The Nixon Seminar with Peter Thiel(nixonseminar.com)
nixonseminar.com
The Nixon Seminar with Peter Thiel
https://nixonseminar.com/2021/04/the-nixon-seminar-april-6-2021-transcript
45 comments
>It really is interesting to see the conversation here framed so narrowly within an understanding of China as some comical all powerful, omniscient entity coming to steal your children.
I'm not sure we read the same transcript? Part of the second quarter of the seminar is spent talking about how China is so obsessed with their surveillance state because they, perhaps, perceive their situation as weak or fragile. This makes a lot of sense to me, and checks out with how other authoritarian states have behaved in the past. It's not even that profound of an observation if you couch it in the context of the larger history of 20th century totalitarian regimes. There's a burgeoning nervousness that exists on both sides, the West (broadly defined) and China, about the access to high tech semiconductors. All of that represents a discussion of weakness or single points of failure for both parties here.
Since Thiel and Pompeo are such polarizing characters, to say the least, perhaps it's helpful to read things like this and imagine different names there in the transcript. A lot of this is just old fashioned Realpolitik, which I get it it's kind of frowned upon today for reasons that don't really make much sense to me, but it's just another IR lens to use to look at what is a return to Great Power Conflict.
I'm not sure we read the same transcript? Part of the second quarter of the seminar is spent talking about how China is so obsessed with their surveillance state because they, perhaps, perceive their situation as weak or fragile. This makes a lot of sense to me, and checks out with how other authoritarian states have behaved in the past. It's not even that profound of an observation if you couch it in the context of the larger history of 20th century totalitarian regimes. There's a burgeoning nervousness that exists on both sides, the West (broadly defined) and China, about the access to high tech semiconductors. All of that represents a discussion of weakness or single points of failure for both parties here.
Since Thiel and Pompeo are such polarizing characters, to say the least, perhaps it's helpful to read things like this and imagine different names there in the transcript. A lot of this is just old fashioned Realpolitik, which I get it it's kind of frowned upon today for reasons that don't really make much sense to me, but it's just another IR lens to use to look at what is a return to Great Power Conflict.
I am still trying to grasp how Thiel intellectually went from ultra libertarian to American statist cofounder of Palantir. What happened? He realized the threat of China and changed his mind? He’s hedging his bets? He sees a strong American state as fundamentally necessary for libertarian values?
No snarky replies please. I am genuinely curious.
No snarky replies please. I am genuinely curious.
Unlike a couple replies to this comment, I don't believe that Thiel is all that concerned about making money -- IIRC he would be far richer today if he had simply left his share of facebook in the market compared to the mix of investments he's made since then. And hey, who can blame him? Once you reach a certain point, it's surely not a big motivator. Better to lead an interesting life making interesting investments rather than tack on an extra X billion dollars doing diddly squat.
On the other hand he does seem very interested in wielding his influence to create the world he wants to live in. See Trump, see Gawker for example. My hunch is that he's taking a wider view on liberty -- he sees it as under threat (by China, but also others -- including internal actors within the US), and doesn't trust that liberty will "sell itself" any more than he believes software will sell itself (see zero to one chapter 11). I don't know if he's wrong either -- if China can get the upper hand and solidify some amount of control over the United States, however soft, that could be a very bad thing indeed for liberty -- why not be a pragmatist and sacrifice a little now for a lot more later? The danger of course is if it's not temporary and becomes the seed of the United States own version of totalitarianism.
Thiel is someone who has shown time and time again that he refuses to simply buy any particular narrative hook, line, and sinker. He's very woke to the danger in that kind of "feeling-thinking" combo -- and that goes for the libertarian narrative as well. He's shown himself to be willing to be pragmatic, even opportunistic in his attempts to stay ahead of things and sacrifice money in exchange for being in a position to shape the world. We, of course, see the times he's been right, but I'm far more curious about his failures -- based on how often he's been right I can only guess there are lots of them.
