
The Strange Politics of Peter Thiel, Trump’s Most Unlikely Supporter - spking
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/the-strange-politics-of-peter-thiel-trump-s-most-unlikely-supporter
======
GuiA
_The Diversity Myth, a 1995 book [Thiel] co-wrote with David O. Sacks, railed
against multiculturalism, which, they wrote, “exists to destroy Western
culture.”_

What is up with all these people lately thinking that Western culture is some
form of homogeneous block that's been unadultered for millennia and has
recently come under "multiculturalist" attack? Especially coming from the US,
a country that didn't exist when my old high school was founded.

~~~
kafkaesq
Same idea, basically, as with Putin's view that the values of modern Western
societies are intrinsically hostile towards "Russian" and Eastern Orthodox
values; the stance taken by generations of nationalist and autocratic leaders
in Turkey that the state must protect itself against "insults to Turkishness"
(and most diligently); or the belief among American conservatives that they
must be ever-vigilant in their defense of "Judeo-Christian values" (whatever
that means), etc.

And let's of course not forget the hard-core Islamists obsessed with the idea
that Western music, Western culture, Western _everything_ are intrinsic
threats to the sacrosanct purity of "Islamic values".

Funny how it all comes full circle.

~~~
stcredzero
_Same idea, basically, as with Putin 's view that the values of modern Western
societies are intrinsically hostile towards "Russian" and Eastern Orthodox
values_

I'm with Stratfor's analysis of this animosity: It's largely geographic.

 _And let 's of course not forget the hard-core Islamists obsessed with the
idea that Western music, Western culture, Western everything are intrinsic
threats to the sacrosanct purity of "Islamic values"._

Most often, they are intrinsic threats to their particular version of "Islamic
values." They're also intrinsic threats to certain versions of "Christian
values." Basically, any theocratic dogma is threatened.

You can flip this on it's head, and it becomes obvious. Any theocratic dogma
that's against the realignment of their religion with modern humanist values
is obviously intrinsically threatened.

------
bko
> despite Trump’s advocacy of protectionist tariffs and extreme immigration
> restrictions, measures that would seem at odds with the radical libertarian
> image Thiel projects.

This is what's most baffling considering Trump is the most statist candidate
in modern politics. Most of his success is built on anti-immigration and
tariffs. He may agree with more non-interventionist/isolationist foreign
policy of Trump, but I don't see these as the cornerstone of his campaign.
Also, he's been less consistent on those issues, in one breadth suggesting he
wouldn't support NATO allies, and in another saying he would be aggressive in
internationalist expansion in fighting terrorism.

One theory is that he's an opportunist, and since he is such a unique
surrogate of Trump, he will be in a unique position to promote his ideas. The
Democratic side is likely more crowded in terms of tech-billionaires writing
out checks for a sympathetic ear. He's simply hedging, which ironically he's
against as well!

~~~
falsestprophet
Thiel has opposed mass [1] immigration to the United States which should not
be mistaken with opposition to _all_ immigration.

For context, only 15% of new lawful permanent residents in 2014 were selected
for education or skill (the employment-preference category).

[1] like (but not limited to) anyone who likes strolling over the border or
overstaying visas

~~~
bko
> The billionaire tech investor has been a staunch opponent of immigration.
> Back in 2008, Gawker found that Thiel had donated $1 million to NumbersUSA,
> an anti-immigration group that has consistently been labelled racist and a
> firm fan of active population control.

...

> He then invested in the SeaSteading Institute which wanted to turn Thiel’s
> dream into a reality. The reason? He felt the government wasn’t doing enough
> to keep Silicon Valley stocked with foreign talent. [0]

Some mixed messaging here...

[0] [http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-
surprised-...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-
peter-thiels-secret-crush-donald-trump/#gref)

~~~
bruceb
It isn't you are just changing the mix of who is coming. One could argue that
decrease low skilled immigration and upping higher skilled immigration would
boost those at the bottom. Raising wages at the bottom while reducing the
price of some more complex services.

~~~
bko
I guess it's under the whole idea the immigration drives down wages. It's
likely true that it does drive down wages for certain individuals but the net
impact is at worse break even. Wages are an expense after-all, and if you cut
the expense and prices go down, everyone benefits by at least the amount that
the price had dropped. Some lose out by losing their job so their losses would
be offset by the gains of others by having lower prices. This ignores the fact
that more people are buying the product at the lower price. And this also
assumes that markets are competitive and that the company can't just continue
to charge the same price and pocket the difference, which I don't think is
unreasonable in a competitive market economy.

So the many get lower prices, and pay taxes that compensate the concentrated
few that are affected by the job losses or lower wages.

~~~
Houshalter
Companies benefit a ton from cheaper labor. But the existing laborers lose out
because of competition driving down wages.

There might be a neg positive effect on the economy, but the benefits go to
the rich and the immigrants, at the expense of the local poor and middle
class. Prices are not going to fall that much because of immigrant labor, and
certainly not enough to make up for the decreased wages.

------
TorKlingberg
Some portion of libertarians have become so blinded by their hate of leftists
that they have dropped the whole "freedom" thing, and cheer for anything they
see as anti-left - even if it is blatantly authoritarian.

