The Restrainer
- What he actually said
- The machinery: katechon, Schmitt, Girard
- The turn of 2026: regulators as accomplices
- How the headlines got it backwards
- The critics
- The strongest version of his case
- Why now, and why in a Masonic hall
- The tell at the end
- Sources
Tickets cost a hundred dollars, as Politico reported after obtaining recordings of the evenings. The venue was the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, a Masonic hall in downtown Nashville, and by the account of one attendee there were more than three hundred people inside, men outnumbering women eight to one, a row of cowboy hats in the central block. Phones were collected at the door. Four lectures, announced as a series on the Antichrist, two of them delivered on 28 September and 5 October, two more scheduled for the 12th and the 19th.
The speaker was Peter Thiel: co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, first outside investor in Facebook, the man who put $1.25 million behind Donald Trump in 2016 and has since become the patron of a generation of Republican tech politics. Forbes puts his fortune at $35.7 billion. He describes himself, in the phrase he has settled on, as a “small-o orthodox Christian”.
None of that is what made the lectures news. What made them news was a sentence about artificial intelligence.
Two years of lectures, no recordings, no press. What circulated instead were attendees’ notes, then leaked transcripts, then headlines.
What he actually said
According to recordings obtained by Politico’s technology newsletter and compared against transcripts of the earlier San Francisco series, Thiel’s argument runs in one direction: the Antichrist is not a technology. The Antichrist is whoever uses the fear of catastrophe to take control of technology.
“The Antichrist comes to power by talking constantly about Armageddon, about rumours of wars, and scaring you into giving him control over science and technology.”
, Thiel, San Francisco lecture, autumn 2025
The biblical scaffolding is specific. He reads Matthew 24:6, “you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, see that ye be not troubled”, as a warning against exactly the reflex that modern politics rewards: to be very troubled, and to hand over authority in exchange for calm. The slogan he assigns to the figure is from 1 Thessalonians 5:3: “peace and safety”. Not tyranny by cruelty. Tyranny by relief.
The mechanism he describes is not surveillance and it is not censorship. It is stagnation. A world frightened enough of its own machines will accept a government of precaution, and a government of precaution will stop the machines. In his telling, the West is already there: a “listless” and “zombie” age, hostile to innovation, low in fertility, busy with yoga, scrolling an “endless Groundhog Day of the worldwide web”.
Thiel’s chain of reasoning, as reconstructed from the lecture recordings and his July 2026 essay. The step that carries the whole argument is the second one, the assumption that fear is deliberately cultivated rather than sincerely felt.
The machinery: katechon, Schmitt, Girard
To understand why a venture capitalist is lecturing on eschatology, you need three names, only one of which he volunteers.
Paul
In 2 Thessalonians, Paul describes a force that “restrains” the lawless one until his time comes. The Greek word is katechon, the restrainer. For centuries it was read as the Roman Empire, then as the imperial office, then, in the twentieth century, as the state itself, the thing that holds chaos at bay by holding power.
Thiel has made the katechon his central political category. In Nashville he named historical candidates: Charlemagne, Metternich. And he named a present one. “America is, at this point, the natural candidate for katechon and antichrist,” he said in San Francisco, “ground zero of the one-world state, ground zero of the resistance to the one-world state.” San Francisco specifically, he suggested, because its distance from Washington makes a fusion of state and tech power harder.
Carl Schmitt
The katechon entered modern political theory through Carl Schmitt, the German jurist who joined the Nazi party in 1933 and whose concept of the sovereign, he who decides on the exception, became a vocabulary for people who distrust liberal procedure. Thiel does not advertise him. According to Wired’s reconstruction, the transmission line ran through Wolfgang Palaver, an Innsbruck theologian who published on Schmitt in the 1990s and who, in 2023, stood up at a conference in Paris and corrected Thiel to his face about what René Girard had actually taught.
René Girard
Girard, who died in 2015, is the thinker Thiel calls his master: desire is mimetic, we want what others want, rivalry spreads until a community resolves it by expelling a scapegoat. Thiel applies the machinery to our moment. The West, he argues, is looking for a scapegoat for its fear, and has found one in technology and the people who build it.
It is an elegant move, because it makes criticism of his industry structurally identical to a lynching.
The lecture tour, 2023–2026. Same architecture each time: four sessions, no recording, invitation or ticket only.
