What are the implications of Elon Musk's "dark MAGA" statement?

[Piero]

The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate

By Iain Davis

Part 1

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/03/investigative-series/the-dark-maga-gov-corp-technate-part-1/

 

Excerpt:

What does the title of this article – not to mention each unusual word in it – even mean? This is not a rhetorical question. We urgently need to understand each term. A precise political philosophy underpins each. A combination of these interrelated philosophies has been embraced – either in part or in their entirety – by some of the most powerful people on the planet. If we misapprehend how these controllers and influencers think, we risk blindly accepting whatever world order they wish to impose – and end up wondering how and why we find ourselves subjected to it.

Here's a summary of the webpage (generated by Gemini):

·     *    The transcript begins by analyzing Elon Musk's "dark MAGA" statement, linking "dark" to the Dark Enlightenment and Technocracy. It notes that while MAGA is understood, "dark" is less clear, suggesting deeper ties to these ideologies.

·       *     It identifies Musk as a proponent of Technocracy and Peter Thiel as connected to the Dark Enlightenment, highlighting their ideological overlap. Musk and Tesla's then-CFO Zach Kirkhorn changing titles to "TechnoKings" is cited as evidence of Musk's awareness of Technocracy.

·       *     The transcript argues that figures like Musk and Thiel use language with intent, similar to Aesopian language, reflecting their core beliefs. They are characterized as part of a powerful "superclass" or "parasite class" of oligarchs.

·      *      Elon Musk's grandfather, Joshua N. Haldeman, and his involvement with Technocracy Inc., including his arrest for promoting it, are discussed. Technocracy is described as rooted in Frederick Winslow Taylor's "industrial efficiency" (Taylorism) and Thorstein Veblen's economic theories.

·       *     C.H. Douglas's social credit theory, aiming to address inequality via a "National Credit Office" and Universal Basic Income (UBI), is presented as resonating with Musk's views. Musk's family history, his mother Maye Haldeman's awareness of her parents' politics, and Elon's emigration to Canada and the US are mentioned.

·       *     Musk's desire for a "Mars Technocracy" and his advocacy for accelerated technological development are highlighted, along with his support for Universal Basic Income, indicating technocratic economic alignment.

·          *  The establishment of the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is presented as a manifestation of Technocratic ambitions, with Musk's involvement. DOGE's aim to restructure government for efficiency is linked to Taylorism and the neoreactionary "Retire All Government Employees" (RAGE) concept.

·        *    The transcript expresses concern about the shift of political power to the private sector through initiatives like DOGE, influenced by unelected individuals and corporations with vested interests.

·        *    Technocracy is defined as governance by technical experts, not politicians, focused on technological solutions. Technocracy Inc. described it as "the science of social engineering" for production and distribution.

·       *     Frederick Winslow Taylor's "scientific management" (Taylorism) and Thorstein Veblen's "conspicuous consumption" theories are noted as influences. The Technical Alliance (later Technocracy Inc.) and its vision of a "Technate," a centrally controlled continental structure, are detailed.

·       *     The structure of a Technate, with "Functional Sequences," "Regional Divisions," and "Continental Control" under a "Continental Director," is explained. Technocracy's aim for a classless system of "abundance" is contrasted with oligarchs' potential motives.

·       *     Technocracy's view of citizens as "human animals" to be controlled within a "social mechanism," rejecting human "mind" and "conscience," is revealed. Its proposed "Energy Certificates" monetary system, tied to production energy cost, is outlined as a replacement for capitalism.

·        *    The transcript emphasizes Technocracy's extreme centralized control, with a single organization managing all aspects, enabling comprehensive surveillance. It clarifies that Technocracy's "wealth" is control of resources and power, not monetary wealth.

·        *    Technocracy is contrasted with other ideologies, highlighting its radical nature and the perceived threat of a technological "singularity."

·        *    The Dark Enlightenment (neoreactionary movement or NRx) is introduced, focusing on its goal to dismantle "the Cathedral" (the ruling entity) and establish corporate-run "neostates."

·     *       The concepts of "creative destruction," "deterritorialization," "reterritorialization," and the technological singularity are discussed in relation to accelerationism.

·       *     Figures like Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin are identified as part of neoreactionary thought, advocating for accelerating change and dismantling established power structures.

·        *    The application of accelerationist principles in venture capitalism (e.g., Y Combinator) and defense/surveillance tech development is mentioned.

·       *     Curtis Yarvin's "Cathedral" concept, the target for destruction, is defined as the dominant progressive ideology influencing the state. The neoreactionary view advocates for destroying "democracy" (representative democracy) and installing a corporate monarchy for "efficiency."
 

*  Nick Land's "Dark Enlightenment" is discussed, positing liberal democracy's inherent flaws and the inevitability of a "new dark age," necessitating radical change.

[Piero]

Following are answers to questions I asked the Gemini AI Chatbot, about the mention of the Dark Enlightenment, in the above linked to article by Iain Davis.

 

What is the Dark Enlightenment? 

 

Quote

The Dark Enlightenment is described as a political philosophy that is part of the accelerationist neoreactionary movement. It advocates for a societal transformation away from the current norms, but the text emphasizes that it is "anti-human race" rather than racist. Proponents of the Dark Enlightenment, including figures like Peter Thiel, envision a future where humanity is fundamentally changed, and the concept of the sovereign human being is ended.

 

Please give a more detailed explanation, and would Peter Thiel accept the term, "Dark Enlightenment" for himself?

 

Quote

You're asking for a more detailed explanation of the Dark Enlightenment and Peter Thiel's relationship to it, including whether he'd use that term himself. Here's a breakdown:

 

What is the Dark Enlightenment?

 

The Dark Enlightenment, also known as neoreaction (NRx), is a controversial and complex political and social philosophy. It's not easily summarized, but here are its core tenets:

• Rejection of Modernity: It fundamentally rejects core tenets of modern liberal democracy, including egalitarianism, universal suffrage, and the idea of progress. It views these as failures that have led to societal decay.
• Hierarchy and Elitism: It advocates for a return to more hierarchical social structures, often favoring natural elites or those deemed more capable of governing. This can involve a preference for monarchy or forms of technocratic rule.
• Anti-Democracy: It is deeply skeptical of, or outright hostile to, democracy, seeing it as inefficient, prone to mob rule, and leading to the erosion of standards.
• Accelerationism: It often incorporates elements of accelerationism, the idea that societal change, even negative change, should be accelerated to hasten the collapse of the current system. This collapse is seen as necessary for a new order to emerge.
• Technocracy: There's often an overlap with technocratic ideas, emphasizing the rule of experts and the use of technology to manage society.
• "The Cathedral": Thinkers within this movement often criticize what they call "the Cathedral," which represents the dominant progressive consensus in academia, media, and government.

