It was recently revealed that tech billionaire Peter Thiel runs a secret society that brings CEOs and billionaires together with political leaders. Members reportedly include figures such as NATO Supreme Commander Alexus Grynkewich and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Thiela German-American entrepreneur and activist, co-founded PayPal and the software firm Palantir. Discoveries about soCiety – known as “Dialog” – have attracted widespread attention. And Thiel himself gave one confidential lecture series in San Francisco this year, in which he framed the issues of politics and technology in biblical terms.
Thiel has said he believes that humanity faces existential threats from nuclear war or runaway artificial intelligence (AI) that could lead to “Armageddon”. In such an end-time era, so the thinking goes, alone more genius – like those in the secret society – would survive.
Thiel is an extreme case, but by no means an isolated one. Other powerful people in politics and technology are viewing today’s world through a lens of civilizational crisis and impending disaster.
End-time politics
Over the centuries, political leaders have often fueled fears of decline and collapse. In ancient times, Augustus, the first Roman emperor, championed the narrative that Rome faced moral collapse to justify the concentration of power in his hands.
However, the current moment of “end-time politics” is different on several fronts. Threats, real and imagined, spread faster than ever, distributed through social media algorithms that they favor hysteria and conspiracy.
In Silicon Valley, influential figures routinely discuss AI as saving humanity or as an extinction event. Palantir CEO Alex Karp has described the AI race as “Our Oppenheimer Moment”when the rich nations of the world must decide whether to stop the development of a dangerous technology or to tip the balance of power in its favor.
However, the phenomenon extends beyond the weird circles of technology. Recent confessions have entered the halls of power, while political figures use the opportunity to propagate radical politics.
US military personnel have submitted a large number of complaintsstating that their commanders have used recent biblical rhetoric to justify US attacks on Iran. Their leadership is said to have referred to Armageddon, seeing the war in Iran as a necessary step to bring about Christ’s return.
This comes in a context where the Trump administration has been catering to the Christian right, especially evangelicals, as a key constituency for it. “spiritual warfare”. US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, in particular, has portrayed himself as an instrument of God in an existence. Civilization battle for Christianity.
Hegseth and other central figures are said to have stacked their departments with evangelicals and Christian Zionists. These cases can be seen as elements of a larger shift, where political and corporate leaders blend their interpretation of Christianity with beliefs about US supremacy.
Radical mind, radical politics
of Trump threats to Iranincluding his decree in April that “an entire civilization will die tonight, never to return”, show the consequences of this mythologizing. It paves the way for radical politics in the US and beyond.
The Trump administration has claimed that Europe is facing continental decline and “wiping out civilization” due to immigration and European integration. In the same way, Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform in the United Kingdom, has sounded the alarm about the confrontation of Great Britain. “social collapse”.
Research has shown that people are more willing to support emergency measures when they believe they face an existential threat. It has also been shown that the psychological dispositions of political leaders matter more times of uncertainty.
The unpredictable effects of technological and environmental transformation create risks and anxiety – and the risk is that leaders treat opponents, social movements or minority groups as mythical enemies.
The latter policy then becomes a struggle to determine the ultimate threat to humanity. We are in a time when people face many dangers. These worldviews ultimately determine how national politics and geopolitics evolve.
There is another reason to pay attention. For most of the modern era, the most influential people were leaders and state officials. Today, a new type of leader has emerged: tech executives with wealth and media influence.
Their influence can be expanded deep in the state – symbolized by Elon Musk’s role in the US Department of Government Efficiency and the critical role of SpaceX in US global strategy.
For a long time, scholars explained global politics in terms of institutions and structural relationships, and globalization through business interests. Now, the future of both increasingly depends on the psychology of a small political and corporate elite.
End-time leaders will exaggerate some threats while downplaying others. Often, technology leaders will make connections between a prosperous future and the necessity of disruptive innovation.
American venture capitalist Marc Andreessen has been a proponent of “technological acceleration” – the idea that unregulated technological development is the only way to overcome the world’s existential problems.
The challenge is distinguishing between real threats and narratives that amplify fear while obscuring more pressing problems. At a time when the debate is saturated with predictions of collapse, it may be more important than ever to focus on the risks that are supported by the evidence – the climate crisis and an erosion of democratic systems, for example.
On the question of whether technology can overcome climate change and bring world peace, it might be wise not to take the word of tech billionaires. After all, Thiel has recently been hedging his bets between a bunker in New Zealand and a accommodation in Argentina of Javier Mile.
Joscha Abels is a postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Political Sciences, University of Tübingen AND Juliana Tappe Ortiz is a postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Political Sciences, University of Tübingen
This article was reprinted from Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read on original article.
