Are you concerned about your soul? Do you use an iPhone or Android? A tablet? Do you wear a FitBit or other wearables? Do you have Bluetooth devices? Smart speakers? Smart appliances? A SMART car? LED lights in your home, car and office?
Does your SMART phone make everything easier for you with all the APPs you use so you don’t have to sit down in front of a computer you have taken responsibility for with the use of a good VPN and if possible, a hard-wired internet connection. Have you switched to LINUX so Windows and Apple OS no longer mine your body data and iris movements, fingerprinting you, performing EEGs as you work while its blue light and screen refresh rate alter your DNA, disrupt your sleep, and rob you of the ability to render DMT, the molecule necessary for the soul at death - when you will most need it?
Do you stream yourself on social media platforms in videoconferences, ZOOM, Facebook (META means death) Live, Instagram reels, and on and on - so many to list!
Do you still eat meat, fish, dairy, wheat and its products (pasta, in foods), white potatoes and rice? Sugar in any form except honey, 100% maple or agave syrup
6G is already here, it is the interconnected human bodies of SMART device users. Are you hooked up?
Now that people are alerted to the fact that Trump’s Golden Dome and the “Big Beautiful Bill” are actually already in place and unstoppable, and another 300-400% amount of GWEN towers (commonly called 5G towers, GWEN stands for Ground Wave Emergency Network) as well as hundreds more satellites, and every facet of a human’s life will be surveillanced, databased and controlled - and in fact largely already is - what are you going to do about it as this pertains to how you live the rest of your life? Because 6G is already here; the interconnected human bodies of SMART device users.
Jesus the Christ is the Savior because He IS the Creator, and He is the source of the eternal life written as a never-ending longing in each of our hearts
Doing all one can to remove the ropeworm, parasites, GMO chimera entities, nanotechnology, heavy metals, yeasts including Candida Albicans, Forever chemicals (PFAS) and toxins - all of which provide materials that the parasitic entities WHICH ARE DEMONIAC ARCHONS use to colonize within your body (examples include Gout, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Arteriosclerosis and varicose veins, Psoriasis) - is the best thing you can do one day at a time beginning with this← link
Drink only distilled water, get your minerals from Pink Himalayan Salt and food
DIGITALLY DETOX as if your eternal life depends on it - I didn’t write this article ← link for myself, but for you
Because the reason for everything I am about to share with you below is here ← link and I suggest you check it out after you finish this article!
Trump Surveillance Plan For All Americans Using A.I. Tech Billionaire Peter Thiel's Palantir
Now I didn’t locate a transcript for the video above, but you heard quite clearly that Thiel and other tech overlords believe that PALANTIR is the antichrist. Below is a transcript that I did procur from this recorded interview.
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber, as my writing is 100% reader-supported and I write for YOU
And so, dear readers, will these facts affect your continued use of the very device they designed to ultimately steal your soul from you?
TYLER COWEN: Hello, Peter. Thank you for doing this.
PETER THIEL: Hello, Tyler.
COWEN: Now, the title of this conversation is “Political Theology.” That was a phrase, I think, first used by the Russian anarchist Bakunin to mock the Italian nationalist Mazzini. German legal theorist Carl Schmitt then picked it up and said it’s something that everyone needs. They all need a political theology. What does the term mean to you?
THIEL: Well, it’s a bit of a fuzzy, broad concept. But maybe to motivate it as a contrast, I think that in late modernity, we’re often living in this world of hyper-specialization where you can’t think about the big picture, and I don’t know, it’s like Adam Smith’s pin factory on steroids.
It’s our world, and I think there is some way that we have to try to integrate all these different facets of our life to try to make progress, and that’s what political philosophy does. That’s what political theology does. The reasons these sorts of things were abandoned, I think maybe it already was the Enlightenment abandoned it from — one type of reason it was abandoned was because it’s too hard to figure this stuff out, or it’s just a fool’s errand. I’m inclined to think the other reason was, it was often deemed as too dangerous, too divisive. You’re not supposed to have debates about religion. We settled that in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia. We’re just going to forget about it and not talk about these things.
I think that might have been a reasonable compromise in the 18th century. It’s my view that when you fast-forward to the 21st century, it’s maybe more dangerous not to think about things, and it’s again more dangerous for us to become ever smaller cogs in an ever bigger machine, all of Adam Smith’s pin factory.
The political dimension on it — just to say one thing on that is, there’s always a question, if we’re trying to figure out something about the whole, about our whole world, do you start on a human scale? Or do you start on a microscopic, telescopic, atomic, or cosmic scale? There’s probably some way these things are related, but the political theology, political philosophy debate, our frame — I think this was also a Socratic idea — we start with a turn to common sense, human, the world around us, questions about politics, economics, society, culture, and that’s actually this important way to get access.
There’s some deep link between the university and the universe. There’s some deep link between the failing multiversity and the crazed multiverse. The political orientation I have is, you’re never going to solve these things. You have to start with the university or whatever that’s gone wrong if you’re ever going to make sense of the universe, and there’s some analog to that that motivates all of these things.
On the political theology of Peter Thiel
COWEN: Let’s say I’m trying to make sense of your political theology. I recall you saying in a recent talk, you consider yourself religious but not spiritual. That strikes me as quite a Calvinist point. If you put aside predestination and think of Calvinism as insisting we know nothing about heaven, so it’s an arrogation of man’s power to claim to know about heaven, that’s related to your critique of the left.
The notion that we don’t know anything about heaven — it also means you can’t really be spiritual. That’s also a kind of arrogation. Isn’t the consistent Peter Thiel really a Calvinist thinker? Calvinism is quite concrete. It’s quite serious. It takes governance and authority very literally. Why aren’t you just a Calvinist?
THIEL: I’m still mostly a libertarian, Tyler, and —
COWEN: [laughs] But you can be both.
THIEL: I think there are probably redeeming things I can find in Calvinism. It’s so anti-utopian that it’s probably helpful in the battle against communism, but I don’t know if that’s the only way to be anti-communist. If you do five-point Calvinism, it’s total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. I don’t know if I agree with even one of those five things.