On the other hand he does seem very interested in wielding his influence to create the world he wants to live in. See Trump, see Gawker for example. My hunch is that he's taking a wider view on liberty -- he sees it as under threat (by China, but also others -- including internal actors within the US), and doesn't trust that liberty will "sell itself" any more than he believes software will sell itself (see zero to one chapter 11). I don't know if he's wrong either -- if China can get the upper hand and solidify some amount of control over the United States, however soft, that could be a very bad thing indeed for liberty -- why not be a pragmatist and sacrifice a little now for a lot more later? The danger of course is if it's not temporary and becomes the seed of the United States own version of totalitarianism.
Thiel is someone who has shown time and time again that he refuses to simply buy any particular narrative hook, line, and sinker. He's very woke to the danger in that kind of "feeling-thinking" combo -- and that goes for the libertarian narrative as well. He's shown himself to be willing to be pragmatic, even opportunistic in his attempts to stay ahead of things and sacrifice money in exchange for being in a position to shape the world. We, of course, see the times he's been right, but I'm far more curious about his failures -- based on how often he's been right I can only guess there are lots of them.
Thank you. This is exactly the sort of comment I was hoping for. I agree with most of what you say re: pragmatism, but I do think Palantir is a bit much. Unless he’s playing a meta-game and assuming that surveillance will be inevitable and it’s preferable to be in the driver’s seat than locked in the back.
I actually thought he was playing the meta game with palantir. His rhetoric of democracy is incompatible with freedom became famous around the time of the founding of Palantir. I viewed it as him attempting to reign as a philosopher-king-ceo steering the surveillance apparatus the US gov is contracting out as safely as he thought is possible.
This is a big stretch, but I do wonder with Thiel's Christian background and his interest in Girard's mimetic theory that he sees himself as acting in a Christ-like manner -- strategically sacrificing himself again and again in order to save that which he loves, even if it doesn't love him back.
The problem with that of course is the "strategically". He's made what seem to be deals with the devil on many occasions -- Trump being the obvious example, and having a hand in pardoning Levandowski being the most recent one. I'm not so sure that he's crossed the line into "evil villain" territory as many think, but is he headed that way? Maybe.
The problem with that of course is the "strategically". He's made what seem to be deals with the devil on many occasions -- Trump being the obvious example, and having a hand in pardoning Levandowski being the most recent one. I'm not so sure that he's crossed the line into "evil villain" territory as many think, but is he headed that way? Maybe.
He doesn’t have a coherent or consistent politics. He’s just not that smart. Genuinely not being snarky - guy’s an effective entrepreneur but no kind of great political thinker
This is a snarky reply and specifically not what I asked for.
I have watched quite a few videos with Thiel. He has degrees in law and philosophy and is quite financially successful. Thomas Jefferson he is not, but I don’t think he is “just not that smart.”
I have watched quite a few videos with Thiel. He has degrees in law and philosophy and is quite financially successful. Thomas Jefferson he is not, but I don’t think he is “just not that smart.”
Honestly: I think it’s cogent to have an idea of what the world ought be like, and yet act in other ways to further your own goals.
If it’s a prisoner’s dilemma, you might believe cooperation is the best way, and yet defect if you’re playing the game.
Thiel’s choice would be between: Living out his libertarian beliefs in practice v. Taking opportunities in a big state world and making money.
On the other end of some spectrum might be a radical minded idealist who wants the system to collapse but in practice still chooses to buy a laptop and goes to college.
I’d venture many people have dreamy beliefs about politics that they nevertheless don’t pursue unilaterally.
If it’s a prisoner’s dilemma, you might believe cooperation is the best way, and yet defect if you’re playing the game.
Thiel’s choice would be between: Living out his libertarian beliefs in practice v. Taking opportunities in a big state world and making money.
On the other end of some spectrum might be a radical minded idealist who wants the system to collapse but in practice still chooses to buy a laptop and goes to college.
I’d venture many people have dreamy beliefs about politics that they nevertheless don’t pursue unilaterally.
I have seen a recent interview (last few years) with him where he still refers to himself as a libertarian, but I agree that in practice he does not seem that way. He is heavily influenced by Leo Strauss[0] however, so he may be taking an "esoteric" view of what libertarianism means.
[0]: Strauss was a political philosopher who advocated reading the "esoteric" meaning in works of literature. I.e. he thought that thinkers did not write what the actually thought but wrote in a veiled way so that their true meaning was apparent by those in the know, but not to casual readers.
