Peter Thiel rejects compatibility of freedom and democracy

The neo-reactionary movement, also known as the Dark Enlightenment, promotes ideas that reject democracy and advocate for a society governed similarly to a corporation. This movement has gained ground particularly in the United States, where it has infiltrated areas such as Silicon Valley and the populist right, notably through connections with figures like Donald Trump. The ideological foundation of this movement is rooted in a disillusionment with traditional conservatism, particularly after the presidency of George W. Bush, which many perceived as discrediting conventional right-wing values. The rise of the Tea Party alongside this movement reflected a significant pivot in conservative thought, positioning Trump as a pivotal figure in this evolving landscape. One of the key thinkers associated with this ideology is Curtis Yarvin, who argues for a form of governance that diminishes democratic influence in favor of an authoritarian model managed by technological corporations. His ideas, influenced by Austrian economic principles, advocate for a paradigm in which those with financial stake have greater governance power. Alongside him, Peter Thiel has emerged as another major proponent of neo-reactionary ideas, arguing through his written works that he does not see a harmonious coexistence between freedom and democracy. Thiel's connections extend to the political realm, where he actively mentors figures like Senator J. D. Vance, indicating the movement's potential influence on U.S. policy and governance. The darker dimensions of neo-reactionary ideology also intersect with elements of white supremacy and anti-feminism, although its approach tends to be more elitist compared to the broader alt-right movement. The promotion of social Darwinism and the idea that certain races are better suited for domination or servitude showcase troubling attitudes that resonate within the movement. This ideological blend, combining elements of old authoritarian structures with modern technological aspirations, raises serious concerns about its implications for political and social dynamics not only in the United States but potentially in other parts of the world as well. The movement’s advocates believe that technology can create a new social order that effectively sidesteps the complications of democratic governance, positioning themselves against traditional democratic values under the guise of efficiency and elitism. In conclusion, as these ideas permeate more mainstream political thought, the legitimacy and acceptance of such beliefs pose serious challenges for democracy itself. It underscores a significant ideological conflict that captures the ongoing struggles over the nature of governance and equality in contemporary societies, where radical alternatives to established democratic norms are being debated and attempted in real political arenas.