Peter Thiel’s nominations are far more disdainful than Tech Brow’s.

In March 2022 Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters was asked To name the influence of ideology. Instead of answering Ayn Rand or the French philosopher René Girard (a favorite of Masters philanthropist, tech billionaire Peter Thiel), he quotes Ted Kaczynski.

Yes, that person is the so-called “Unbomber” who killed strangers by mail.

His answer concerned many. Why would a tech venture capitalist who co-wrote a book about building the future mention a Ludi terrorist? However, it was a heterodox paradox that suited a member of the Thielverse.

Like his patron, Masters aligned himself with the seemingly opposite in his pursuit of political power. Kaczynski was reactive—a trait that seemed more important to Masters than his attitude toward technology. Confusing as it may be, Masters’ support and adoption of the style (along with other TL successors) makes a surprising amount of sense.

Ted Kaczynski was not the hippie who broke the bad news as some have assumed, and his manifesto was not a radical interpretation of 1960s global environmentalism. Anyone who bothered to read even the first few pages of his manifesto would know that Kaczynski was a socially and technologically radical culture warrior and reactionary conservative.

While mainstream conservatives are angry about feminism and multiculturalism, they see them as left-wing ideological constructs (as Thiel argued in a 1995 book he co-authored). The myth of diversity), Kaczynski was the mother of these movements and focused more on technological development. For him, political correctness is the beginning of the breakdown of modern life, the failure to meet our basic human needs on our own. He points out that technology is inevitably a tool for dictators, communist central planners, and therefore technology and freedom are mutually exclusive.

Whether it’s the scourge of political correctness, the threat of Big Tech being “awakened,” or the rise of the tech-savvy Chinese Communist Party—you can see why parts of Kaczynski’s manifesto resonate in the Telverse. On the other hand, Kaczynski’s main macro thesis is in direct conflict with TL, who in his infamous 2009 Cato will not be arrested. “We are in a perilous race between politics and technology,” he says of Bahr Dar Essay (a non-governmental libertarian society based on boats and man-made islands) and that our fate “may depend on the efforts of one individual.” It builds and expands the machinery of freedom.

This diametrically opposed theory, which broadly proposes that technological stagnation leads to social conflict, is what Thiel argues is responsible for the recent “political madness” of our time.

This begs the question: Why are Thiel’s political successors running on a platform of neo-Luddite populism? Instead of selling a solution to the stagnation, they are contributing to the political madness.

In addition to his clear support for Ted Kaczynski, Masters recently He lamented Automated checkout machines, demanding that we “put a human back” and ignoring the food preparation demand and job opportunity it created. Masters opposed the Covid-19 vaccine mandates—which, when argued from a libertarian perspective, are not necessarily anti-vaccination—but went on to label them “evil.” He came out against the medical procedure he once supported, abortion. School shootings blamed on antidepressants. He It is called He posted search engine rankings on Tucker Carlson (and also mentioned the Unabomber in a positive light), he seems to have forgotten. Point Search engines step by step results.

Masters is not conspicuous in his neo-Luddite discourse. JD Vance—another Thiel successor running for Senate in Ohio—wants to ban pornography to “save” families. Texas Senator Ted Cruz—a longtime TL supporter—He was blamed Mass shootings against modern inventions like video games and prescription drugs. In the past, Cruz has attacked encryption as a key technology for protecting individuals from surveillance, and has long been attacked by well-meaning technophobes. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley—yet another candidate in TL’s orbit—called for a Chinese Communist Party-style deadline on social media—a surprise government takeover—as well as the CCP’s influence over TikTok.

The notion that technology is a tool of communist control and the source of societal evil is Kaczynski-esque, and a common theme among Thiel’s political successors. Masters, citing him, suggests that these similarities may be more than coincidental. Even Thiel himself has floated similar ideas, notably in 2018, saying, “AI (artificial intelligence) is communist. Crypto is liberating. Then in 2021, Thiel wondered if Bitcoin might be a communist tool.”

The rhetoric of Thiel’s political activists—calculating kayfabe, be it sincere or not—is a repetition of political activism. This is Trumpism with a dash of Kaczynski, a 1 to n political invention. Ironically, this is the kind of embarrassing frequency shift that Masters and Thiel warn about in their book. From Zero to One: Notes on Startups or How to Build the Future.

The populist right sees not “American invention” but “American carnage.” And neo-Luddism—rather than tech progressivism—is one factor in Thielvers’s choice of political rhetoric. It is certainly based on TL’s pessimistic view. Thiel “I think the most pessimistic candidate will win, because if you’re too optimistic, you’re out of touch,” he told Mitt Romney in 2016.

It was like a political forecast, but that doesn’t mean it is now.

By eschewing optimism and embracing neo-Luddite narratives, Thiel and his allies are missing a major political opportunity to move the Republican political narrative in a new direction. If you choose, you can work to end the “political madness” and zero-sum wars caused by technological stagnation. They are forgetting that the next Mark Zuckerberg will not build a social network (so to speak From zero to one) The next Donald Trump will not build a tower. The next Republican firebrand will build something new, fresh and weird. Instead, they are doing this.

Masters and Vance, in particular, had the unfortunate opportunity to forge an alternative path to political will, framed through the lens of technological progress. But he did it only on the issues of cryptocurrencies and nuclear power they take up This presentation. As for the latter, anti-nuclear Luddism has taken an undeniable toll on the progressive environmental movement, which has led directly to the burning of more fossil fuels, and has contributed to increased climate change.

The college issue was another obvious opportunity, where one master’s experience was the TL Fellowship (a philanthropic effort that calls into question the college’s merits by paying kids to drop out and become entrepreneurs). Masters, especially in America, could wield political power by pointing out that higher education is a system that Democrats want to fully subsidize, but that perpetuates the kind of systematic discrimination that the left hates.

Employers’ diploma screening excludes about 80 percent of Latinos, about 70 percent of African-Americans and 70 percent of rural Americans (the demographics JD Vance should win a Senate seat).

From “Build a Tower!” A chance to offer something less stale. (and less divisive), all while appealing to minority swing voters, were ignored. Instead of supporting Democrats in hiring oligopolies and offering new ways of working thanks to technology, Masters instead blamed blacks for gun violence, and along with Vance, promoted the racist “great succession theory.” Both continue to see Trump’s border wall work and location as an opportunity solution in an increasingly disconnected world.

Foreign policy saw similar squandering of opportunities, but provided some significant self-ownership. Instead of saying, “Who cares about the Ukrainians,” JD Vance could have hailed a new age of war where cheap planes beat expensive tanks – and leading and defending the free world inevitably means ballooning deficits and an increase in US troops overseas. Presence.

Instead of blaming gun violence on antidepressants, they could have blamed mental health and the FDA’s barriers to drug access. This doubles as a way to protect against abortion, a popular but outwardly understated issue among Republican women without having to wade into divisive political motives.

If Peter Thiel’s political influence career continues to grow with technology, perhaps Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis won’t remove Disney’s jurisdiction over the Reedy Creek Redevelopment District, the site of Disney’s sleepover project for the future city: EPCOT. This is corporate sovereignty and the future of industrialism that TL can only exist on platforms built in the aforementioned international waters, he said. Cato will not be arrested. Essay.

For every issue burdened by scarcity, tech-progressivism offers a third way: the purple pill as an alternative to the usual red and blue. Less division, more constructive and more matter Progressive.

It won’t be clear until November whether Thiel’s pessimism about optimism (and Luddite populism) will succeed, or instead backfire and lose the political influence he seeks. Whether it does or not, an optimistic tech-progressive platform — from Democrats — and some Republicans — could depend on seizing the political opportunity.