I would say a Girardian anthropological frame is that there is this deep link between gods and scapegoats, and we have these scapegoats we turn into gods. We project our violence onto them, and this is what archaic religion does. This is, in some ways, what atheist liberalism does. You blame everything on Mr. God. Isn’t Calvinism just an extreme form of scapegoating, where Mr. God did everything, he determined everything? He’s why you’re wearing that blue jacket, and everything you did wrong — it’s all Mr. God’s fault.
We should be deeply distrustful of scapegoating Mr. God for everything like that. That’s an anthropological argument against Calvinism. Then the intellectual reason I’m not Calvinist is that I think we should be trying to make sense of the world. If you’re so depraved that you can’t even think, which is, I think, a core Calvinist thing, we shouldn’t be having a conversation. If I were a real Calvinist, we wouldn’t even be able to have a conversation here.
They claim to be rationalists, but if you’re in a rationalist Bible study equivalent, and the outward-facing thing is that you’re rational and you’re pure and you’re thinking, the inward-facing thing — it’s all just spaghetti code. You can never be right about anything. Maybe you can be a little bit less wrong. So, I’m against both Calvinism and so-called rationalism.
COWEN: Here’s then the puzzle I’m faced with. Let’s take all of that at face value. Why is it you just don’t slide into Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox, belief in free will? There’s some middle position. Why is your middle position stable? You could either be Catholic or, for that matter, Mormon, where there’s plenty of room for free will, right?
THIEL: Well, again, they’re certainly not all the alternatives. It’s always a little bit of a cheap shot. My two-word rebuttal to Roman Catholicism is Pope Francis.
[laughter]
I grew up as a Lutheran. There are probably all these things that are problematic about Luther; there are things that were good about him. But I think the one part of it that — if we judge him by the standards of the 16th century, I think the Reformation had to come from the outside. It was not actually possible for it to start from within.
There is a way that the Lutheran piece — it was the less globally centralized church. It was going to be a less centralized church, and there’s probably still some part of the Protestant political project that lines up more closely with a libertarian view.
On the Old Testament
COWEN: What is it from the Hebrew Bible, or one could say Old Testament, that you’ve incorporated into your own political thought?
THIEL: Well, I think my views on this are pretty fairly orthodox Christian in that there’s some continuity between the Old and the New. There’s some sense — it’s hard to define — where maybe the Christian God is the original progressive, where the new is better than the old. I think it’s the first time where the new is simply better than the old just by virtue of being new. But if you exaggerate the difference too much, that ends up being problematic, and you end up saying that the Old Testament God is maybe just a different God from the New Testament God.
All the extremely progressive forms of higher criticism, things like this in the 19th century, they were all deeply anti-Semitic. I think if you’re too progressive, you end up becoming an anti-Semite. Then you have to somehow say there’s some progress, but the Girardian intuition I would have is, it’s just always this reversal in perspective, where the Bible takes things from the side of the victim.
It’s already in the book of Genesis, where it’s the story of Cain and Abel. The founding of the first city in the history of the world is a parallel but opposite story to the story of Romulus and Remus, the founding of the greatest city, where the Romulus and Remus story is told from the point of view of Romulus. The Cain and Abel story is told from the point of view of Abel. Or the Israelites coming out of Egypt — that would normally be told from the point of view of the Egyptians, where you had these troublemakers and we got rid of them. You have this inversion of perspectives throughout the Old Testament, I would say.
COWEN: Is it possible that we can read the Old Testament, conclude essentially, history is something really bad? That’s the central message of the woke. Then just say, “The woke basically are correct; we should side with the woke.” They have all these excesses. Those are terrible, but they’re, in a way, a method of advertising the fundamental conclusion that history is bad. They’re the ones who make us deal with that, and thus, you and I should be woke. What’s wrong with that line of reasoning?
THIEL: Yes, I think the history was very bad. I think it’s always a mistake for conservatives or anti-woke people to whitewash it too much. So, if we say that there used to be slavery, but the slaves were all happy people, they were all happy slaves — that is a loser argument, and you shouldn’t do this. I would say, again, the rough Christian frame on this is somehow, the history is really bad.
I think Christianity — probably, it is much worse than Islam or Judaism on this because Islam and Judaism — it would be inconceivable that you could murder God in the form of a person. If someone claimed to be God, and he got killed, that would just prove that he’s not God. The original sin, the violence, in some sense, is far greater in a Christian context, but then there is some way that we’re all part of that matrix. You need to have forgiveness.
If you want to maybe outline three rough possibilities, there’s this hard-to-define Christian in-between one, which is, the history’s terrible and it’s awful, but we need to try to find a way to forgive people. Then there is, let’s say, a woke version, where the history’s terrible, but we’re going to forget about the forgiveness part. Then there is maybe a right-wing Nietzschean, Bronze Age Pervert alternative, which is, we’re going to forget about the history. It’s oppressive. I’m sick of this guilt trip and don’t want to hear anything more about the history.
Somehow the in-between Christian one, I think, is the most tenable, even though there are all sorts of tensions in that.
COWEN: There was a recent Harvard talk you gave where, if I understand you correctly, you suggested the left needed to learn how to relativize its victimhood. What did you mean by that, and how does it relate to what you just said?
THIEL: The context was how much victimhood is unhealthy for people to have. There are all these ways where you can identify yourself as a victim. I don’t want to have a blanket rule where you can never say that you weren’t a victim. I sometimes like to joke that I’m a poor and persecuted Peter person, and maybe there are elements of truth to that. Maybe it’s very exaggerated. But if I absolutize that too much, it’s probably unhealthy.
A Christian division that I suggested at the Harvard talk was that it’s okay to say you’re a victim. It’s okay to do these things up to a certain point. You can’t say that you’re a greater victim than Christ. Once you do that, you’ve probably lost perspective.
COWEN: Are there other holy books besides the Bible that you draw ideas and inspiration from? And what would those be?
THIEL: I think in some sense, it’s all the great books. They’re not quite at the scale of these holy books, but there was a way that we treated Shakespeare or Cervantes or Goethe as these almost semi-divine writers, and I think that’s the attitude one has to have to read any of these books appropriately and seriously.
COWEN: So, the Western canon would be your answer, so to speak?
