's unclear whether the billionaire is just a liar or a guy whose head is crammed so far up his ass that day looks like night and a peaceful global order unperturbed by nuclear war looks like the work of the Devil. If we start from the presumption that most people aspire to be the hero of their own story, and that Thiel is one of those people, and that he feels that his creepy technocratic endeavors are actually a force for good in the world instead of an obvious pox on humanity, then it would be safe to assume that he also feels that anything that gets in the way of those endeavors is decidedly not good—or, in his own words, the work of the 'Antichrist.' Anyway, later in Douthat and Thiel's conversation, the subject turned, again, to the Antichrist, and Douthat, to his credit, stuck the billionaire's feet to the fire somewhat. Douthat noted that, given Thiel's own investments and activities, it could very well be that he, himself, was laying the groundwork for his professed enemy. Douthat asks: You're an investor in A.I. You're deeply invested in Palantir, in military technology, in technologies of surveillance and technologies of warfare and so on. And it just seems to me that when you tell me a story about the Antichrist coming to power and using the fear of technological change to impose order on the world, I feel like that Antichrist would maybe be using the tools that you are building. Like, wouldn't the Antichrist be like: Great, we're not going to have any more technological progress, but I really like what Palantir has done so far. Isn't that a concern? Wouldn't that be the irony of history, that the man publicly worrying about the Antichrist accidentally hastens his or her arrival? Thiel's response was typical of his interviews: he stammered and sweated and looked like his face was going to fall off. That awkward moment Peter Thiel realized he might be the very Antichrist he warned about — Mykhaïlo Golub (@golub) June 27, 2025After an uncomfortably long period of time that mixed silence, stammering, and sweat, Thiel responded: 'Look, there are all these different scenarios. I obviously don't think that that's what I'm doing.' Douthat assured the billionaire tycoon that he didn't think that's what was happening, but he was hoping to get a better picture of 'how you get to a world willing to submit to permanent authoritarian rule.' At that point, it's possible that the Holy Spirit took the wheel as Thiel began to incoherently ramble about Thessalonians 5:3, the FDA, nuclear weapons regulations, Argentina, cultural stagnation, and historical predetermination. It's all a bit much. The internet subsequently had fun with the exchange, noting the possibility that Thiel, himself, might actually be a modern-day Damien. 'That awkward moment Peter Thiel realized he might be the very Antichrist he warned about,' one user wrote. Another user, meanwhile, referred to the venture capitalist as 'Satan.' Though he may share more than a passing resemblance to the Dark Lord, it seems pretty clear that Thiel could never be a serious contender for that role. That's because, unlike the honey-tongued underworld spawn that the Bible has long prophesied, Thiel is a complete verbal train wreck. Every interview with him—beset as they are by stammering and monotone intonations—is difficult to listen to. The Antichrist is supposed to be a compelling speaker, with the charm to cut across diverse constituencies. Entirely without rizz, Thiel obviously doesn't fit the profile. Donald Trump, on the other hand…
Gizmodo
26-06-2025
- Business
- Gizmodo
Peter Thiel Says Elon Musk Doesn't Understand His Own Robot Revolution
Far-right tech investor Peter Thiel sat down for an interview with the New York Times' Ross Douthat and talked about the billionaire's recent political escapades and the future of humanity. Thiel also discussed his thoughts on the Antichrist, a topic that the Times chose to highlight, giving the written version of the interview the salacious headline, 'Peter Thiel and the Antichrist.' But it was Thiel's thoughts on his friend Elon Musk that were arguably the most illuminating for those of us interested in the current collision of politics, business, and tech—especially since Thiel suggested Musk doesn't actually believe in a lot of what he's saying. Either that, or Musk just isn't very bright, another possibility Thiel subtly suggested was on the table. Ever since Musk debuted his 'robot' in 2021, which was actually just a person in a robot costume, the Tesla CEO has been hyping the idea that everyone would eventually have a personal humanoid robot in their home. In fact, Musk thinks these robots will be so popular that there will be a billion of them in the U.S. within 10 years. But Thiel believes that if that's actually going to happen, Musk is worrying about the wrong things when it comes to his politics. Musk is obsessed with budget deficits and has held up America's debt as one of the main reasons he supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, tossing at least a quarter of a billion dollars into the race. Well, there was the debt and Musk's other passion projects, like demonizing trans people and immigrants. But the debt was definitely a high priority for Musk. Thiel told the New York Times he thought that if Musk really believed in his robot revolution, the deficit would take care of itself. I had a conversation with Elon a few weeks ago about this. He said we're going to have a billion humanoid robots in the U.S. in 10 years. And I said: Well, if that's true, you don't need to worry about the budget deficits because we're going to have so much growth, the growth will take care of this. And then — well, he's still worried about the budget deficits. This doesn't prove that he doesn't believe in the billion robots, but it suggests that 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 some way in which these things are not quite thought through. Thiel's view is actually pretty common in Silicon Valley, though it's never phrased in quite that way. The guys on the All-In podcast, for example, are all friends with Musk as well and similarly talk about how growth is going to take care of budget deficits. The difference is that they talk about it as a way to rationalize their support for tax cuts while insisting they're deficit hawks. Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' is going to increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, largely because it's giving tax cuts skewed to older people and the wealthy. But the All-In bros think the growth in AI will fix it all while also insisting deficits will bankrupt the economy. But Thiel is taking a slightly different angle on his version of our robot-filled future, and it's one that anyone who's being intellectually honest should take seriously. If robots are really going to deliver this revolutionary productivity, a future where we're all just sitting around while robots do the work for us, why are Republicans like Musk so worried about deficits? Tesla's version of the humanoid robot is called Optimus, and Musk has been trying to play catch-up with other robot companies like Boston Dynamics and Figure. Boston Dynamics' Atlas was doing backflips almost a decade ago, while Optimus is still being tele-operated for Musk's smoke and mirrors shows. Back in January of 2024, Musk posted a video of Optimus folding laundry, but it was only revealed later that there was nothing autonomous about any of it. If you watched closely, you could see a hand slip into frame, showing that a human was doing the real work, which was mimicked by the robot, tech that's been around since the middle of the 20th century. The promise of robots doing all the work while humans embrace a kind of leisure society has been around for over a century. It was extremely common in the 1960s for very serious people to predict that we'd be working anywhere from just 16 to 30-hour weeks on average by the year 2000. They believed automation would make such a future inevitable. And Musk has been promising the exact same thing. He's even suggested that humans would need to have some kind of guaranteed basic income since there wouldn't be much work for humans to engage in anymore. It's all a fantasy, of course. At least it's a fantasy if you apply Musk's version of politics to this future. And it's extremely likely that Musk understands it as a fantasy. Even if humanoid robots did become commonplace and did most of the manual labor in society, that doesn't mean everyone gets a free paycheck. In fact, Musk has been fighting against exactly that idea, insisting that supposed freeloaders shouldn't get government benefits. And that's where Thiel is absolutely 100% correct. Musk doesn't understand the political implications of his own technology. It would take engaging in radically different politics to give everyone a universal basic income. Because in a world where productivity is radically increased, the wealth created isn't going to be shared with the workers. American productivity has improved radically since the 1970s, while wages have remained stagnant, relative to that growth. All that we've seen is a transfer of wealth to the richest people in the world, while everyone else struggles. Over the past decade, the top 1% have seen their wealth increase by at least $33.9 trillion, according to figures released today by Oxfam International. It's not just robots where Thiel thinks Musk doesn't understand his own tech. Thiel, who has known Musk since the 1990s when both were at PayPal, also suggested during his interview with the Times that Musk doesn't get how this would apply to Mars. Thiel had been a big proponent of seasteading, the movement to build artificial island nations and create an entirely new libertarian world on the ocean. And Musk's vision for Mars wasn't entirely different. As Thiel told the Times: There is a political dimension of getting 'Back to the Future.' You can't — this is a conversation I had with Elon back in 2024, and we had all these conversations. I had the seasteading version with Elon where I said: If 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. And then you always think of the right arguments to make later. It was about two hours after we had dinner and I was home that I thought of: Wow, Elon, you don't believe in going to Mars anymore. 2024 is the year where Elon stopped believing in Mars — not as a silly science tech project, but as a political project. Mars was supposed to be a political project; it was building an alternative. And in 2024 Elon came to believe that if you went to Mars, the socialist U.S. government, the woke A.I. would follow you to Mars. Musk has been obsessed with getting to Mars, even with some high profile fuck-ups from SpaceX in recent months. And it's really interesting to hear Thiel discuss these topics because he's absolutely right. If Musk actually believed in the things he's selling, his political outlook would be radically different. But he's stuck in this 20th-century mode while tinkering with his silly science projects, as Thiel puts it. Thiel, a fascist who doesn't believe women should be able to vote, is a very dangerous man. But he at least seems to understand the world he's trying to create. Douthat referred to Thiel during the interview as a 'venture capitalist for politics,' a funny rebranding of the term oligarch. But Musk doesn't seem to understand the world he's creating. Whether that turns out to be better or worse for humanity is less clear.