~~~
gallonofmilk
fear mongering much? "blatant authoritarian"

------
exstudent2
While I don't agree with everything Thiel believes, it's really, really
refreshing to get a different take from the upper echelons of the tech
industry. If you follow a lot of VCs and CEOs on Twitter you'll find that they
have a nearly homogenous political groupthink.

This industry needs more diversity of thought and Thiel stands alone in his
strength to go against the grain and stand by his philosophy. Love his ideas
or hate them, that's an admirable trait.

~~~
kenko
There's nothing admirable about "going against the grain" in itself. Probably
most people in the upper echelons of tech wealth don't think it's a great idea
to deport Muslims, and don't support Trump. I see no reason to admire someone
for having a different opinion on that matter _just because it 's different_.

There are lots of ways to "go against the grain" in the way you point out. You
could be an unthinking dogmatist. Nothing would change the way you feel, not
even the censure of your peers. (Is Thiel being censured? Sure, by Pinboard on
twitter. By his peers? Not that I can see. His richy-rich pals all still love
him, AFAICT.) Is there something admirable about having your head in the
ground? Not really---and I don't think that, on the broader social level, we
tend to applaud people who still think gay sex is shameful and should be
illegal, even though, you know, they really go against the grain.

You could be, say, a modern Cato. But Cato is admirable not just because he
fell on his sword but because he fell on his sword out of devotion to an
admirable ideal.

I see no reason, incidentally, to believe your claim that "Thiel stands alone
in his strength to go against the grain". If other people aren't going against
the grain, it might be that they think the grain is largely going in the right
direction already, and not that they lack the strength to go against it. And,
on the other hand, you have to pay a little attention to threads about
diversity of race or gender to find a lot of people with the strength to go
against the grain. Guess what: the grain _they_ go against, Thiel goes with.

~~~
nolepointer
Wanting to halt immigration from countries with radical Islamic ties !=
deporting Muslims

~~~
gallonofmilk
ssh logic not welcome here... move along

~~~
diyorgasms
I would assume ssh and its underlying logic are welcome here. What I assume is
unwelcome is advocating religious tests in a secular state.

~~~
gallonofmilk
what if instead of saying "Muslims coming from location X", it were "people
coming from location X"?

the issue is the same, we don't know how to properly vet these people, nor do
we know if they want to assimilate (big problem if they don't)... personally I
think given the world we live in, that is logical. I also don't think it
should be permanent and we should encourage those that want to join America
and all it has to offer so long as we can do our best to ensure their
sincerity...

------
vasilipupkin
Why is everyone surprised that Peter Thiel said this or said that? Is that
because we expect Peter Thiel to be a genius, when he is just a person with
probably a boatload of baggage, some brilliance and plenty of idiocy - similar
to anybody else ?

~~~
vasilipupkin
for example, if it's indeed true that Peter Thiel is skeptical of women's
suffrage, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that he is probably at
least to some extent an idiot and we should view his actions at least
partially through that prism

~~~
boona
I would love to hear WHY he's skeptical. I'm sure he's heard all the
traditional arguments like we have, which means he has additional information
that I don't.

Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what
others have to say rather than just paint them as idiots because they don't
believe what you believe.

~~~
metheus
Shall we extend the same curtesy to those who oppose other forms of universal
suffrage?

> I'm sure he's heard all the traditional arguments like we have, which means
> he has additional information that I don't.

It means nothing of the kind. Occam's razor suggests, rather, that he reasons
differently than you (or at least me).

> Don't you think it's more intellectually honest to question and hear what
> others have to say

In theory, if we had infinite "compute time" in our lives to hear and evaluate
all the arguments of those advocating regressive politics, then yes, sure. But
we don't. Instead, we rely on a cluster of markers to heuristically determine
if it is _likely_ that someone has anything to say that doesn't just reduce
trivially to the same BS you've already heard.

In this case, we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences
of women having a political voice. It is quite obvious that he has a ton of
raw intellectual horsepower in that brain, but equally clear that he has no
novel, reasonable justification for disenfranchising women.

~~~
boona
>we have an arrogant economic royalist lamenting the consequences of women
having a political voice ... but equally clear that he has no novel,
reasonable justification for disenfranchising women.

Hilarious! This is exactly what I'm talking about! You have no idea how he got
to his position, but you've already made up your mind as to how he got there.
And to top it off, you go on this big rant that places you above him in terms
of virtue because obviously he's "an arrogant economic royalist" and you're
not therefore you're better.

It's fine with me if you want to behave that way. All I'm suggesting is that
if you want to be intellectually honest, then you need to explore the 'why' of
a person's viewpoint, rather than commit the fundamental attribution error and
simply make up the 'why'.