THIEL: Something like the Western canon. I don’t think the great books are quite as holy as the Bible, and as a result, I probably don’t read enough of them, but yes, that’s the closest approximation.
COWEN: And it includes science fiction — yes or no?
THIEL: I read a lot as a kid. I read so little of that nowadays. It’s all too depressing.
On the resurgence of Carl Schmitt
COWEN: Last week, I was teaching my graduate class, and a bunch of them asked me, “Why is it we keep on hearing about Carl Schmitt now?” I’ve tried to explain that to them, but why do you think there’s now a resurgence of interest in Carl Schmitt? For you, what are the valuable insights in Schmitt?
THIEL: Carl Schmitt was one of this group of thinkers who came to prominence in the 1920s in Weimar, Germany. Obviously, there were a lot of things that went very haywire with many of these people that, in some ways, Schmitt got somewhat entangled with the Nazis. He distanced himself a few years later, but it was some very bad judgment in certain ways.
But the thing that I think is interesting, dangerous about looking at the Weimar thinkers, somehow, it was in the aftermath of World War I. Germany had lost. You couldn’t go back to the throne and altar, the empire of the Hapsburgs. You didn’t really want to go forward with liberal democracy. There were all these people who had these fairly deep critiques.
In some ways, it was going back to these questions of political theology, political philosophy that had been whitewashed and set aside since the Enlightenment. Again, there were things about it that were dangerous. One way to think of the Weimar period was, it’s like the dwarves in Moria where they dwelled too deep, and finally, they awakened the nameless terror of the Balrog.
I don’t think we’re ever in a cyclical world, but there are certainly certain parallels in the US in the 2020s to Germany in the 1920s, where liberalism is exhausted. One suspects the democracy, whatever that means, is exhausted and that we have to ask some questions very far outside the Overton window.
COWEN: What is it you think that Schmitt missed that’s very important?
THIEL: I’ll just do one insight that I think is powerful, and then what’s wrong about that. One of his books was The Concept of the Political — what defines politics. It’s some of this division of friends and enemies that somehow is really foundational, and you shouldn’t get sidetracked with all these other things. There are all these interesting ways you could apply this. There’s a 1980s Reagan coalition question I always like to ask people, where the Reagan coalition was somehow the free-market libertarians, the defense hawks, and the social conservatives.
If you ask what does the millionaire and the general and the priest — what do they actually have in common? We just imagine these three people are seated at a dinner table, and they’re having dinner. What do they actually talk about? It’s really hard to come up with an answer. Yet the coalition worked incredibly well, and the answer I submit that they have in common is they’re anti-communist, and they have a common enemy. That was incredibly powerful. It was, in some ways, my formative political idea as a teenager — junior high school, high school, late ’70s, early ’80s — was anti-communism.
Then there was a way that when the Berlin Wall came down in ’89, this seemingly incredibly powerful political constellation disintegrated. There’s a natural Schmittian analysis of this. That’s where I find Schmitt quite powerful as a thinker. The place where it probably tends to always go haywire is, there’s always a question whether politics is like a market. Or is it a thing where, if you understand it better, it works better? Or is it something like a scapegoating machine, where the scapegoating machine only works if you don’t look into the sausage-making factory?
If you say, “We’re having a lot of conflicts in our village, and we have to find some random elderly woman and accuse her of witchcraft, so that will achieve some psychosocial unity as a village,” this sort of thing doesn’t really work if you’re that self-aware. Schmitt, in a way, had this optimistic Enlightenment rationality to it, where if we just describe politics as the arbitrary division of the world into friends and enemies, then this will somehow strengthen the political. It probably, actually, in some ways accelerated its disintegration instead.
COWEN: Is Schmitt missing out on a certain possible cyclicality in history? The notion that liberalism will collapse in Weimar Germany of the 1920s — obviously, that was the correct prediction. But if you reappear in West Germany of 1948, it was a completely incorrect prediction. Just as well, liberalism had collapsed leading up to World War I. It tends to come back. Why isn’t the cyclical perspective the correct one?
THIEL: Well, that’s a big question, but I think that you can stress the aspects that are timeless and eternal. I prefer to stress the aspects that are one-time and world-historical. I think that, in some sense, every moment in history only happens once. I think there is some kind of meaning to history. I think it has a certain type of linearity to it. That is, let’s say, the Judeo-Christian view of history as distinct from, let’s say, the classical Greco-Roman one. I don’t know if you can have a concept of history that’s cyclical.
If you look at Thucydides, where it’s this great period of peace that leads to this great war between Athens and Sparta. So the Periclean age somehow then gives way to this great conflict. Then people came back to studying Thucydides right after World War I because there were some certain parallels. A hundred years of peace between the Napoleonic Wars, and then it led to this great conflict, but there’s nothing particular in the history. None of the details matter in Thucydides. He makes up all the speeches and so on.
You contrast this with something like the Book of Daniel in the Bible, where it’s a succession of four kingdoms, and it is a one-time world history where everything that happens is unique, not to be repeated. There’s a sense in which I would say the real first historian was Daniel, and Thucydides isn’t even close.
We talked off the set a little bit about, well, what about the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire? Isn’t the European Union sort of like the Roman Empire? My response is, well, we have nuclear weapons today, and they didn’t have those, even in 1900. Even just on the science and tech arc, things are so different, and I would not trivialize the importance of science and technology.
COWEN: So, you think now, the stakes are too high for the cyclical version of history to work because, at some point, it’s just not possible to come back?
THIEL: Well, it’s just that the science and tech has a progressive character. Yes, there are elements I think that are probably quite apocalyptic about our time, but I would just start by saying they’re very different. We’re in a very different world than we were in 1900. I don’t know how you unlearn all the knowledge we’ve gained, even since 1900.
On whether we’re in a new age of millenarian thought
COWEN: Do you think we’re entering a new age of millenarian thought somewhat akin to the English 17th century, where everything was very fertile? There’s a scientific revolution. Tech, you could say, is revitalized again. A lot of people went crazy, highly diverse theologies. They execute a king. Many strange things happen. In many ways, we’re living in the world of the English 17th century, right? With constitutions, political parties, central banks. Is this the new millenarian age?