[0]: Strauss was a political philosopher who advocated reading the "esoteric" meaning in works of literature. I.e. he thought that thinkers did not write what the actually thought but wrote in a veiled way so that their true meaning was apparent by those in the know, but not to casual readers.
I think a man in his position, with the contracts, and connections and companies he has, is probably not allowed to hold certain opinions, such as being publicly bullish on China, in the current "climate". It's kind of sad to see him squeezed like that, but maybe it only looks that way.
Perhaps his libertarianism extends only so far as the deep state can't blackmail him into doing their bidding. Or...maybe all he cares about is power and ambition, and he'll do whatever it takes to climb that ladder, integrity be damned. Which does seem "borderline autistic", perhaps unsurprisingly, because Thiel claims he's "on the spectrum." He's seeming more like a queer (in the old sense) J Edgar Hoover-type figure. I feel sorry for him.
Perhaps his libertarianism extends only so far as the deep state can't blackmail him into doing their bidding. Or...maybe all he cares about is power and ambition, and he'll do whatever it takes to climb that ladder, integrity be damned. Which does seem "borderline autistic", perhaps unsurprisingly, because Thiel claims he's "on the spectrum." He's seeming more like a queer (in the old sense) J Edgar Hoover-type figure. I feel sorry for him.
What people say are their values and the values revealed by their actions can be different. Moreover one can express certain values in pursuit of goals that are incompatible with those values. This is styled hypocrisy and the bourgeoisie such as Thiel are very used to this.
This is unrelated to the actual content of Thiel's remarks, and perhaps I'm just oblivious/ignorant.
Why would anyone want to associate themselves with anything to do with Nixon? It's surprising prominent figures would want any association to Nixon and his disgraced legacy. I think overall its peculiar how much influence and esteem Nixon managed to retain after his resignation.
Why would anyone want to associate themselves with anything to do with Nixon? It's surprising prominent figures would want any association to Nixon and his disgraced legacy. I think overall its peculiar how much influence and esteem Nixon managed to retain after his resignation.
A behavior I see here and elsewhere in recent years is this idea that everyone I disagree with is an idiot. Kind of like the intellectual equivalent of total war, it seems deeply unpopular to believe that people you disagree with have merit.
It's fascinating to watch the hawks fashion their strategy of maximum confrontation with China. Watching them sell it will also be interesting. Will they use some of the tactics they used to build the momentum for the invasion of Iraq? How will they differentiate the messaging for different constituencies? I'll be watching, popcorn in hand.
Should this title not be “BIG TECH AND CHINA: WHAT DO WE NEED FROM SILICON VALLEY? starring Peter Thiel”
While I find just about everyone participating in this event contemptible (including Nixon) there are reasonable points made about the challenge that China presents.
A few of the potshots that are taken at "the woke crowd" bear commenting on since there is some extreme revisionism going on.
- The progressive left opposed China's admission to the WTO citing human rights (Tibet in particular) and the effect on US workers
- The progressive left yelled and screamed about human rights for Uiygurs and supply chains in general for years. The Trump administration ignored it for most of his term, not mentioning it until the pandemic and scapegoating China for "Kung Flu".
- The progressive left would embrace a carbon border price in a heartbeat. Pompeo's former boss of course said the opposite, calling climate change a Chinese hoax. Biden would do well to propose a border tax.
A few of the potshots that are taken at "the woke crowd" bear commenting on since there is some extreme revisionism going on.
- The progressive left opposed China's admission to the WTO citing human rights (Tibet in particular) and the effect on US workers
- The progressive left yelled and screamed about human rights for Uiygurs and supply chains in general for years. The Trump administration ignored it for most of his term, not mentioning it until the pandemic and scapegoating China for "Kung Flu".
- The progressive left would embrace a carbon border price in a heartbeat. Pompeo's former boss of course said the opposite, calling climate change a Chinese hoax. Biden would do well to propose a border tax.