The turn of 2026: regulators as accomplices
Until this year the lectures were theology with a political edge. In Nashville they became a campaign.
Thiel attacked Barack Obama, who had urged Democrats to develop a real AI policy, and Pope Leo XIV, whose first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, published in May 2026, is devoted to the human person in the age of artificial intelligence.
“Many people know that AI is politically unpopular and want to leverage that to boost their own popularity. Both Obama and the pope fall into this category. Obama knows the Democrats have no ideas, but they can at least oppose AI.”
, Thiel, Nashville, 28 September 2026 (translated from the recording as reported)
On the pope he went further, saying Leo “needed something politically popular to distract from the church’s child sex abuse scandals, and he found it in AI”. He also said the effective altruism movement “has brainwashed a significant portion of the people working on AI”, a remarkable charge in a year when Dario Amodei, Sam Altman and Elon Musk had all publicly backed slowing the pace of frontier models.
How the headlines got it backwards
Search for Thiel and the Antichrist and you will find a cluster of articles implying he believes artificial intelligence is the Antichrist. One technology site ran a headline that put the Antichrist on the side of the regulators and left the impression that Thiel had called the machine itself demonic. That framing inverts his claim. For Thiel, AI is the occasion; the Antichrist is the regulator.
The confusion is not accidental, and it is not only the media’s fault. Thiel’s rhetoric is built to blur. In Paris in 2023 he offered the philosopher Nick Bostrom, the AI doomer who once proposed an emergency system of global governance, as a candidate for the role. In the 2025 talks, per the Guardian’s reconstruction, the possible Antichrists included the United States and Greta Thunberg. When the list is that wide, almost any reader can find their own villain inside it, and almost any headline can be defended as roughly true.
What he never says, in the leaked transcripts, in the Nashville recordings, or in his own written version, is that the machine itself is the adversary. The machine is what we are afraid of. The adversary is whoever profits from the fear.
The argument arrives at a convenient place: the people who want to regulate the industry that made him rich are cast as servants of the end times.
The critics
The pushback has come mostly from theologians, and it has been sharp.
Paolo Benanti, Franciscan friar, until 2025 an AI adviser at the Vatican. After the Rome lectures he published an essay titled “The American Heresy: Should We Burn Peter Thiel?” and described Thiel’s project as an attempt at “theological regime change”.
David Gibson, The Verge, Having listened to all four lectures: beneath the esoteric references lies “a fairly standard-issue American evangelical worldview, and a rather fundamentalist one at that”. Thiel, he writes, is “less a coherent religious thinker than a repackager of recognizable ideas”.
Wired, Traces the katechon vocabulary not to Girard but to Schmitt by way of Palaver, and notes that in Paris Palaver publicly corrected Thiel’s account of Girard, who when asked what to do answered: go to church.
e-flux Journal, Reads the Antichrist as “a rhetorical device”, a decoy list of enemies (social democracy, environmentalism, public health) behind which sits the actual geopolitical rival: China.
Fortune, Plainest summary: his Antichrist “looks a lot like the people who want to regulate Thiel’s own businesses”.
Two institutional reactions are worth recording. In Rome, a Vatican adviser compared the lectures to a theological coup. In Vienna, Thiel’s appearance at the Wiener Festwochen was cancelled in June 2026 after protests, he had been booked to speak on the Antichrist, Armageddon and realpolitik.
The strongest version of his case
It would be lazy to leave it there, because there is a real argument buried under the exegesis, and it deserves to be stated without the theology.
First, fear is a political resource, and it is used. Regulators who never met a model have strong opinions about them; legislators discover catastrophic risk precisely when an industry becomes valuable; and the precautionary principle, applied consistently, is a machine for saying no. Second, stagnation is a real cost, not a neutral default. A society that stops building things does not stay still, it distributes decline. Third, the moral vocabulary of “safety” can be captured. Whoever defines what counts as safe also defines who is allowed to build.
Strip out the Antichrist and you have a familiar and defensible libertarian complaint: that the precautionary state is a cartel of incumbents and moralisers, and that its currency is fear.
My view
He is half right, and the half he is wrong about is the half he cares most about.
The half that holds: the politics of AI is drenched in apocalyptic language, and some of that language is strategic. Thiel is correct that a sentence like “this could end civilisation” is, in practice, a request for authority. He is also correct that the people who write the rules tend to be the people who already have a position to defend.