THIEL: This is, again, an absurdly cyclical frame you’re putting on things. No, I don’t think any moment ever repeats itself. It is just radically different. Of course, there are things that are apocalyptic about our world. We have all these kinds of dangers that, unlike the 17th century, they seem to come from this place that’s very nonreligious. Science, technology. It was nuclear weapons after 1945. Maybe it’s environmental degradation, climate change. We can debate about various forms of the environment.
There certainly are fears people have about bioweapons. We can ask what really happened with the Wuhan lab. There are apocalyptic fears around AI that I think deserve to be taken seriously. Yes, if it’s millenarian or apocalyptic, it has a very, very different feel. It’s sort of an apocalyptic violence that comes from a purely human source. It’s not really being orchestrated by God.
One of the points that René Girard always liked to make was that, in the Catholic Church — it was, I think, during the Advent season — you’d often have these sermons on the end times, the terrible things that happened at the end of the world. In Girard’s telling, the Church stopped those sermons after 1945 because people needed to be reassured that the nuclear weapons had nothing to do with Armageddon or fire and brimstone or anything like this, even though, of course, there were all these slight mythic elements. The first nuclear test was called Trinity, or you named it after all these Greek gods: Saturn, Jupiter, Zeus, whatever.
If we, again, talk about all these existential risks today — nuclear weapons, climate change, biotech, nanotech, killer robots, the AI that’s going to turn everyone into a paperclip or whatever — I always think you should at least include one more kind of existential risk if we’re going to throw it in. In my mind, one other existential risk is a one-world totalitarian government. I find that at least as scary as the others.
There are elements of that that I think are very true. If I’ve had to do my anti-millenarian frame, or maybe it’s not a pro-tech argument — this is sort of an anti-anti-tech argument — is that if we, again, talk about all these existential risks today — nuclear weapons, climate change, biotech, nanotech, killer robots, the AI that’s going to turn everyone into a paperclip or whatever — I always think you should at least include one more kind of existential risk if we’re going to throw it in.
In my mind, one other existential risk is a one-world totalitarian government. I find that at least as scary as the others. In a biblical eschatological context, you’re supposed to worry about Armageddon. You’re also supposed to worry about the Antichrist. Maybe you’re supposed to worry more about the Antichrist because the Antichrist comes first. So, if we’re going to find a pathway through this apocalyptic age, you have to navigate between the Scylla of all these existential risks and the Charybdis of this political totalitarian catastrophe.
If I had to do a more literary version on this, it’s very hard to write a literary account of the Antichrist. The two good Antichrist books that were written, the two best fictional ones in my mind, were pre-World War I. There was a 1908 Robert Hugh Benson, sort of a Catholic book, Lord of the World. There was a 1900 one by Solovyov, War, Progress, and the End of History. They both had these accounts of this future totalitarian world dictator who took over the whole world. Both of them — it’s kind of a daemonium ex machina.
It’s really unclear how the Antichrist takes over. It gives these hypnotic speeches, and no one can remember a word he says, but they all just sell their souls for no apparent good reason whatsoever, and he just takes over the world.
It seems to me that if one were to try to write a novel like this post-1945, it’s very straightforward. It’d be like One World or None. This was a short film by the nuclear scientists after 1945. If we don’t give nuclear weapons to the one-world government, it’s going to blow up the whole world. Basically, the literary version would be that the Antichrist comes to power by constantly talking about Armageddon and constantly telling us scary millenarian stories.
That’s my complicated, nuanced answer. There’s a lot of truth to these existential risks. I don’t want to completely dismiss them, but that’s also how we’re going to get this totalitarian state. There are all these versions of this I can go down, but do you want to worry about Dr. Strangelove or Greta? It seems like Dr. Strangelove’s more dangerous, but if everyone’s going to have to ride a bicycle, that’s not just going to happen on its own. That requires some real, real enforcement of this stuff.
There’s a short Bostrom essay from 2019 on how to stop all the AI risks, and it’s basically, maybe we can change the culture so that nobody will have heterodox ideas anymore. A few different ideas like this, but then what you really need is really effective global government and really effective policing, and you have to have some global compute governance. That sounds to me at least as scary as the AI.
The gaunt face of demonic possession
COWEN: Isn’t the much greater risk a collapse into a disorderly feudalism? We’re in Florida. The United States seems to be becoming more federalistic. It’s very hard for me to imagine China, say, taking over India. You can look at the Balkans. It’s even a word: Balkanized. You look at the Middle East. If it goes very badly, it’s hard to see any single power just ruling any substantial part of the Middle East. It’s easy to imagine it being in chaos. Why think there’s so much scale that that kind of totalitarianism would be possible?
THIEL: Man, I don’t know. There are so many different versions of this. There were versions of this — I would’ve been more on your side, let’s say post-9/11. Wow, aren’t we just going to have all this chaotic terrorism all over the world? We didn’t get that much terrorism, and we instead got the Patriot Act and incredible tracking of money flows, incredible monitoring of people. Of course, there still are things that can go wrong, but the political slogan of the Antichrist — 1 Thessalonians 5:3, I think — is “peace and safety.”
It seems that we’ve gone far more in the peace-and-safety direction than the global-chaos direction. I think it’s hard to even have an illegal Swiss bank account, and that’s a really modest way. It’s hard to exit. It’s much harder to exit the United States than it was 20, 30 years ago.
On the problem with muddling through
COWEN: Let’s say you’re trying to track the probability that the Western world and its allies somehow muddle through, and just keep on muddling through. What variable or variables do you look at to try to track or estimate that? What do you watch?
THIEL: Well, I don’t think it’s a really empirical question. If you could convince me that it was empirical, and you’d say, “These are the variables we should pay attention to” — if I agreed with that frame, you’ve already won half the argument. It’d be like variables . . . Well, the sun has risen and set every day, so it’ll probably keep doing that, so we shouldn’t worry. Or the planet has always muddled through, so Greta’s wrong, and we shouldn’t really pay attention to her. I’m sympathetic to not paying attention to her, but I don’t think this is a great argument.
Of course, if we think about the globalization project of the post–Cold War period where, in some sense, globalization just happens, there’s going to be more movement of goods and people and ideas and money, and we’re going to become this more peaceful, better-integrated world. You don’t need to sweat the details. We’re just going to muddle through.