Peter Thiel and the Dark Enlightenment

 

Peter Thiel's connection to the Dark Enlightenment is complex and debated:

• Intellectual Influences: Thiel has expressed views that align with some core ideas of the Dark Enlightenment. He has been critical of democracy, as noted in the transcript, stating, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." He also favors technological progress and disruption.
• Associations: Thiel has been associated with and supported figures who are openly identified with the Dark Enlightenment, such as Curtis Yarvin (also known as Mencius Moldbug).
• Emphasis on Technology and Elites: His focus on technological innovation and the power of entrepreneurs and elites fits into a broader narrative that challenges traditional democratic structures.

Would Thiel Accept the Term?

 

It's unlikely Peter Thiel would explicitly label himself as a "Dark Enlightenment" thinker. Here's why:

• Controversial Label: The term "Dark Enlightenment" carries significant negative connotations. It's associated with reactionary, anti-egalitarian, and sometimes even racist views. Thiel is a public figure who likely wants to maintain a degree of mainstream acceptance.
• Nuance: Thiel's views are complex. While they overlap with some Dark Enlightenment ideas, he may not subscribe to the entire philosophy. He might emphasize his belief in technological progress and meritocracy rather than the more extreme aspects of the movement.
• Strategic Ambiguity: It might be strategically advantageous for Thiel to remain somewhat ambiguous about his precise ideological label. This allows his ideas to have influence without being easily dismissed due to association with a fringe movement.

In conclusion, while Peter Thiel's ideas and associations show a clear connection to the Dark Enlightenment, it's doubtful he would embrace that label directly. He's more likely to frame his views in terms of technological progress, the need for innovation, and a critique of the inefficiencies of current political systems.

Where did term "Dark Enlightenment" originate? Who invented the term? Does it have anything to do with the Enlightenment Period of the 18th Century?

 

Quote

You're asking about the origin of the term "Dark Enlightenment." Here's what I can tell you:

• Origin and Coining: The term "Dark Enlightenment" is most closely associated with Nick Land, a British philosopher and writer. He's considered a key figure in the development of neoreactionary thought. While the ideas themselves evolved over time through various online discussions and writings, Land is largely credited with popularizing the term.

• Online Development: The Dark Enlightenment didn't emerge from a single book or treatise. It developed through online intellectual communities and blogs, particularly in the early 2000s. Thinkers and commentators explored ideas that challenged mainstream political and social thought.

• Connection to the Enlightenment: Yes, the term is a deliberate counterpoint to the 18th-century Enlightenment.

  • The Enlightenment emphasized reason, progress, individual rights, and the universality of human values.

  • The Dark Enlightenment, in contrast, rejects these Enlightenment ideals. It often argues that reason is insufficient, progress is a myth, inequality is natural, and societies are not bound by universal values.

  • So, the "Dark" in Dark Enlightenment signifies a rejection of the "light" of reason and progress that the original Enlightenment promoted.

In summary, Nick Land is the figure most associated with coining and popularizing the term "Dark Enlightenment," and it's a direct response to, and rejection of, the core principles of the 18th-century Enlightenment.
 

 

Is Dark Enlightenment a rejection of the ideals of Freemasonry?

 

Quote

To answer your question about whether the Dark Enlightenment is a rejection of the ideals of Freemasonry, we need to consider the core tenets of both and see where they clash.

 

Ideals of Freemasonry (Generally)

 

It's important to note that Freemasonry is diverse, and interpretations of its ideals can vary. However, some common themes include:

• Enlightenment Values: Freemasonry emerged during the Enlightenment and often emphasizes reason, individual improvement, and the pursuit of knowledge.
• Brotherhood and Charity: A strong focus on fraternal bonds, mutual support, and charitable work.
• Morality and Virtue: Emphasis on ethical conduct, personal integrity, and the development of good character.
• Toleration: Historically, Freemasonry has promoted tolerance among men of different religions and backgrounds (though this tolerance has often had historical limitations).
• Symbolism and Ritual: Use of allegory and symbolism to teach moral lessons.

Contrasting with the Dark Enlightenment

 

Here's where the Dark Enlightenment's ideas often clash with these Masonic ideals:

• Rejection of Egalitarianism: The Dark Enlightenment's emphasis on hierarchy and natural inequality directly opposes Freemasonry's emphasis on brotherhood and the idea that all men are equal within the lodge.
• Skepticism of Progress: The Dark Enlightenment's rejection of the idea of progress clashes with Freemasonry's emphasis on self-improvement and the betterment of society (however gradual).
• Anti-Democracy vs. Civic Virtue: The Dark Enlightenment's anti-democratic stance can conflict with Freemasonry's traditional, if sometimes abstract, emphasis on civic virtue and the importance of good citizenship.
• Elitism vs. Brotherhood: The Dark Enlightenment's elitism, the idea that a select few are inherently more qualified to rule, can undermine the Masonic ideal of brotherhood among members from different social strata.

In Conclusion

 

In general, the Dark Enlightenment's core tenets represent a significant departure from, and in many ways a rejection of, the core ideals often associated with Freemasonry. Where Freemasonry often embraces reason, brotherhood, and a degree of social progress (rooted in Enlightenment thought), the Dark Enlightenment rejects the Enlightenment, promotes hierarchy, and is deeply skeptical of democratic principles.

It's been mentioned that the Dark Enlightenment is a rejection of the idea of progress. So proponents of the Dark Enlightenment believe in a pragmatic approach of stability, rather than striving for change social betterment for all people?

 

Quote

You've hit on a very important point about the Dark Enlightenment's rejection of progress, and it's essential to understand what they do believe in, rather than just what they reject.

 

Here's a breakdown:

 

Dark Enlightenment and the Rejection of Progress

• Progress as Illusion: The Dark Enlightenment views the idea of continuous social and moral progress as a dangerous illusion. They argue that societies don't necessarily get better over time; they can stagnate, decay, or regress.
• Emphasis on Inherent Inequality: A core tenet is that human beings are inherently unequal in terms of intelligence, ability, etc. They believe that attempts to create egalitarian societies are doomed to fail and often lead to negative consequences.
• Critique of Modernity: They see many aspects of modern society (democracy, multiculturalism, social justice movements) as evidence of this decay, arguing that they undermine traditional hierarchies and social order.

So, is it just "stability"? Not exactly:

 

It's more accurate to say that the Dark Enlightenment favors a return to a specific kind of order, rather than mere stability. Here's what that order might look like:

• Hierarchical Order: They advocate for a society structured around clear hierarchies, with those deemed "superior" (intellectually, culturally, etc.) holding positions of power and influence.
• Traditional Norms: There's often a desire to return to traditional social norms and values, which can vary but often involve things like traditional gender roles, strong family structures, and cultural homogeneity.
• Technocratic Governance: Some proponents envision a society ruled by experts and technologists, believing that complex modern societies are best managed by those with specialized knowledge, not by democratic processes.
• Realism (or Pessimism): There's a strong current of realism or even pessimism about human nature and the possibilities of social change. They tend to believe that attempts to fundamentally transform society are misguided and often have unintended negative consequences.  