~~~
mistersquid
Your description of "intellectually honest" is actually intellectually
dishonest.

In the United States, we generally understand the right to political autonomy,
and the right to vote in particular, to come from a citizen's existence as a
citizen (which itself is derived from Enlightenment principles of inalienable
human rights). There are nearly no philosophical exceptions to this and only a
few pragmatic ones (e.g. age of majority).

The question of women's suffrage is by itself a reasonable litmus test of
whether someone is politically sensible and, by this measure, Mr. Thiel can be
judged insensible.

To judge Mr. Thiel as politically insensible on the basis of his opposition to
women's suffrage is by definition intellectual honesty. Given the long history
of philosophical, political, and jurisprudential consensus that produced the
19th Amendment, it is in fact intellectually dishonest to entertain the
possibility that Mr. Thiel has a novel set of arguments that could justify the
disenfranchisement of women as a class.

People are justified in being skeptical of Thiel based on his radical
assertion that women's suffrage is a mistake and they are behaving sensibly
when they express wariness about other claims he might make based on his
established predilection for asserting dangerous claims against the political
autonomy of others.

EDIT: grammar, readability.

------
elcapitan
How is "1\. e4" an aggressive chess tactic? That's the most classical opening
line of all.

~~~
jbellis
It's the f4 afterwards that made it aggressive for Fischer et al. It looks
like the reporter didn't understand enough about chess to communicate that.
But he did get the first move right!

~~~
jackcarter
Fischer did not play the King's Gambit.

[http://www.academicchess.org/images/pdf/chessgames/fischerbu...](http://www.academicchess.org/images/pdf/chessgames/fischerbust.pdf)

------
tim333
Video of his RNC speech on youtube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHoGiSCfmU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHoGiSCfmU)
(6 mins)

------
jedberg
My favorite quote from this article (and slightly off topic): "On July 14 a
group of 140 or so tech industry figures including Slack’s Stewart
Butterfield, EBay founder Pierre Omidyar, Twitter co-founder Evan Williams,
_and, for some reason, the Reverend Jesse Jackson_ , released an open letter
decrying Trump’s candidacy."

Does anyone know why Jesse Jackson was included in that open letter?

~~~
gallonofmilk
To hide the fact that they're nothing more than a bunch of privileged straight
white males?

~~~
techer
Pierre is Persian

~~~
davidgay
I can't quite resist:
[https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=aryan](https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=aryan)

(this is of course irrelevant to 21st century usage)

------
meira
Unlikely? Lol.

------
fundameen
There is no evidence that Thiel is a genius.

There's a large amount of evidence that he is not. And yet people still think
that because one of his hundreds of investments made a lot of money that he
must be a genius.

He's just not who people want him to be. He's not another Musk.

~~~
GuiA
Most Silicon Valley magnates are not geniuses. They're average to above-
average smart, with other traits (grit, luck, the right connections, etc) that
put them in their situation.

Once you have a few dozen million dollars, it's not so hard to maintain and
grow that (unless you go on idiotic spending sprees) because you start getting
access to the kind of investments that have much higher expected returns than
the kind of investments a blue collar worker has access to.

But nerd culture values intelligence so much that we tell ourselves that of
course Zuckerberg, Thiel, and others must be geniuses because a) how would
they have gotten to where they are otherwise? and b) nerds like to think of
themselves as geniuses as well, and therefore just one successful startup away
from watching Game of Thrones with Zuck on a Sunday night.

The problem with this is that we then don't recognize when those industry
leaders are acting as ignorant/stupid as any other average educated person,
and instead come up with convoluted explanation about how they're contrarians
and they always play the most offensive move in chess and surely that must
correlate to their political choices.

~~~
lisper
> Once you have a few dozen million dollars, it's not so hard to maintain and
> grow that (unless you go on idiotic spending sprees) because you start
> getting access to the kind of investments that have much higher expected
> returns than the kind of investments a blue collar worker has access to.

This. This is really important to understand because it's the fundamental
cause of the divide between the super-rich and everyone else. Not only do you
get access, but you also can start to buy influence with the government to
tilt the playing field in your favor. These two things cause a positive
feedback effect that lets people above a certain threshold of wealth continue
to grow that wealth at the expense of everyone else.

The real problem is that everyone seems to want to believe that they too can
reach this level of wealth by "working hard and playing by the rules". As a
corollary, they believe that if you're not rich it must be because you didn't
work hard enough or didn't play by the rules. Of course, this is false, but
there's no way to fix the underlying problem as long as a majority accepts
this false narrative.

~~~
no_flags
> access to the kind of investments that have much higher expected returns
> than the kind of investments a blue collar worker has access to.

What kind of investments are you and the original comment referring to?

~~~
lisper
It's actually less about the kind of investment and more about the terms you
can negotiate. If you can buy in for half of what anyone else can buy in at
then your return will be twice what everyone else's return will be, and you
losses will be half of what everyone else's will be, regardless of anything
else that happens.