Then, in my telling, there were a lot of things around that story that went very haywire. One simple version is, the US-China thing hasn’t quite worked the way Fukuyama and all these people envisioned it back in 1989. I think one could have figured this out much earlier if we had not been told, “You’re just going to muddle through.” The alarm bells would’ve gone off much sooner.
Maybe globalization is leading towards a neoliberal paradise. Maybe it’s leading to the totalitarian state of the Antichrist. Let’s say it’s not a very empirical argument, but if someone like you didn’t ask questions about muddling through, I’d be so much — like an optimistic boomer libertarian like you stop asking questions about muddling through, I’d be so much more assured, so much more hopeful.
COWEN: Are you saying it’s ultimately a metaphysical question rather than an empirical question?
THIEL: I don’t think it’s metaphysical, but it’s somewhat analytic.
COWEN: And moral, even. You’re laying down some duty by talking about muddling through.
THIEL: Well, it does tie into all these bigger questions. I don’t think that if we had a one-world state, this would automatically be for the best. I’m not sure that if we do a classical liberal or libertarian intuition on this, it would be maybe the absolute power that a one-world state would corrupt absolutely. I don’t think the libertarians were critical enough of it the last 20 or 30 years, so there was some way they didn’t believe their own theories. They didn’t connect things enough. I don’t know if I’d say that’s a moral failure, but there was some failure of the imagination.
COWEN: This multi-pronged skepticism about muddling through — would you say that’s your actual real political theology if we got into the bottom of this now?
THIEL: Whenever people think you can just muddle through, you’re probably set up for some kind of disaster. That’s fair. It’s not as positive as an agenda, but I always think . . .
One of my chapters in the Zero to One book was, “You are not a lottery ticket.” The basic advice is, if you’re an investor and you can just think, “Okay, I’m just muddling through as an investor here. I have no idea what to invest in. There are all these people. I can’t pay attention to any of them. I’m just going to write checks to everyone, make them go away. I’m just going to set up a desk somewhere here on South Beach, and I’m going to give a check to everyone who comes up to the desk, or not everybody. It’s just some writing lottery tickets.”
That’s just a formula for losing all your money. The place where I react so violently to the muddling through — again, we’re just not thinking. It can be Calvinist. It can be rationalist. It’s anti-intellectual. It’s not thinking about things.
COWEN: The muddling-through view and the Calvinist view — in your opinion, they have the same flaw, actually.
THIEL: It’s a distrust in human agency, a distrust in human thought, a distrust in our ability to make choices.
COWEN: Now, for months, I’ve been asking myself why you and also Schmitt are so interested in this katechon idea, which is also from the Bible. You can explain that to us in a moment, but am I correct in now thinking — it’s just occurred to me that the katechon is, in a sense, your substitute vision for what for me is muddling through. You’re not willing to believe in muddling through, but things haven’t collapsed now, not here. You need something else holding the finger in the dyke, and that’s katechon, or no?
THIEL: Well, it’s a very mysterious idea. There’s always a question why the Antichrist hasn’t taken over yet, and it’s this mysterious force that holds it back, this restraining force that holds back the totalitarian one-world state. I don’t necessarily put too much stock in it because, on its own terms, it’s somewhat unstable. It’s provisional. It has these archaic sacred elements. It can work for a while, but you can’t identify it with an institution.
Again, the Schmittian view is, there were all these different things that played the role of the katechon at various points in time. If you’re not supposed to immanentize the eschaton, you’re also not supposed to immanentize the katechon. If you identify too much as one thing, that can go very wrong, if you think of the katechon as the thing that restrains the one-world state or that restrains the Antichrist. Anything that’s the opposite — this is a Girardian cut — is always going to be mimetically entangled. It’s going to have this parallelism. There’s always a risk that the katechon becomes the Antichrist.
The proto-Antichrist was Nero. Claudius, the good emperor, was the katechon. He was restraining Nero, but then at some point, yes, Nero’s the opposite of Claudius, but they’re both Roman emperors.
Or you could say that in the middle of the 20th century, from let’s say, 1949 to 1989, I would identify the katechon as anti-communism. I would identify communism as the ideology of the Antichrist in the 20th century. What stopped communism was not . . . The United States couldn’t have done it. It was not just one country. It was not some libertarian debating society. Something was pretty violent, pretty hard to morally justify, not really that Christian, but it had this unifying effect.
The way it morphed — 1989 — something like anti-communism morphs into neoliberalism. Well, if you’re anti-communist, you’re not aspiring for world control. You’re just trying to stop the communists from getting world control. Once you’ve defeated the communists, what are you supposed to do? Maybe you can just go home and forget about all of what you did.
But in practice, these things have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. Bush 41 — anti-communism became the new world order, and we’re now going to just govern the world in the name of anti-communism. There’s something about it that’s always misleading. Or even what I said about the Antichrist in this apocalyptic thing. Doesn’t the Antichrist just come to power by acting as a katechon? This is what Greta says she’s doing. She is the katechon stopping climate change. It’s a somewhat useful concept, but I wouldn’t put too much weight on it.
COWEN: At the macro level, all the weight you’re putting on human agency — is that really so compatible with Lutheranism?
THIEL: I’m not a perfect Lutheran. There’s a lot that all these people one would judge very differently in retrospect.
COWEN: If you look in the Bible — Old Testament, New Testament — and you think about all the Christian thinkers who believed in some form of predestination, or Moses was chosen and the like, Abraham was chosen — what is it in the Bible that points you in the direction of so much belief in human agency being so important?
THIEL: Well, there’s a lot of different levels on this, but certainly, if you think of it as this shift away from sacrificing people, there is the anti-sacrificial theme. You can always say how is modernity or enlightened values, how are they tied with this? But certainly, the idea I would have would be something like, the idea of the individual came out of this context where the state was not absolute, it was not sacred, it was not necessarily providential.
Girard liked to always say that Christ was the first political atheist because on the level of the political order, if you say Christ says that he’s the Son of God, son of the Father, there’s a way you can go into Trinitarian metaphysics.