It's been a while since China's admission to the WTO, and things have changed rapidly just in the past 5 years or so -- I think it's probably fair to say that the woke crowd would not oppose such a thing today. In my experience woke folks are very pessimistic about any narrative of progress that would make the US seem better than other countries -- they would quite literally want to defend the idea that the US is no better than China on the whole. Not sure any way to validate that sentiment objectively, so that's just my gut feeling.
The plight of the Uiygurs is definitely a progressive talking point, but for better or for worse, it has very much taken a back seat to issues of racism here at home. I can't recall the last time I saw it mentioned in the nytimes for example -- whereas you will see something about some woke cause (racism, sexism, trans rights, homophobia, etc.) every single day.
I think I'm in agreement on your third point though.
The plight of the Uiygurs is definitely a progressive talking point, but for better or for worse, it has very much taken a back seat to issues of racism here at home. I can't recall the last time I saw it mentioned in the nytimes for example -- whereas you will see something about some woke cause (racism, sexism, trans rights, homophobia, etc.) every single day.
I think I'm in agreement on your third point though.
> I think it's probably fair to say that the woke crowd would not oppose such a thing today
Why would you think that? To use one example, Bernie Sanders opposed it then and he would still oppose it today for basically the same reasons. Human Rights Watch et al wrote reports and did investigations about Tibet then and they do reports and investigations about Uighurs now.
> In my experience woke folks are very pessimistic about any narrative of progress that would make the US seem better than other countries -- they would quite literally want to defend the idea that the US is no better than China on the whole
This is a Fox News caricature of wokeness. To be sure, such people exist and Fox et al seeks them out and amplifies them but mainstream progressives have no problem recognizing that there are important differences.
> I can't recall the last time I saw it mentioned in the nytimes for example
What are you talking about, there are dozens of stories covering it over the last year
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/uighurs
Why would you think that? To use one example, Bernie Sanders opposed it then and he would still oppose it today for basically the same reasons. Human Rights Watch et al wrote reports and did investigations about Tibet then and they do reports and investigations about Uighurs now.
> In my experience woke folks are very pessimistic about any narrative of progress that would make the US seem better than other countries -- they would quite literally want to defend the idea that the US is no better than China on the whole
This is a Fox News caricature of wokeness. To be sure, such people exist and Fox et al seeks them out and amplifies them but mainstream progressives have no problem recognizing that there are important differences.
> I can't recall the last time I saw it mentioned in the nytimes for example
What are you talking about, there are dozens of stories covering it over the last year
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/uighurs
My understanding is that Bernie Sanders is not woke -- he's mainly progressive, even socialist, but that's different than woke which is a contingent that focuses on issues of identity excluding (or at least de-emphasizing) class. E.g. he doesn't invoke the phrase "white supremacy" much if at all -- someone who is woke would do that.
I guess my point there is that we should draw a distinction between the woke, the center left in general, the socialist left, etc.
Not sure if it's really a caricature of wokeness. My girlfriend and her friends are always talking about how "America is a dumpster fire of a country".
I found the Hidden Tribes report (https://hiddentribes.us/) eye opening in this regard. Here's a quote from a respondent belonging to the farthest left tribe they name "Progressive Activists" (makes up 8% of total respondents):
"The deck is stacked against people of color, against women, against people who don’t have the advantages that others have. It’s not an egalitarian society by any means."
Progressive Activists are three times more likely than the average respondent to say they are "ashamed to be an American". (69% V. 24%) The focus by people in the woke camp is constantly on the negative -- you basically can't mention the fact that we've made progress without risking a lecture from them about each and every exception to that fact.
re: Uighurs -- my point is not that it doesn't get a lot of coverage, but much of that coverage is not "front page" (as much as anything can be front page in the age of internet journalism). E.g. I went to the nytimes right now -- there is 1 opinion piece there talking about the Uighur situation, but depending on the time of day, I could easily miss it. I actually had to hunt for it to find it, was almost ready to say there wasn't one.
I guess my point there is that we should draw a distinction between the woke, the center left in general, the socialist left, etc.
Not sure if it's really a caricature of wokeness. My girlfriend and her friends are always talking about how "America is a dumpster fire of a country".
