I kinda don't understand why it is sufficient to mention the projects that Thiel is part of and then this is usually already enough to cause some kind of derangement/outrage reaction in people's mind. People should really think beyond their outrage, otherwise we get really stupid decisions like e.g. Germany's nuclear exit, which was decided on the back of popular outrage, and later it turns out that there were many rational reasons against it.

In German public television, for example, it's displayed as if a mere connection to Thiel is somehow a marker of "oh wow look, we got him, he's evil." I don't even get the social clue there. Why would that be a bad thing to be connected to Thiel?

Then there are Thiel-funded conferences like Dialog or Hereticon (below is the schedule for the 2022 event), where Diana Fleishchman spoke on ‘you’re probably a eugenicist’ and Aella on ‘how to pay for sex’.

Prime example of what I mean.

What's the point of the author here? That we are supposed to be outraged by the proposition that we're all eugenicists? Or that people would pay for sex? Go watch Hereticon talks then and see what these people actually have to say, maybe?

I’ve recently written long profiles of Nick Land’s amphetamine-fuelled accelerationism and Elon Musk’s ketamine-fuelled social media addiction

Where btw does this Anti-Thiel anti-drug stance come from? Here we're discrediting Land and Musk for taking drugs. Is this a vibe shift? Because Thiel-outraged types are usually extremely liberal on drug policy, so I don't understand why we're suddenly using drug use to discredit people

The author has obv its own opinion, but I think he is laying things out to create a picture of Thiel, like what he thinks and what he does to influence the world. I don’t think the author is just saying “X is bad because Thiel is bad” but more like: “This is the story of Thiel and this is how Thiel, as a powerful man, is making sure his agenda is implemented through funding and networking”. Imo, the connections that he shows arre useful to have a clear overview of Thiel in order to have a bigger picture.

I understand what you mean with the criticism on Hereticon. I think the idea behind that project seems cool, but again it’s not something isolated, it’s part of a larger plan, a project of a powerful man with a specific agenda, I think this is what the author is trying to highlight.

Regarding Land and Musk and their drug use, the author is just saying in the introduction that these are two other figures he has previously written about, and now he’s doing a deep review of Thiel. I don’t see an issue with that.

In general I don’t think the piece is saying “Thiel = evil = outrage” (again, the author is biased, ofc, I’m not negating that, as we all are biased) but I think it’s more like: “Look at this ecosystem of ideology, capital, and influence, shouldn’t we be paying attention to how it’s shaping our future?”

OK fair, I also did get the impression that the I-want-to-outrage-the-reader factor dropped quite a lot after the initial few paragraphs.