But the political interpretation of this is that Caesar Augustus, the son of the divinized Caesar — somehow that’s not exactly the Son of God, and that the Roman Empire is not simply divinely ordained. Then that somehow opens a space for a less unitary system that takes many, many centuries to develop or something like this. I think of even Ayn Rand as a pretty good Christian in this way. I know that would be a really scandalous thing to say.
COWEN: I wonder what she would say to that.
THIEL: It’s Jewish and atheist and shrill and crazy, but you just can’t sacrifice the individual. You shouldn’t sacrifice your mind. You shouldn’t sacrifice your reason. It’s just that you can’t sacrifice that.
On the Shakespearean political vision
COWEN: You’ve been quoting The Tempest lately in some of your talks. How is it you think the Shakespearean political vision differs from the Christian?
THIEL: Well, it’s always hard to know what Shakespeare really thought. You certainly have different characters. You have someone like Macbeth who says, “Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” That doesn’t sound like a particularly Christian worldview. That’s just what Macbeth says; it’s not what Shakespeare says. It’s always very hard to know, or maybe it’s sort of a Christian nihilistic view of the world or something like that.
The contrast I always frame is that the way I understand Shakespeare is always in contrast with someone like Karl Marx, where Marx believed that people had battles over differences that mattered. It was the different classes, and they had objectively different interests, and this is what led to the intensity of the struggle.
There’s something in Shakespeare that’s sort of proto-Girardian or very mimetic, where people have conflicts when they . . . The conflicts are the most intense when they don’t differ at all. It’s the opening line of Romeo and Juliet. It’s the Capulets versus Montagues, two houses “alike in dignity.” They’re identical, and that’s why they hate each other so much.
Or I think it’s at the end of Hamlet, where Hamlet says to be truly great, you must take everything for an eggshell because an average person would fight over things that mattered, but a truly great person would fight over things as ephemerral as honor or an eggshell or something like this. Of course, Hamlet’s problems — he doesn’t really believe all the insane revenge drama he’s supposed to be in.
I think there is probably a place where I would say yes, Shakespeare would probably be very distrustful of extreme ideological differences today. That would probably in some ways also be a kind of political atheist.
COWEN: I find the play Julius Caesar very interesting because there’s no katechon. There’s no muddling through, so they sacrifice Caesar. There’s a civil war and a lot more people dying and no end to that in sight. It’s the pessimistic scenario of the Thiel mental universe, I think.
THIEL: There’s a strange way where they’re all going back and thinking they’re reenacting things. The way Brutus gets pulled into the conspiracy in Julius Caesar is that he gets reminded that his ancestor, another person named Brutus, had overthrown Tarquin, the last of the kings of Rome, in 509 BC, so he thinks he’s just reenacting that murder. I think there is some part in the play where Shakespeare has the actor say — I’m going to get this slightly garbled, but it’s something like, “Centuries hence there’ll be people reenacting this on a stage in front of an audience.” This is what motivates Brutus to do it. It’s like the future applause in the Shakespearean theater.
Then of course, the crazy literal reenactment of it was John Wilkes Booth shooting Abraham Lincoln in 1865, where Booth was a Shakespearean actor, and then it was “Sic semper tyrannis,” was what he said. He thought he was reenacting the Brutus-Caesar thing.
You can look at the 1838 Lincoln speech, the Young Men’s Lyceum address, where Lincoln portrays himself in a somewhat coded way as sort of a proto-Caesar, and he tells the audience there are people in this country who wouldn’t be happy to be . . . Some people are really ambitious, but no one could be like a founder because that was in the past, and the most you can now be is a president. But there are people for whom being president is not enough, and there are some people who, if you didn’t stop them, they would keep going until they enslaved all the white people or freed all the slaves.
Lincoln was talking about himself and saying that he has the ambition to be like a Caesar or a Napoleon or something like this. It’s a bit of a roundabout answer. Yes, there are ways we can see it as a cycle, but surely that’s what we want to transcend. It was a bad idea for Brutus to think he was reenacting the Caesar thing, and somehow there was something about the John Wilkes Booth story that’s pretty sad too.
On AI
COWEN: For our last segment, let’s turn to artificial intelligence. As you know, large language models are already quite powerful. They’re only going to get better. In this world to come, will the wordcels just lose their influence? People who write, people who play around with ideas, pundits — are they just toast? What’s this going to look like? Are they going to give up power peacefully? Are they going to go down with the ship? Are they going to set off nuclear bombs?
THIEL: I’ll say the AI thing broadly, the LLMs — it’s a big breakthrough. It’s very important, and it’s striking to me how bad Silicon Valley is at talking about these sorts of things. The questions are either way too narrow, where it’s something like, is the next transformer model going to improve by 20 percent on the last one or something like this? Or they’re maybe too cosmic, where it’s like from there we go straight to the simulation theory of the universe. Surely there are a lot of in-between questions one could ask. Let me try to answer yours.
My intuition would be it’s going to be quite the opposite, where it seems much worse for the math people than the word people. What people have told me is that they think within three to five years, the AI models will be able to solve all the US Math Olympiad problems. That would shift things quite a bit.
There’s a longer history I always have on the math versus verbal riff. If you ask, “When did our society bias to testing people more for math ability?” I believe it was during the French Revolution because it was believed that verbal ability ran in families. Math ability was distributed in this idiot savant way throughout the population.
If we prioritized math ability, it had this meritocratic but also egalitarian effect on society. Then, I think, by the time you get to the Soviet Union, Soviet Communism in the 20th century, where you give a number theorist or chess grandmaster a medal — which was always a part I was somewhat sympathetic to in the Soviet Union — maybe it’s actually just a control mechanism, where the math people are singularly clueless. They don’t understand anything, but if we put them on a pedestal, and we tell everyone else you need to be like the math person, then it’s actually a way to control. Or the chess grandmaster doesn’t understand anything about the world. That’s a way to really control things.
If I fast-forwarded to, let’s say, Silicon Valley in the early 21st century, it’s way too biased toward the math people. I don’t know if it’s a French Revolution thing or a Russian-Straussian, secret-cabal, control thing where you have to prioritize it. That’s the thing that seems deeply unstable, and that’s what I would bet on getting reversed, where it’s like the place where math ability — it’s the thing that’s the test for everything.