"Pragmatism" is a tricky word here:

• In some ways, they do see themselves as pragmatic, arguing that their views are based on a realistic assessment of human nature and social dynamics.
• However, their ideas often involve radical changes to the current social and political order, so they're not "pragmatic" in the sense of favoring gradual, incremental change within the existing system.

In summary:

 

The Dark Enlightenment rejects the idea of inevitable social betterment for all people. They advocate for a fundamentally different social order based on hierarchy, tradition, and often technocratic governance. While they might see this as "realistic" or "pragmatic," it involves a radical departure from modern egalitarian ideals.

 

Are there any historical examples of this kind of society, or contemporary countries, which are close to Dark Enlightenment ideals?

 

Quote

That's a very insightful question, as it gets to the heart of whether the Dark Enlightenment is just theoretical or if it has real-world parallels. It's important to preface this by saying that no contemporary or historical society perfectly embodies all Dark Enlightenment ideals. It's more about identifying tendencies and elements that resonate with their philosophy.

 

Here's a breakdown of how we can look for such parallels:

 

Challenges in Finding Perfect Examples

• Radicalism: The Dark Enlightenment is a radical philosophy that often calls for drastic societal changes. Most societies, even authoritarian ones, evolve gradually rather than undergoing the kind of fundamental restructuring they envision.
• Internal Contradictions: There are some internal tensions within Dark Enlightenment thought. For instance, the emphasis on both tradition and radical technological change can be difficult to reconcile.
• Evolving Ideas: The Dark Enlightenment is not a fixed ideology, and its ideas have evolved over time. This makes it hard to pin down a single model.

Historical and Contemporary Parallels

While a perfect Dark Enlightenment society may not exist, we can find echoes of its ideas in certain historical and contemporary contexts:

• Historical Hierarchical Societies:
  • Feudal Societies: Medieval European feudalism, with its rigid social hierarchy, land-owning aristocracy, and limited social mobility, shares some similarities with the Dark Enlightenment's emphasis on hierarchy. However, it lacked the technological focus and anti-religious sentiment often found in Dark Enlightenment thought.
  • Ancient Aristocracies: Ancient societies like Sparta, with its strict social classes and rule by a warrior elite, also exhibit hierarchical elements that resonate with some Dark Enlightenment themes.
• Authoritarian Regimes:
  • Singapore: Contemporary Singapore, with its emphasis on meritocracy, technocratic governance, social order, and limitations on political dissent, is often cited as a modern society that aligns with some aspects of the Dark Enlightenment. However, Singapore is not anti-democratic in the same radical way and has a strong emphasis on economic development.
  • Authoritarian Developmental States: Some East Asian authoritarian regimes of the 20th century, which prioritized economic growth and social stability over individual liberties and democratic participation, share some affinities with the Dark Enlightenment's emphasis on efficient governance and social order.
• Technocratic Tendencies:
  • Certain aspects of Silicon Valley culture: The emphasis on technological innovation, meritocracy, and the power of elites in Silicon Valley can be seen as having some resonances with Dark Enlightenment thought, although Silicon Valley generally operates within a democratic framework.
• Libertarian Experiments:
  • Seasteading projects: The attempts to create independent communities on the ocean, driven by libertarian ideals, sometimes echo the Dark Enlightenment's desire to "exit" existing political systems, though they typically lack the hierarchical and anti-egalitarian elements.

Important Caveats

• It's crucial to avoid simplistic comparisons. These historical and contemporary examples are complex and have their own unique characteristics.
• Attributing any society wholesale to the Dark Enlightenment is inaccurate. It's more about identifying specific elements and tendencies.
• The Dark Enlightenment remains a largely theoretical framework, and its practical implementation would likely face significant challenges and contradictions.

In conclusion, while no society perfectly embodies the Dark Enlightenment, we can find echoes of its ideas in historical hierarchical structures, contemporary authoritarian regimes with technocratic tendencies, and certain libertarian experiments. However, it's essential to approach these comparisons with nuance and recognize the limitations of drawing direct parallels.

If a system based on Dark Enlightenment values existed, what mechanisms would be in place to safeguard the public, if the self-appointed superior intellectual elite, possessing specialised knowledge, became self-serving, and turned rogue?

 

Quote

That's a critical question that gets to the heart of the potential dangers of any system that concentrates power in the hands of a select few, whether they're "intellectual elites" or any other group. The Dark Enlightenment, with its emphasis on hierarchy and technocratic governance, doesn't offer robust safeguards against abuse of power. In fact, some of its core tenets make such abuse more likely.

 

Here's why, and what mechanisms are notably absent in Dark Enlightenment thought:

 

Why Dark Enlightenment Systems Are Vulnerable to Abuse

• Rejection of Checks and Balances: The Dark Enlightenment's deep skepticism of democracy and traditional political checks and balances (separation of powers, independent judiciary, etc.) removes the very systems designed to prevent tyranny. They see these checks as inefficient and obstacles to decisive action by the "elite."
• Elitism and the "Natural Right" to Rule: The belief that some are inherently "superior" creates a justification for concentrated power. Those in power may come to believe they deserve to rule and that their interests are inherently aligned with the good of society, even when they're self-serving.
• Technocracy's "Black Box": Technocratic governance, where experts make decisions based on specialized knowledge, can be opaque to the public. This lack of transparency makes it easier for those experts to pursue their own agendas without accountability.
• Weak Emphasis on Individual Rights: While some proponents might talk about efficiency and order, the Dark Enlightenment doesn't place a strong emphasis on individual rights as a fundamental constraint on power. This makes it easier to justify actions that harm individuals in the name of the "greater good" as defined by the elite.

Mechanisms Notably Absent or Weakened

• Democratic Accountability: Elections, public opinion, and the threat of being voted out of office are the primary safeguards in a democracy. These are precisely what the Dark Enlightenment rejects.
• Rule of Law: An independent legal system that applies laws fairly and equally to everyone, including those in power, is crucial. The Dark Enlightenment's emphasis on hierarchy and elite rule can undermine the principle of equal application of the law.
• Freedom of Information and Speech: Open access to information and the ability to criticize the government are essential for holding power accountable. These are often curtailed in authoritarian or technocratic systems.
• Ethical Codes and Professional Standards: While experts and technologists have professional codes, these can be insufficient safeguards when power is highly concentrated. There's a risk of "groupthink" and a lack of external scrutiny.

