cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/54149315
Peter Thiel’s visit to the Institute of France, a learned society in the heart of Paris, was kept secret until the very last moment. There, behind closed doors, he was due to speak at a meeting of members of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, a working group intended to discuss “the future of democracy.” The group, chaired by former minister Hervé Gaymard, has previously interviewed 25 figures, all French, mainly legal scholars, political scientists and historians.
Even Xavier Darcos, chancellor of the Institute of France, who oversees all five of its academies, was only informed of Thiel’s invitation at the last minute. The invitation has caused a stir within the institution, not only because Thiel, the American billionaire who co-founded the online payment system PayPal and Palantir Technologies, a data analytics giant that works for many governments, is one of the biggest investors in the American tech sector. Rather, it is Thiel’s political ideas, which openly contest democracy, that make his presence at the academy event decidedly provocative.
According to an outline of his speech sent to the academy, of which Le Monde obtained a copy in French, Thiel intended to introduce himself as “a moderate Orthodox Christian and a humble classical liberal, with one seemingly minor deviation from classical liberal orthodoxy: I worry about the Antichrist.”
Through Thiel, however, the academy is about to encounter a far more radical worldview. The Antichrist, a figure he has given sometimes-cryptic talks on, drawing from both the Book of Daniel in the Bible and the writings of 16th-century English philosopher Francis Bacon, does not, according to him, refer to the rise of artificial intelligence or the proliferation of imperialist leaders. Thiel claims that today’s Antichrist is anyone who expresses alarm about climate change, stokes fears of nuclear war or seeks to regulate the use of screens and social media platforms, all in order to promote the emergence of a “world government” – something libertarians, who are hostile to all forms of state regulation, dread above all.
So youre just saying whatever you want huh? The whole point of prophecy is you can force it to resemble just about any figure you want if you squint. The Antichrist figure was “almost certainly” a direct reference to a figure of the time, not a prophetic vision of some future tyrant.
I’m pretty sure we know the Roman emperor the prophecies were originally meant to slander, but they also objectively apply to Trump.
In what way do they “objectively” apply to Trump?
Feuding with the king in the south? Being an unexpected candidate to seize the kingdom? Gaining power with a small force of people? Trying to change set times and laws? Being a pathologic liar? Blaspheming the name of god while speaking of great things? Suffering a head wound but surviving? Making an alliance with Israel and then turning to the coasts? Food scarcity while preserving oil and wine? Desecrating a temple? The disappearing of farm workers?
Ffs the mark on his followers foreheads? Trump is literally the single most fitting person in history outside of possibly the original ruler the prophesies were written about.
I’m going to get back to you once I reread the chapter. But “the mark” needs to be on the forehead or the hand and must be mandatory to buy or sell. That does not apply at all.
I need to reread the chapter to check what else youre referring to and what the actual non-paraphrased text says.
See edit below the hr.
Here we go.
I assume you’re using Daniel 11 - 12 and Revelation 13 as your point of reference. If you are using a different book or chapter please let me know.
Things that seem to come from Daniel
You are referreing to Daniel 11:21-24, the contemptible person. This prophecy specifies its starting area as Persia, and the “king in the south” you are using as Mexico is the same 'King in the south" that is allied with which you later use to mean Isreal. You can’t have it both ways, they’re the same kingdom.
This is again in Daniel 11:14-20.
You notably skipped a huge chunk of detail… wonder why… "Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. 16 The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. 17 He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans will not succeed or help him. Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back on him. After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more. "
Notably THIS IS A DIFFERENT PERSON THAN THE “COMTEMPTABLE PERSON” above. One man cannot be both, as the king who allies with the south (which you here choose to be isreal, and later to be mexico) is “seen no more” before these bits: “Being an unexpected candidate to seize the kingdom? Gaining power with a small force of people?”
Things that seem to come from revelation
"One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. "
My man, the word “fatal” is a pretty important one to not leave out of this sentence. While DT surely seemed to have a wound it at no point appeared to be fatal.
DT has aligned himself strongly with christianity, the exact opposite of blasphemy.
This is notably not the same beast that was wounded, it is a separate entity. It is also meant to cause miraculous signs… which DT has not done, and furthermore the mark of the beast is on the hand or the head and required for commerce. This does not fit the MAGA caps.
The things I did not place
Literally the point of a ruler, this isn’t worth mentioning.
Need a reference, could not find in the sections I read. I also am not aware of DT desecrating any temples.
When you strip key words and context you are engaging in disinformation.
@shani66@ani.social