The half that fails is the distinction his entire argument needs and never makes: between naming a risk and selling a risk. He treats every warning as an instrument, which means he has no way to say that some warnings are true. And some are. A world with frontier models and no institutions is not obviously safer than one with slow, clumsy institutions.
The second failure is method. His theology runs backwards. He begins with a political position, regulate less, and then finds the scripture that licences it, the way a consultant finds the slide that justifies the decision already taken. That is not exegesis. It is procurement.
And the third failure is the casting. In his story the billionaire is the accused and his critics are the servants of the end times. It is a comfortable arrangement. A man whose company sells data and targeting software to governments, whose firm’s April manifesto was called “techno-fascist” by critics, again per DW, and who told DW that “technology is the alternative to politics”, that man is not well placed to explain which side of the apocalypse the regulators are on.
Why now, and why in a Masonic hall
There is a material explanation that does not require any theology at all.
Silicon Valley is in an anxious year. The AI build-out is enormous, the returns are unproven, and the political mood has turned: European governments are re-examining their Palantir contracts on security grounds, as DW reported in September, and the loudest voices in AI itself, Amodei, Altman and Musk, spent September calling for the frontier to be paced, a shift Fortune covered in detail. When the industry’s own leaders accept regulation, the ideological space for “regulation is evil” narrows sharply. What remains is a rhetorical position that cannot be argued on the merits, because the merits have moved.
That is where eschatology becomes useful. A cost-benefit objection can be answered with a cost-benefit study. An objection framed as “you are preparing the throne of the Antichrist” cannot.
Thiel himself has supplied the tell. In San Francisco, an attendee reported, he described the closed-door format as a marketing device, telling the room it is “a pretty good marketing shtick if you want everybody to hear about something, not to let anybody in the room”, a line an attendee passed to The Verge.
Read that next to his complaint that the pope needed a popular cause, and the symmetry is uncomfortable.
His only practical advice, repeated at every stop from the first Paris talk in 2023 to Nashville, is the one Girard gave: go to church. Everything around it is commentary.
The tell at the end
Asked in Paris, after an hour on the end of the world, what anyone should actually do, Thiel gave the answer he has given ever since: go to church. In Nashville he published the written version of the argument, with Sam Wolfe, in First Things, a long essay on Benedict XVI, Bonaventura and the end of the world. It is, by some distance, the most serious thing he has produced on the subject, and it is not really about AI at all.
That gap is the story. A man with the resources to fund any research programme, with two decades of public argument behind him, with a company whose software is used in war, ends his account of the apocalypse with a recommendation to attend a service. It is either profound or it is a way of not answering, and the lectures do not settle which.
The question worth keeping is not whether AI is the Antichrist. It is why the most articulate defender of technological acceleration in America has decided that the vocabulary of the end times is the right instrument for a lobbying campaign, and why three hundred people paid a hundred dollars each to hear it in a room where nobody was allowed to record.
Sources
Sources
- Politico, Decoded: “Peter Thiel’s new Antichrist warnings”, 8 October 2026, recordings of the Nashville lectures of 28 September and 5 October; the ticket price, the attendance figure and the Obama and pope quotations.
- Fortune: “Peter Thiel says Obama and Pope Leo are exploiting AI fears in his latest Antichrist lectures”, 15 October 2026, used for the September pacing calls by Amodei, Altman and Musk, and for the critic who noted that Thiel’s Antichrist resembles his regulators.
- Peter Thiel and Sam Wolfe: “The Pope and the Antichrist”, First Things, July 2026.
- The Verge: “The Gospel according to Peter (Thiel)”, October 2026, analysis by David Gibson.
- Wired: “The Real Stakes, and Real Story, of Peter Thiel’s Antichrist Obsession”, on Palaver, Schmitt and the katechon.
- The Guardian: “Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist”, 10 October 2025, the San Francisco series.
- e-flux Journal #164: “The Algorithm and the Antichrist”, political-theological reading, Schmitt and the SIGINT economy.
- DW: “Peter Thiel: Power, Palantir and the antichrist”, 20 September 2026, used for the Palantir contract reviews, the April manifesto and the “technology is the alternative to politics” line.
- PBS NewsHour: “Peter Thiel brings his lectures on the Antichrist to the Vatican’s doorstep”, the Rome series, March 2026.
- Vatican News: Pope Leo XIV, encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, May 2026.
Write a comment