I found the Hidden Tribes report (https://hiddentribes.us/) eye opening in this regard. Here's a quote from a respondent belonging to the farthest left tribe they name "Progressive Activists" (makes up 8% of total respondents):
"The deck is stacked against people of color, against women, against people who don’t have the advantages that others have. It’s not an egalitarian society by any means."
Progressive Activists are three times more likely than the average respondent to say they are "ashamed to be an American". (69% V. 24%) The focus by people in the woke camp is constantly on the negative -- you basically can't mention the fact that we've made progress without risking a lecture from them about each and every exception to that fact.
re: Uighurs -- my point is not that it doesn't get a lot of coverage, but much of that coverage is not "front page" (as much as anything can be front page in the age of internet journalism). E.g. I went to the nytimes right now -- there is 1 opinion piece there talking about the Uighur situation, but depending on the time of day, I could easily miss it. I actually had to hunt for it to find it, was almost ready to say there wasn't one.
Thiel is a textbook pseudo-intellectual. Thinks he’s super smart because he made a ton of money as an entrepreneur and believes it makes him some kind of statesman. While I think there are some successful entrepreneurs out there that do have some of these qualities (maybe Gates?), Thiel sure isn’t one. As you point out, his intellectual bankruptcy is in plain sight
Please don't take HN threads on tedious name-calling tangents. It's against the site guidelines and it's not interesting.
You may not owe "textbook pseudo-intellectuals" better, but you owe this community much better if you're posting here. Similarly for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26740473 - there's no content there, just a celebrity boo.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26740119.
You may not owe "textbook pseudo-intellectuals" better, but you owe this community much better if you're posting here. Similarly for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26740473 - there's no content there, just a celebrity boo.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26740119.
I don’t think it’s exclusive to entrepreneurs. A lot of people who happen to be successful, by their standards, assume it’s thanks to their superiority.
You can see that clearly in software engineering. There’s tons of people who consider themselves super smart and experts on world problems, just because someone is paying them $200k per year to move around buttons in css.
You can see that clearly in software engineering. There’s tons of people who consider themselves super smart and experts on world problems, just because someone is paying them $200k per year to move around buttons in css.
"As computer programmers, our formative intellectual experience is working with deterministic systems that have been designed by other human beings. These can be very complex, but the complexity is not the kind we find in the natural world. It is ultimately always tractable. Find the right abstractions, and the puzzle box opens before you. The feeling of competence, control and delight in discovering a clever twist that solves a difficult problem is what makes being a computer programmer sometimes enjoyable.
But as anyone who’s worked with tech people knows, this intellectual background can also lead to arrogance.
People who excel at software design become convinced that they have a unique ability to understand any kind of system at all, from first principles, without prior training, thanks to their superior powers of analysis. Success in the artificially constructed world of software design promotes a dangerous confidence."
-- idlewords, emphasis mine
But as anyone who’s worked with tech people knows, this intellectual background can also lead to arrogance.
People who excel at software design become convinced that they have a unique ability to understand any kind of system at all, from first principles, without prior training, thanks to their superior powers of analysis. Success in the artificially constructed world of software design promotes a dangerous confidence."
-- idlewords, emphasis mine
yah, logic is an idealization--a linearization in a decidedly non-linear and stochastic universe--that works in a constructed context but not beyond it. it's how newtonian mechanics is so very useful at our scale but cannot fully explain ourselves, much less the world or the universe.
understanding thiel requires understanding that he decidedly comes at issues with self-interest and ego first (and a bit paranoia) rather than priciples, despite the contrary image he tries to project.
understanding thiel requires understanding that he decidedly comes at issues with self-interest and ego first (and a bit paranoia) rather than priciples, despite the contrary image he tries to project.
Reminds me of an HN comment I once read claiming something along the lines of how software engineers were in general smarter than other engineering disciplines.
The stock market is a great way to show software developers how they’re absolutely not super rational first principle thinkers they may believe they are. (I have some experience of this :D)
Success in any respect -- wealth, fame, accolades, awards, anything -- is incredibly dangerous to one's capacity for objective and rational thought. It tells the brain "you are doing everything right, keep doing more of it" and the result is often nothing but self-referential confirmation bias for the remainder of life. The instant a person considers themselves a success, they often stop learning or thinking.