What Might Emerge (But Is Not Guaranteed)

 

In a Dark Enlightenment-inspired system, safeguards, if they exist at all, might take these forms, but their effectiveness is questionable:

• "Benevolent Dictator" Scenario: The hope might be that the "elite" will be wise and benevolent rulers. But history shows that even well-intentioned rulers can become corrupt or make terrible mistakes.
• Internal Checks Within the Elite: There might be power struggles and competition within the ruling group, which could prevent any one faction from becoming too dominant. However, this is unstable and can lead to infighting rather than good governance.
• Technocratic "Feedback Loops": In a technocracy, there might be systems of data collection and analysis to assess the effectiveness of policies. If a policy is clearly failing, it might be changed. However, this is focused on efficiency, not necessarily on preventing abuse of power.

The Fundamental Problem

 

The core problem is that the Dark Enlightenment's rejection of fundamental democratic principles leaves a vacuum. It offers no reliable mechanism to ensure that those in power serve the public good rather than their own interests. The risk of a self-serving, rogue elite is inherently high.

In the world of fiction, do novels, such as George Orwell's "1984", E. M. Forster's "The Machine Stops", Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World", or Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" foreshadow what can go wrong with a society based on the ideals of the Dark Enlightenment?

 

Quote

The Dark Enlightenment is described as an anti-egalitarian political philosophy that rejects modern liberal democracy and advocates for hierarchical, technocratic rule. It favors a society led by a select few deemed "superior" and criticizes democracy as inefficient.

 

Given this context, the following observations can be made about the novels and their relation to the Dark Enlightenment:

• 1984: Warns of the dangers of totalitarianism, surveillance, and the suppression of individual freedom, which are potential outcomes of unchecked power in a hierarchical system.

• The Machine Stops: Depicts a society overly reliant on technology, leading to human disconnection and dependence on a system controlled by an elite, echoing concerns about technocratic governance.

• Brave New World: Shows a dystopia where social stability is maintained through genetic engineering, conditioning, and control of reproduction, raising ethical questions about the Dark Enlightenment's emphasis on engineered social order.

• Frankenstein: Explores the unintended consequences of technological advancement and the potential for creations to turn against their creators, a theme relevant to the Dark Enlightenment's focus on technology.

In conclusion, while the text does not explicitly connect these novels to the Dark Enlightenment, their themes of totalitarianism, technological control, and social engineering serve as cautionary tales against the potential dangers of its ideology.

 

Edited April 6 by Piero

[Piero]

Does the Dark Enlightenment entertain spiritual values?

 

Quote

The relationship between the Dark Enlightenment and spiritual values, in a more general sense, is complex, and there's no single, definitive answer. However, here are some key points to consider:

 

Tendencies within the Dark Enlightenment

• Skepticism Towards Universalism: The Dark Enlightenment tends to reject universalist moral or spiritual frameworks that apply to all people. This can include skepticism towards some interpretations of Christianity, Islam, or humanistic philosophies that emphasize universal human rights or equality.
• Emphasis on Hierarchy and Natural Order: The Dark Enlightenment often favors hierarchical social structures and sees inequality as natural. This can clash with spiritual or religious traditions that emphasize the inherent worth and equality of all souls or individuals before a higher power.
• Technological Focus: The strong emphasis on technology, transhumanism, and the potential for radical technological change within some strands of the Dark Enlightenment can create tension with spiritual values that prioritize the natural world, traditional ways of life, or the importance of the human spirit over technological advancement.
• Anti-Modernism: The Dark Enlightenment's rejection of many aspects of modernity can extend to a rejection of modern secularism and a potential interest in pre-modern forms of spirituality or social order. This might lead some proponents to explore older religious or philosophical traditions, but often with a focus on their hierarchical or traditional aspects.

Variations and Nuances

• Individual Beliefs: It's important to recognize that individuals who engage with Dark Enlightenment ideas may hold a wide range of personal spiritual beliefs. There's no single "Dark Enlightenment" spirituality.
• Strategic Use of Religion: Some proponents might strategically invoke religious or spiritual arguments to support their political goals, even if they don't personally hold those beliefs deeply. This can involve appealing to traditional values or using religious rhetoric to justify social hierarchies.
• Nihilism: There is a nihilistic tendency within some Dark Enlightenment circles, which is obviously in direct opposition to spiritual values.

 

In Conclusion

 

In general, the Dark Enlightenment's emphasis on hierarchy, its skepticism towards universalism, and its focus on technology can create significant tension with many traditional spiritual values. While some proponents may hold personal spiritual beliefs or strategically use religious rhetoric, the overall thrust of the philosophy is often secular, anti-egalitarian, and focused on worldly power and order rather than spiritual transcendence or universal compassion.

 

How does the Dark Enlightenment fit in with the aim of striving for a one world government?

 

Quote

The relationship between the Dark Enlightenment and the concept of a one-world government is complex and not straightforward. Here's a breakdown of the different perspectives and tensions:

 

Dark Enlightenment's Core Tendencies and Tensions with a One-World Government

 

• Emphasis on Hierarchy and Elitism: The Dark Enlightenment strongly favors hierarchical social structures and the rule of elites.This can clash with the idea of a one-world government if that government is perceived as being based on egalitarian principles or universal rights. Dark Enlightenment thinkers might prefer a world order where power is decentralized among competing elites, rather than consolidated in a single global authority.
• Skepticism of Universalism: The Dark Enlightenment often rejects universalist ideologies, including those that promote global cooperation or shared values. They tend to emphasize differences between cultures and societies and may be skeptical of attempts to impose a single global system. 
• Nationalism and Localism: Some strands of the Dark Enlightenment lean towards nationalism or localism, prioritizing the interests of specific nations or communities over global governance. They might fear that a one-world government would erode national sovereignty and cultural identity. 
• Technocracy and Global Management: However, the technocratic tendencies within the Dark Enlightenment could find some common ground with aspects of a one-world government, particularly if that government is envisioned as being run by experts and technologists. They might see a role for global coordination in areas like technology, infrastructure, or resource management, as long as it's guided by "rational" elites.

Nuances and Variations

• Different Visions of World Order: The Dark Enlightenment is not a monolithic ideology, and different proponents may have varying views on global governance. Some might envision a multipolar world with competing power centers, while others might be open to a more centralized system if it aligns with their hierarchical and technocratic ideals. 
• Strategic Considerations: Even if some Dark Enlightenment thinkers are ideologically opposed to a one-world government, they might strategically engage with or try to influence global institutions to advance their own goals. 

• Accelerationism and Global Crisis:The accelerationist element within the Dark Enlightenment, which advocates for accelerating societal change, could potentially view a global crisis as an opportunity to restructure the world order. 

In Conclusion

 

The Dark Enlightenment's relationship with a one-world government is characterized by tension and complexity. While its emphasis on hierarchy, elitism, and skepticism of universalism often clashes with the ideals of global governance, its technocratic tendencies and accelerationist impulses could find some common ground with certain visions of a restructured world order. Ultimately, the Dark Enlightenment's stance on a one-world government depends on the specific context and the particular vision of that government. 