It’s like if you want to go to medical school, okay, we weed people out through physics and calculus, and I’m not sure that’s really correlated with your dexterity as a neurosurgeon. I don’t really want someone operating on my brain to be doing prime number factorizations in their head while they’re operating on my brain, or something like that.
In the late ’80s, early ’90s, I had a chess bias because I was a pretty good chess player. And so my chess bias was, you should just test everyone on chess ability, and that should be the gating factor. Why even do math? Why not just chess? That got undermined by the computers in 1997. Isn’t that what’s going to happen to math? And isn’t that a long-overdue rebalancing of our society?
COWEN: How is manual labor going to do in this world to come? There’ll be a lot more new projects. If you’re a very good gardener, carpenter, will your wages go up by 5X? Or is there something else in store for us?
THIEL: It’s hard to say, but let me just not give the answer, but let me suggest some of the questions I’d like us to focus on more with AI. I think one question is, how much will it increase GDP versus how much will it increase inequality? Probably it does some of both. Is it a very centralizing technology? That’s another question I’d like to get a better handle on. I had this riff five, six years ago, where if crypto is libertarian, why can’t we say that AI is communist?
One of the things that I’m still probably a little bit uncomfortable about is that it seems to lead to these incredible returns to scale. Man, I thought San Francisco had at least committed suicide, and we could move on from San Francisco. But returns to scale on AI are so big that maybe even San Francisco will survive with the AI revolution. There are benefits to this, but it also leads to this set of centralization questions.
Or the geopolitical question: If it is as big a technology as you and I think it is, what is it going to do to the China-US rivalry?
COWEN: What do you think?
THIEL: I’m just saying, it would be good if we just at least ask the right sorts of questions. I don’t have answers to all these. The pro-China argument is they will not hesitate to use the AI and train it on all their people, and so it’ll be more quickly implemented. The pro-US argument is that we are probably ahead of China. Maybe the large language models are not really communist. Maybe if you can’t ask the large language model who Winnie the Pooh is, you have to nerf it so badly that it doesn’t even work or something like that.
I think there’s an intuition that the effective altruists are not just fifth columnists on the part of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] where they’re trying to sabotage us, but where they actually, simply are doing what the CCP wants, which is actually to stop the LLMs and that’s very disruptive.
Then, to the extent that the second one, that it probably helps the US more than China, is that actually massively destabilizing, where China was this low-volatility plan to victory where they were just going to slowly beat the Western world. If you now have this volatility-increasing technology that China cannot match, does that just accelerate China’s timetable? And does China become like Russia, where you’re ultimately going to lose, and maybe you have to invade Taiwan in the next year or two, and you can’t wait for another decade?
COWEN: Final question — what is the next thing you will choose to learn about?
THIEL: Man, all these questions. This is projections of your personality, Tyler.
[laughter]
THIEL: It’s the Isaiah Berlin thing, where you have the hedgehog who knows one thing and the fox who knows many things. You know so many different things, you’re interested in so many different things. It’s just a few core ideas I come back to, and it’s something like this wonderful and terrible history of the world that we’re living through as Christianity’s unraveling our culture, and we have to figure out a way to get to the other side. I think that’s what’s going to keep me busy for a long time.
There were a number of questions from the audience which Thiel answered. Here is one which is certain to keep Thiel busy for a very long, very HOT time:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: What are the Straussian messages of the Bible? And what do they tell us about political theology?
COWEN: Simple questions tonight.
[laughter]
THIEL: Well, I think Strauss was this political philosopher who I wouldn’t describe as Christian, was probably very classical. But the place where I’d say both, let’s say, someone like Strauss and Girard agreed on, was that there are certain ways of understanding the world that have this disruptive way, and you don’t want enlightenment — simply that if you just tell people the secret messages, it has this unraveling effect. I’m not sure it’s esoteric, but it is the book of Revelations, is the apocalypse because apocalypse in Greek means unveiling, and if you unveil the social order, you might end up deconstructing and destroying it.
One of Girard’s books was I See Satan Fall Like Lightning. To see Satan is to see Satan fall, so the only time Satan appears in the Bible is at the very end of the world. Every other time, it’s been he’s talking to God or he is talking to Christ in the desert, but no human being ever sees Satan simply because to see Satan is to see Satan fall. There’s the libertarian.
Another libertarian cut on Christianity is that when Christ is tempted in the desert, and Satan says, “Just worship me, and you can have all these kingdoms in the world,” it’s somehow saying that all the governments are more satanic than divinely ordained. People don’t understand that. They think governments are somehow divinely ordained. So, once you see how satanic the government is, how satanic taxes are, other things besides the governments do, it will have this unraveling effect.
Did you catch that? This servant of Satan stated that Christianity is unravelling our culture.
Remember, his company is responsible for the killing software the jews have the gall to call “The Gospel”.
Maybe it is time for you to stop using your SMART Devices, APPs and social media. Because we’re already tagged it.
WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN PALANTIR’S DRONES HUNT DOWN ALL WHO REFUSE TO TAKE THE NEXT VACCINE OR USE DIGITAL CURRENCY, AND COME TO FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO NOAHIDE LAWS:
I have taught the world to reject the Biodigital Convergence SOUL TRAP since 2018, when I stopped using Google products, *S.M.A.R.T. devices, apps or social media - AND YOU SHOULD BE TOO. If I can do it so can you. Why? Because *S.M.A.R.T. IS THE ACRONYM FOR SURVEILLANCE MONITORING ANALYSIS RECORDING TECHNOLOGY which UPLOADS YOUR SOUL TO HELL
Please do all you can to remove the entities within you as the days progress for the less parasite strongholds means the less effect of the Biodigital Convergence.
The RW Protocol with the 3-4 day fermented cabbage is a human being's best protection against what is being done with the nano, LEDs and frequencies. https://tiny.cc/ropeworm and https://tiny.cc/theascensiondiet
YOU becoming part of the 6G HIVE MIND BORG is happening NOW and rolled out since the beginning of mobile phones, which came to be called cellular phones as they are designed to Surveillance, Monitor, Analyze, Record and Transmit data (*SMART technology) uploading human etheric energy to the Devil's Full Spectrum Dominance blockchain - and THIS is the INTERNET OF BODIES and THOSE who are allowing themselves to let it happen are installing in themselves the Mark of the Beast as the NANOTECH in their hands and forehead is ASSEMBLED by the 5G and they themselves as the Internet of Bodies make the 6G.