A couple of months ago a techie friend linked me a podcast episode featuring Peter Thiel being interviewed by Eric Weinstein. He raved about how it was incredible and groundbreaking. The episode itself may have been from 2018 or 2019.
I watched the entire thing (I think close to 3 hours), and about halfway through I came to the realization that both Peter and Eric were using a lot of words... to say basically nothing.
The entire thing was full of truisms and platitudes and overall grievances about the state of science and technology and the slowing down of innovation, with some politics and economics thrown in. Neither of them knew the underlying subjects well, if at all, but had read or heard other people's various takes on them, packaged it up using lots of jargon, and were now spouting it as "wisdom."
It left a very sour taste in my mouth, because I also read Zero to One, and Peter (probably thanks to a very good editor) came across as much more cogent there.
I watched the entire thing (I think close to 3 hours), and about halfway through I came to the realization that both Peter and Eric were using a lot of words... to say basically nothing.
The entire thing was full of truisms and platitudes and overall grievances about the state of science and technology and the slowing down of innovation, with some politics and economics thrown in. Neither of them knew the underlying subjects well, if at all, but had read or heard other people's various takes on them, packaged it up using lots of jargon, and were now spouting it as "wisdom."
It left a very sour taste in my mouth, because I also read Zero to One, and Peter (probably thanks to a very good editor) came across as much more cogent there.
I thought there were a few interesting thoughts in that interview. While I like Eric Weinstein I don’t know that he brings out the best of the people he interviews. Compare to say Fridman, or even Rogan. A number of Eric’s guests have been really interesting people but the interviews were ho hum, maybe because Eric likes his own, often complicated, ideas too much.
People sure do “protest too much” given his obvious intellectual bankruptcy. He also seems to have more fan boys than gates, though gates is clearly a more shrewd businessman. Gates is a programmer, thiel a lawyer; quite different in terms of worldviews and ethics. Gates seems less idealistic, thiel more concerned with universal principles imho.
Which universal principles is he concerned about exactly? The libertarian who founded a state surveillance company?
My point was that lawyers and programmers both abstract, but in different ways. I feel like gates, as an engineer, is likely to view political frameworks and other philosophical aspects of the global system as second order to economic, demographic and military realities. Money talks, bullshit walks is the mindset I ascribe to gates. I don’t think gates would be influenced much by the ideas of Rene girard, compared to thiel who has a worldview based or at least heavily influenced by girardian principles.
Peter Thiel may be libertarian, but Palatir is certainly totalitarian.
Let me guess, Peter Theil thinks he wasn't all bad ?
Pretty much entirely unaddressed so all in all a pretty bad attempt at a pithy political statement.
Turns out that it's not about Nixon...
This is why it's called The Nixon Seminar:
"The Nixon Seminar on Conservative Realism and National Security is monthly gathering of senior statesmen and rising specialists in various aspects of great power competition and American national security, to discuss issues of current and continuing importance to the nation’s interests abroad co-chaired by former Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and former National Security Advisor Ambassador Robert C. O’Brien. Dr. Henry Kissinger serves as Honorary Chair."
https://nixonseminar.com/about/
"The Nixon Seminar on Conservative Realism and National Security is monthly gathering of senior statesmen and rising specialists in various aspects of great power competition and American national security, to discuss issues of current and continuing importance to the nation’s interests abroad co-chaired by former Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and former National Security Advisor Ambassador Robert C. O’Brien. Dr. Henry Kissinger serves as Honorary Chair."
https://nixonseminar.com/about/
Thiel may want to rethink the title then.
It's a named seminar sponsored by the Nixon Foundation: https://nixonseminar.com/about/
Which title?
It's also funny to me that Thiel talks about how big science can't exist, as if CERN, NASA and many universities just disappeared off the face of the earth. It's always interesting how glaring claims like that go unchallenged in conversations like this. Or how he just casually suggests the logical thing to do is bomb North Korea and everyone just sort of sits there doing an uneasy smiling - as if he isn't suggesting millions of deaths on the North Korean side, hundreds of thousands of deaths on the South Korean side, and a humanitarian crisis that would primarily have to be handled by China.