 

 

Edited April 6 by Piero

[Piero]

Peter Thiel loves monopolies and anti-democratic ideology. He wants to give absolute power to corporations for them to have total control over people, but as Lord Acton once said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 

Video description: Billionaire Peter Thiel won big in the midterms, buying himself a Senate seat in Ohio. So what does Thiel want? Unfettered corporate power and the destruction of government institutions. This election got him closer than ever. 

 

 

[Piero]

An excerpt from Iain Davis's article, linked to in the OP:

A Humane Alternative to Genocide?

Following Trump’s inauguration, The New York Times published an adversarial interview with aforementioned political theorist of the neoreactionary movement (NRx) Curtis Yarvin.

 

Outlining Yarvin’s contention that the US should be run as a corporate monarchy (gov-corp) under the leadership of an all-powerful CEO (Trump), Times‘ writer and interviewer David Marchese formulated his arguments on the suspected racist aspects of Yarvin’s ideology.

 

The pair debated nothing of notable interest. The piece allowed Yarvin to forward some of his ideas to a wider public — but without disclosing any of their appalling implications. Meanwhile, the Times‘ Marchese posited a practically irrelevant counterargument.

 

The legacy media is not going to point out those appalling implications. But this is what Yarvin, the leader of the NRx admired by Peter Thiel and other neoreactionary oligarchs, had proposed in 2008 under his pen name, Mencius Moldburg:

 

"Our goal, in short, is a humane alternative to genocide. That is: the ideal solution achieves the same result as mass murder (the removal of undesirable elements from society), but without any of the moral stigma.

 

The best humane alternative to genocide I can think of is not to liquidate the wards [people] - either metaphorically or literally - but to virtualize them. A virtualized human is in permanent solitary confinement, waxed like a bee larva into a cell which is sealed except for emergencies. This would drive him insane, except that the cell contains an immersive virtual-reality interface which allows him to experience a rich, fulfilling life in a completely imaginary world. "

 

[Piero]

The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate

By Iain Davis

Part 2

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/03/investigative-reports/the-dark-maga-gov-corp-technate-part-2/

 

Excerpt:

In continuing to unpack the ideologies of the oligarchs who are part of the new Trump administration, Iain Davis examines how their ideas are being translated into policy. He considers the consequent infrastructure rollout that is preparing the US and the world for an imminent Gov-corp Technate within a multi-polar world.

 

A summary of the webpage (generated by Gemini):

 

·         The text explores the political philosophies of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and their influence on the Trump administration's policies.

·         Elon Musk is identified as a proponent of Technocracy.

·         Peter Thiel is identified as an advocate of accelerationist neoreaction, specifically the Dark Enlightenment.

·         The author emphasizes the importance of understanding Technocracy and the neoreactionary movement (NRx) from Part 1 for context.

·         Musk and Thiel are described as part of the oligarchic class, belonging to a network of oligarchs with wealth exceeding that of the "richest people in the world."

·         The text states that Thiel and Musk's political philosophies and economic theories significantly shape public policy.

·         The author notes that Musk and Thiel are not alone in their efforts to establish an American gov-corp Technate.

·         The text argues that despite borrowing some libertarian ideas, neither technocrats nor accelerationist neoreactionaries are truly "libertarian."

·         Their theories, when applied, are described as authoritarian and anti-liberty.

·         The author considers it an oxymoron to call Musk a "libertarian technocrat" or Thiel an "anarcho-capitalist."

·         The text references a 2014 article in The Atlantic titled “The Libertarian Capitalist’s Case for State Power and Making No Money.”

·         It is suggested that Thiel and Musk might identify as libertarians because they equate "liberty" with freedom granted by and to the oligarchy.

·         The text references the Venetian Republic and its Doge, whose liberty to rule was granted by the oligarchs.

·         The naming of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, is questioned, with a possible reference to the Venetian magistrate.

·         The text discusses Dogecoin, a memecoin created in 2013, and its price fluctuations influenced by Elon Musk's comments.

·         Musk's social media posts and hints about integrating Dogecoin into his 'X' platform's payment system are noted.

·         Investors who lost money due to Dogecoin's price drops attempted to sue Musk in 2022, but the case was dismissed.

·         The text highlights the irony of Musk's comments taking Dogecoin from a joke to a market capitalization of $14.5 billion in 2021.

·         The DOGE acronym might refer to Musk's fondness for Dogecoin, but the symbolism of "the Doge" as one granted liberty by oligarchs is considered more significant.

·         The term "Accelerator" implies an underlying ideology, similar to how the term "Doge" does.

·         Nick Land's 2012 treatise, “The Dark Enlightenment,” is mentioned, highlighting an article written by Thiel in 2009.

·         Land referenced a Cato Unbound discussion among libertarian thinkers, including Patri Friedman and Peter Thiel, expressing disillusionment with democratic politics.

·         Thiel's summary of the trend, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible," is quoted.

·         The text states that Thiel's article “The Education of a Libertarian” outlined a philosophy of accelerationist neoreactionism.

·         Thiel's opinion that libertarian politics appear grim, given the government's response to every crisis being "more government," is mentioned.

·         Thiel claimed that the post-WWI deflationary depression was the last "sharp but short" shock to allow Schumpeterian "creative destruction" to flourish.

·         He asserted that after that depression, "democratic" politics stifled the opportunities to capitalize on crises.

·         As a result, Thiel stated he no longer believed that politics encompasses all possible futures.

·         Thiel announced a new life goal to "find an escape from politics in all its forms," from totalitarian and fundamentalist catastrophes to the "unthinking demos" of "social democracy."

·         The text explains that for Thiel, the "unthinking demos" refers to the holders of the "neo-puritan faith" in progressive "social democracy."

·         Thiel believes we must embrace our "technoplastic" future, move beyond politics, and liberate capitalist innovation by adhering to the gov-corp model.

·         Thiel identified three "technological frontiers" to construct his darkly enlightened aristocracy: Cyberspace, Outer Space, and Seasteading.

·         Cyberspace was the first frontier, for creating "a new world currency, free from all government control and dilution."

·         Cyberspace would enable new modes of dissent and communities not bounded by historical nation-states, forcing change on the existing social and political order.

·         Outer space was identified as another frontier for building the "libertarian future of classic science fiction."

·         Seasteading, settling unclaimed oceans, was considered an interim frontier.

·         Thiel insisted these frontiers are necessary because "we are in a deadly race between politics and technology."

·         Between 2006 and 2012, Thiel was instrumental in organizing the Singularity Summits with the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and Stanford University.

·         Thiel provided much of the funding for these summits.