If YOU are using a SMART device, you are PARTICIPATING IN YOUR OWN SOUL TRAP.
The programmable nano (graphene oxide) in all bodies - vaxxed or not - is assembled by the SMART Devices and environmental frequency onslaught now including the entire earth stratosphere of direct energy weapons. The towers can send precise beams. SKYNET is in place.
Please do all you can to remove the entities within you as the days progress for the less parasite strongholds means the less effect of the Biodigital Convergence.
*S.M.A.R.T. is the acronym for Surveillance Monitoring Analysis Reporting Technology - and the first thing Donald J. Trump did when he took office as POTUS in January was to announce THE STARGATE PROJECT, which will use SKYNET, the Space Force and blockchain technology through SMART devices to enforce the NOAHIDE Laws, hunting down and beheading all who refuse to take the mark of the beast, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE TO BE INJECTED BUT ASSEMBLES FROM THE NANO IN THE BODY BEING CONTROLLED BY FREQUENCIES.
The Ropeworm Protocolshould be done by every human, as the ropeworm isThe Universal Bioweapon. In this book are included the photographs of 3’-4’ long ropeworms expelled by toddlers. Now in this highly weaponized NWO Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars Hell on Earth coming to pass, the protocols and products I recommend for the BioAPI, parasite, heavy metal and toxin detox are at the end of this newsletter as always.
Thank you - each and every one of you - for your continued love and support.
"I am in a bit of a state of shock. I can’t believe that something as big as giant parasitic worms in our bodies can go so unnoticed so long by the mainstream health “services.” I mean these ropeworms don’t show up in X-rays, or MRI’s? And then I saw your link to the article about all the mysterious deaths/murders of doctors and health practitioners and two and two is starting to add up. If what you are saying is true, that we all have worms and that they are essentially one and the same with demons that have been plaguing us and causing all the diseases, all the addictions, all the laziness and hatred, then your book and detox protocols may be the most important thing since the bible and should be mandatory reading!" - Gabriel, 2019
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,” - 1 Corinthians 6:19
I am doing all I can to shatter the programming holding so many souls back from knowing the TRUTH that has been hidden, for the Truth will set you free. My love for you in Christ, who is the WAY, the TRUTH, the LIGHT and THE DOOR. Laura
The official Ropeworm Protocol Support Group is here (membership required) and this also addresses all forms of parasites, heavy metals, nanotechnology, molds, yeasts, GMOs, Lyme disease, Morgellons syndrome, pineal gland decalcification, spike protein removal and EMF treatment and protection.
Why is the group on an online forum? Because use of SMART Devices, social media platforms (TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Telegram et al), ZOOM and video capture live, live podcasting and all APPS capture one’s etheric energy and blockchain them to the CLOUD, making a digital twin for Transhumanism. The LEDs optigenetically alter their DNA. The microwave radiation changes biofields. I do not support that and I do not video myself talking into a SMART phone. THE SOUL IS NOT A BODY PART. Your soul is part of YHVH who gave it to you, and Jesus is the DOOR to HIM.
I urge you to do the Ropeworm Cleanse and adapt/adopt the Dioxin BioAPI protocol as much as you are able to on a daily basis. The train derailments like East Palestine and the forever chemicals released from the fires incinerating plastics and hydrocarbons release Dioxin, and the entire earth has been polluted. https://tiny.cc/ropewormThe Original, Genuine Ropeworm and Parasite Detox Protocol https://eatingtoascend.com/2023/02/27/the-dioxin-protocol/
There is LIGHT in your DNA and I pray you retain the signature YHVH in your 144,000 base pairs, which will be translated in the solar flash plasma cataclysmic trumpet blast they keep trying to prevent with chemtrails and HAARP and microwave manipulated nanotech.
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,” - 1 Corinthians 6:19
JESUS IS THE LIGHT IN OUR CELLS. THIS ELECTRON MICROSCOPE PHOTOGRAPH REVEALS THAT THE WATER MOLECULE IS THE CROSS
EDUCATE YOUR NEIGHBORS ABOUT REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY AND SHOW SUPPORT FOR PALESTINE, BEING GENOCIDED BY THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN by hanging a Palestine Flag from a Shepherd’s Crook Flag Stand with a solar-powered flickering candle. Drape Palestine flag banners along your porch lanai, balcony and deck railings - even your boat riggings and docks. Your vehicles can speak out too. Don’t be complicit in silence as the Devil controls the narratives! The believers and followers of Jesus Christ are the TRUE JEWS, for “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” - Romans 8:14
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,” meaning One, who is Christ… You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” -Paul, Galatians 3
The rubric of deceit is so twisted that all who see through this web of lies and question it are called anti-semitic, marginalized and accused of hate when they are standing against evil to its very face. See John 8:44 (context: 30-47)
How to read The Digital Scrolls: Because Substack is pushing use of their app to read while downplaying the “Read Online” option, to avoid launching the IEEE soul trap app, simply click the title of the article in the subscriber email you have received. For your edification, links to further information are in blue, or sometimes bolded white, depending on the font size: a Substack limitation. To never miss vital content, these newsletters are always best read online instead of the email you received, due to real-time additions and corrections. Be sure to follow me (here’s how) to get notifications for my Notes, where in between Scrolls I communicate additional pertinent information between larger articles. Of course, hyperlinks are in blue and should not be disregarded by the reader.I highly suggest printing my articles as local PDFs for offline reading. Due to the medium, composition is done online, and I have designed it for easy reading on a black background. Thank you, and I pray you are enriched by my work as a watcher. *Medium https://www.openbible.info/topics/psychics_and_witchcraft
*All verified affiliate commissions from purchases through this newsletter support this ministry.
Hi Laura. Thank you for more valuable information.
I have a question for you
At the time of the rapture when there are people calling out to Jesus, and he says that he does not know them who do you think these people are why Jesus does not know them ?
Hi Laura. Thank you for more valuable information.
I have a question for you
At the time of the rapture when there are people calling out to Jesus, and he says that he does not know them who do you think these people are why Jesus does not know them ?