·         The text asserts that Thiel cannot be both an advocate of accelerationist neoreaction and an anarcho-capitalist/libertarian, as the two philosophies are mutually exclusive.

·         It reiterates Part 1's point about technocrats rejecting the notion that "all men are created equal."

·         Accelerationists like Land and Yarvin believe in a ruling entity composed of a few human beings with an unequal right to rule.

·         Both technocrats and accelerationists misunderstand or misinterpret the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, ignoring the clause about unalienable rights.

·         Libertarian "equality" means every human being has an equal right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

·         These rights are unalienable, not decided or limited by others, and no one has more or fewer "equal rights."

·         The text quotes Murray Rothbard's "nonaggression axiom" from anarcho-capitalism: "[N]o man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else."

·         Anarcho-capitalism rejects the initiation of force by the state to coerce individuals or seize property.

·         The text contrasts this with proponents of Technocracy and the Dark Enlightenment like Musk and Thiel, who aim to move state power to the private sector and expand it.

·         They oppose "representative democracy" but offer solutions that magnify state power.

·         Calling their model a Technate or gov-corp doesn't change the nature of the "tyrannical statism" they desire.

·         The term "technopopulism," coined by Christopher Bickerton and Carlo Accetti, is discussed.

·         The technopopulist promises offered to US voters who elected Trump are seen as a sales pitch for a gov-corp Technate.

·         "Populism" is defined as a political attempt to appeal to ordinary people who feel their concerns are disregarded by elites.

·         "Technocracy" is defined as a government controlled by experts in science or technology.

·         Technopopulism promises a new politics based on experts guiding policy and finding technological solutions to benefit "ordinary people."

·         The text argues that the technopopulist offer to retain democratic accountability in the US is deceitful.

·         The proposed government system is constructing "Technocracy" to serve the interests of "American elites."

·         This is evidenced by The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which aims to subvert US "representative democracy."

·         Trump pledges to eliminate the Department of Education and replace it with "school choice," which threatens to expand government and corporate control of schooling.

·         The Trump administration is closely allied with Project 2025, with Russell Vought, a key figure in the initiative, nominated to return as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

·         Project 2025 sets a presidential agenda for the first 180 days to reduce the public sector, privatize state functions, and promote American technological innovation.

·         The project claims US technology can solve social problems and that American AI can police social media and tackle abuses like Medicare fraud.

·         Trump's executive orders were heavily influenced by Project 2025.

·         The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 are funded by some of the "elites" they accuse of betraying Americans.

·         "TechnoKings" like Musk and Marc Andreessen have been assisting Trump in selecting his administration's personnel.

·         Andreessen's support for Trump is based on using the administration to deliver the regulatory environment needed for their gov-corp Technate project.

·         In 2023, Marc Andreessen published The Techno-Optimist Manifesto, explaining the goal to advance to a far superior way of living using technology.

·         The manifesto expresses belief in accelerationism, the techno-capital machine, and the upward spiral of intelligence through symbiotic relationships with machines and AI.

·         This philosophy is described as accelerationist neoreaction strongly influenced by Technocracy, with Andreessen considering Nick Land a “Patron Saint” of Techno-Optimism.

·         The text asserts that figures like Thiel, Andreessen, and Musk are serious about implementing the Dark Enlightenment and establishing gov-corp Technates, with their oligarch network closely tied to the Trump administration.

·         Andreessen identifies the “enemies” of this vision as “bad ideas” such as “existential risk,” “sustainability,” and “social responsibility,” associating them with a “mass demoralization campaign” derived from Communism.

 

 

Edited April 7 by Piero

[1velocity7]

 

Edited April 8 by 1velocity7

[Talorgan]

On 4/6/2025 at 8:17 PM, Piero said:

Following are answers to questions I asked the Gemini AI Chatbot, about the mention of the Dark Enlightenment, in the above linked to article by Iain Davis.

 

What is the Dark Enlightenment? 

 

 

Please give a more detailed explanation, and would Peter Thiel accept the term, "Dark Enlightenment" for himself?

 

Where did term "Dark Enlightenment" originate? Who invented the term? Does it have anything to do with the Enlightenment Period of the 18th Century?

 

 

Is Dark Enlightenment a rejection of the ideals of Freemasonry?

 

It's been mentioned that the Dark Enlightenment is a rejection of the idea of progress. So proponents of the Dark Enlightenment believe in a pragmatic approach of stability, rather than striving for change social betterment for all people?

 

Are there any historical examples of this kind of society, or contemporary countries, which are close to Dark Enlightenment ideals?

 

If a system based on Dark Enlightenment values existed, what mechanisms would be in place to safeguard the public, if the self-appointed superior intellectual elite, possessing specialised knowledge, became self-serving, and turned rogue?

 

In the world of fiction, do novels, such as George Orwell's "1984", E. M. Forster's "The Machine Stops", Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World", or Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" foreshadow what can go wrong with a society based on the ideals of the Dark Enlightenment?

 

 

Interesting !

But the most amazing thing is how people keep voting for these characters over and over again and same Real agenda carries on regardless of which side  - then what you really have is tyranny 

( it was Thomas Jefferson who said this I think?- paraphrased perhaps he also said 

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

+ When people are afraid of government you have tyranny but when leaders are afraid of people= liberty 

Edited April 8 by Talorgan

[RobinJ]

None of this stuff will come to fruition unless we believe in it and allow it.

Musk is a patsy figurehead, no more. I doubt he will be in the white house mu h longer.

Stop buying into the fear, all it does is hold you back from your true self and your power within.

[Jason57]

45 minutes ago, RobinJ said:

None of this stuff will come to fruition unless we believe in it and allow it.

Musk is a patsy figurehead, no more. I doubt he will be in the white house mu h longer.

Stop buying into the fear, all it does is hold you back from your true self and your power within.

Sadly the majority of humans still have a political belief, and will never waver from that belief  mainly due to the thought process of "lesser of 2 evils", or "I have to be one or the other". 

[Piero]

15 hours ago, Talorgan said:

Interesting !

But the most amazing thing is how people keep voting for these characters over and over again and same Real agenda carries on regardless of which side  - then what you really have is tyranny 

( it was Thomas Jefferson who said this I think?- paraphrased perhaps he also said 

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day."

+ When people are afraid of government you have tyranny but when leaders are afraid of people= liberty 

People like leaders that have charisma. Mrs Thatcher, and Hitler, had charisma. It's the most dangerous thing because a person who has charisma isn't always a good person. Think of the Jimmy Savile, or even the Pied Piper!

[Piero]

10 hours ago, RobinJ said:

None of this stuff will come to fruition unless we believe in it and allow it.

Musk is a patsy figurehead, no more. I doubt he will be in the white house mu h longer.

Stop buying into the fear, all it does is hold you back from your true self and your power within.

If I were buying into the fear, I would sticking my head in the sand, pretending none of this is going on!

 

It's important to become aware of the deceptions, look behind the curtain, and then have the courage to call out the person behind it for being a humbug!

 

 

[Piero]

9 hours ago, Jason57 said:

Sadly the majority of humans still have a political belief, and will never waver from that belief  mainly due to the thought process of "lesser of 2 evils", or "I have to be one or the other". 

Humanity is coming to a fork in the road, and as you point out, the way of deception is going to be the more popular path, but something will come along, not apparent at the moment that will give renewed courage for those on the narrow path. It's important to remind ourselves that darkness has no power of its own, which is why in the final battle, the light, and positive creative powers. will succeed. It's these positive creative powers that are rather dormant at the moment, but it's time will come.

[RobinJ]

3 hours ago, Piero said:

If I were buying into the fear, I would sticking my head in the sand, pretending none of this is going on!

 

It's important to become aware of the deceptions, look behind the curtain, and then have the courage to call out the person behind it for being a humbug!

 

 

Being aware and letting it affect your perception are two different things. Its not sticking your head in the sand to protect your energy from dark stuff. Most think arguing over this crap is somehow helpful, its not. When people take sides its simply the judgement trap.

I gave up listening to alternative media as they are just as fear mongering as the legacy version. None of that helps anyone.

[Piero]

3 hours ago, RobinJ said:

Being aware and letting it affect your perception are two different things. Its not sticking your head in the sand to protect your energy from dark stuff. Most think arguing over this crap is somehow helpful, its not. When people take sides its simply the judgement trap.

I gave up listening to alternative media as they are just as fear mongering as the legacy version. None of that helps anyone.

Thanks for your reply. I haven't seen any posts in this thread defending the Dark Enlightenment, so I haven't encountered the arguments being discussed. However, if anyone does want to present a defence, I'd be interested to read it, and I'm confident enough in my own understanding not to feel threatened by it.

 

I understand that some topics can be uncomfortable, and it's natural to prefer reading things that are comforting. However, I personally find value in exploring uncomfortable ideas. Sometimes, these are the very things that can spark new perspectives and positive change. Like a pearl forming from an irritation in an oyster, challenging information can lead to valuable insights. For example, my exploration of the Cabal, while potentially unsettling, has actually led to a deeper understanding of certain dynamics.

 

Edited April 9 by Piero

[RobinJ]

6 hours ago, Piero said:

Thanks for your reply. I haven't seen any posts in this thread defending the Dark Enlightenment, so I haven't encountered the arguments being discussed. However, if anyone does want to present a defence, I'd be interested to read it, and I'm confident enough in my own understanding not to feel threatened by it.

 

I understand that some topics can be uncomfortable, and it's natural to prefer reading things that are comforting. However, I personally find value in exploring uncomfortable ideas. Sometimes, these are the very things that can spark new perspectives and positive change. Like a pearl forming from an irritation in an oyster, challenging information can lead to valuable insights. For example, my exploration of the Cabal, while potentially unsettling, has actually led to a deeper understanding of certain dynamics.

 

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Ive read and researched plenty of dark stuff years ago at the beginning of my awakening. I feel I know enough now to not keep that in my daily stream. I do brush over it now and again to see where we are in the process, but don't immerse in it daily as its just not helpful and is mostly shock value, plus, we really have no idea of the truth of it all.

So my preference is to grow my spiritual gifts so as to lift myself out of the mud, so to speak.

[Piero]

1 hour ago, RobinJ said:

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Ive read and researched plenty of dark stuff years ago at the beginning of my awakening. I feel I know enough now to not keep that in my daily stream. I do brush over it now and again to see where we are in the process, but don't immerse in it daily as its just not helpful and is mostly shock value, plus, we really have no idea of the truth of it all.

So my preference is to grow my spiritual gifts so as to lift myself out of the mud, so to speak.

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. It makes sense that after extensive research, you'd shift your focus towards growth and spiritual development. I can appreciate wanting to prioritise what feels most helpful for your journey now. 

 

My approach is slightly different in that I still find value in occasionally engaging with uncomfortable or challenging ideas, not necessarily to immerse myself in them daily, but to understand different perspectives and potentially identify catalysts for positive change, as I mentioned before. It's more about broadening my understanding of the complexities of things, even the 'mud,' as you put it. Ultimately, it sounds like we've both found paths that resonate with us, even if our current focuses differ.

 

Edited April 9 by Piero

[Piero]

Even though this is from 27th March, this David Icke 'Dot-Connector' (Ep159) is a real must-watch for anyone wanting to understand the real Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the ‘Dark Enlightenment’:

 

https://rumble.com/v6ra29w-dot-connector-ep159-trump-musk-and-the-dark-enlightenment-free-version.html?e9s=rel_v2_ep

 

 

Edited April 12 by Piero

[Piero]

Excerpt from: “The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate, By Iain Davis”, Part 2:

 

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/03/investigative-reports/the-dark-maga-gov-corp-technate-part-2/

 

Gov-Corp Technocrats Are Not “Nice” 

 

Contemplating new methods of genocide to rid yourself of whomever you find “undesirable” is something we associate with tyrannical megalomaniacs not egalitarian democratic “leaders.” Unfortunately, certainly in the US, it seems the maniac tyrants have the upper hand. 

 

As many Unlimited Hangout readers already know, Thiel received investment funds from the CIA’s In-Q-Tel to accelerate Palantir. Part of that arrangement was for Palantir to establish a public-private partnership that would rescue a US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project called Total Information Awareness (renamed the Terrorism-IA program in 2003). The purpose of the TIA was to create an all-pervasive US surveillance and population control system, with a heavy focus on pre-crime and other “predictive” interventions that would allow the state to justify any policy it chooses. 

 

The TIA project faltered when the US public learned of its intentions. State funding was officially withdrawn — which simply meant that the “less controversial” aspects continued under the guise of combating terrorism while the controversial projects went darker still. Ever since 9/11, “terrorism” has been the convenient PR buzz word for covering up a multitude of illegalities. The TIA program continued, unabated, to spy on the entire US population as a public-private partnership. 

 

Shortly after incorporating Palantir in 2003, Thiel and Palantir co-founder and CEO Alex Karp reportedly met with the TIA’s chief architect, John Poindexter. The pair apparently impressed upon Poindexter that they shared his vision of a US domestic digital gulag. Yet, unlike TIA, which had been housed at the Pentagon’s DARPA, they would develop the TIA system as a private entity. According to New York magazine, Thiel and Karp convinced Poindexter that Palantir would “pull together data collected by a wide range of spy agencies — everything from human intelligence and cell-phone calls to travel records and financial transactions.”

Evidently, In-Q-Tel’s seed funding followed soon thereafter. The CIA remained Palantir’s sole client until 2008. That is to say, Palantir enjoyed a monopoly due to its partnership with the state. 

 

Although Thiel’s cadre at PayPal — often called the PayPal Mafia — is supposedly responsible for ousting Musk from the company’s CEO spot, the rift between the two men seems somewhat overstated. Just as it is clear Musk hankers to install Technocracy, Thiel’s passion for the Dark Enlightenment is equally unambiguous. Both ideologies are mutually reinforcing. While there are some apparent tensions between Musk and Thiel, they are on the same path. Yarvin, for one, certainly values Musk’s contribution.

 

Thiel and Musk are already megarich magnates on the order of the robber barons of old. As such, their respective Dark Enlightenment and Technocracy dreams, when realized, are intended to make them “sovereigns” of what Yarvin calls a “patchwork of realms.”

 

The shared view of technocrats and neoreactionaries that society would be better if it were ruled by the likes of Musk and Thiel is an absurd and dangerous folly. We shouldn’t labour under any illusions that they’re nice.

 

Anduril Industries CEO Palmer Lucky is another Thiel protégé who, having sold his Oculus VR headset business to Mark Zuckerberg, moved into the war business with the help of Thiel’s venture capital firm, Founders Fund. Through Anduril, Thiel is investing in a defence technology that maximises AI’s ability to kill.

 

Peter Thiel and Elon Musk have both been instrumental in the development of AI. They combined forces in 2015 to accelerate Thiel protégé Sam Altman’s OpenAI as a “non-profit” research company. Today, propelled by the success of its ChatGPT generative AI chatbot, OpenAI is valued at around $160 billion. Consequently, its “for profit” subsidiary, OpenAI Global LLC, is poised to make fantastic profits.

 

OpenAI was pitched as a tool for developing AI to “benefit humanity as a whole.” Presumably, OpenAI’s defence contracts and its participation in the Silicon Valley consortium bid to dominate the US military-industrial complex reflect this principled commitment. Or perhaps the ethical stance of the team behind OpenAI is about as plausible as their “non-profit” pretensions.

 

There is every reason not to trust hypocrites like Thiel and Musk. One of those reasons is Palantir’s encroachment into national health-data systems, which is creating a virtual healthcare data monopoly in some countries — including the UK. This is extremely concerning, because it is obvious that patient care — or even basic human compassion — is not a priority for Thiel’s Palantir. There is nothing “Christian” about Thiel’s conduct. 

 

On the contrary, Palantir has actively participated in Israel’s Palestinian genocide and in the almost-complete destruction of the Palestinians’ healthcare system. In January 2024, Thiel and Palantir CEO Alex Karp agreed to a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defense and signed a deal with the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) to “harness Palantir’s advanced technology in support of war-related missions.”

 

Of this deal the British Medical Journal observed: 

 

IOF operations have been described as a “war on hospitals” because of the systematic destruction of Gaza’s entire health system and 943 IOF attacks on healthcare. Hundreds of health workers have been detained, tortured, and killed. 

 

In addition to directly attacking healthcare, ongoing bombardment, forced displacement of Palestinians, and near complete siege of Gaza, the IOF has created a severe health and humanitarian crisis with high rates of malnutrition, infectious disease, famine, and dehydration.

 

Several Thiel-backed companies — Palantir (seed-funded by In-Q-Tel),Anduril and digital surveillance company Clearview AI — have all evidently used the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a test bed for their technology. As noted by Stavroula Pabst in her Unlimited Hangout article, “How Peter Thiel-Linked Tech is Fueling the Ukraine War,” these companies are “taking advantage of the conflict to develop controversial AI-driven weapons systems and facial recognition technologies, perhaps transforming both warfare and AI forever.”

 

Despite Thiel’s self-described libertarian and Christian beliefs, Pabst noted that the net impact of his venture capitalism couldn’t be more inhuman:

 

[T]hese Thiel-backed groups’ involvement in war serves to develop not only problematic and unpredictable weapons technologies and systems, but also apparently to advance and further interconnect a larger surveillance apparatus formed by Thiel and his elite allies’ collective efforts across the public and private sectors, which arguably amount to the entrenchment of a growing technocratic panopticon aimed at capturing public and private life. Within the context of Thiel’s growing domination over large swaths of the tech industry, apparent efforts to influence, bypass or otherwise undermine modern policymaking processes, and anti-democratic sentiments, Thiel-linked organizations’ activities in Ukraine can only signal a willingness to shape the course of current events and the affairs of sovereign nations alike.

 

Though Pabst’s piece was written in October 2023, her prescient observations have certainly been playing out. As we embark on 2025, it is clear that Thiel and Musk are among a troop of tech titans who have ingratiated themselves with the Trump administration.

 

While the war in Ukraine has evidently been used by the “TechnoKings” behind Trump to develop AI weapon systems, the Trump administration has hypocritically positioned itself as peace broker.

 

Edited April 12 by Piero

[Piero]

How Peter Thiel’s Palantir helped the NSA Spy on the Whole World

 

Documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden reveal Palantir’s role in creating the U.S. government’s international spy machine...

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/22/how-peter-thiels-palantir-helped-the-nsa-spy-on-the-whole-world/

 

Summary of the very long article by Gemini:

 

This article focuses on Peter Thiel and his company Palantir's deep involvement with U.S. and international surveillance efforts. It begins by expressing concern over Donald Trump's potential misuse of the U.S. spy apparatus, especially given his ties to Thiel and Palantir, which has developed powerful data-mining software.

 

Palantir, co-founded by Thiel, Alex Karp, and Joe Lonsdale in 2004, has always aimed to serve the U.S. government. The CIA was an early investor. Palantir's two main software products are Gotham, used for intelligence and law enforcement, and Metropolis, used for financial analysis.  

 

The article highlights a contradiction: Palantir claims to prioritize privacy and civil liberties, yet documents from Edward Snowden reveal the company’s role in expanding the NSA's global spy network. Palantir helped enhance XKEYSCORE, an NSA tool that captures a vast amount of internet data. 

 

Peter Thiel's links with Donald Trump, based on the provided article:

• Strategic Friendship: The article notes a "new strategic friendship" between Trump and Thiel.

• Presidential Advisor: Thiel is described as having a "direct line to the White House" and serving as a "presidential advisor."

• Palantir as an Asset: The article implies that Palantir Technologies, Thiel's company, is a valuable asset that Thiel offers to Trump.

In summary, while Thiel's personal political activities and closeness to Trump may have lessened, Palantir's ongoing work with the government ensures continued links at an institutional level.

 

The interactions between high-profile figures like Thiel and Trump aren't always public knowledge. Details of private conversations or advice given might not be immediately reported.

 

Thiel remains a prominent figure with known political views and interests. It's plausible that he maintains connections within political circles and might offer his perspective on certain issues from time to time.

 

Edited April 16 by Piero