Written in the wake of 9/11 and around the founding of his company Palantir ( focused on data surveillance), the essay reflects Peter Thiel’s preoccupation with existential threats to Western civilization. "The Straussian Moment," written in 2004 and published in 2007 as part of the collection *Politics and Apocalypse*, is a philosophical reflection on the foundations of modern politics. Thiel argues that 9/11 exposed critical weaknesses in the Enlightenment-based liberal framework that underpins Western society, particularly its assumptions about human nature, rationality, and violence. Drawing on a range of thinkers—most notably Leo Strauss (as the title suggests) René Girard, and Carl Schmitt. Thiel critiques the modern West’s inability to confront fundamental questions about human conflict and political order. Leo Strauss, is a political philosopher known for his esoteric approach to reading texts and his emphasis on the tension between philosophy and politics. Thiel uses the term "Straussian moment" to suggest a fleeting opportunity or crisis point where these deeper truths about human society, often obscured by liberal optimism, become visible. For Thiel, 9/11 was such a moment, shattering the illusion that economic rationality and secular progress could indefinitely suppress violence and religious fervor. Thiel contends that the Enlightenment, exemplified by thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith, sidestepped hard questions about human nature and violence. Locke’s liberalism, for instance, avoided defining the human soul, granting individuals freedom to pursue their own ends, while Smith’s economics assumed rational actors driven by self-interest. The 9/11 attacks, executed by individuals willing to die for a cause, defied these assumptions, revealing the limits of a system that ignores irrational or transcendent motivations. Thiel engages with René Girard’s theory of mimetic rivalry, which posits that human conflict arises from imitation and envy, often resolved through scapegoating. He argues that the Enlightenment’s "social contract" narrative, where rational people agree to coexist peacefully, is a myth that whitewashes the violent origins of society. Girard’s ideas suggest that modernity’s rejection of scapegoating, coupled with its denial of violence’s centrality, risks unleashing uncontrolled chaos. While Strauss advocated for an elite concealment of harsh truths to maintain political stability (esotericism), Girard sees the revelation of these truths, particularly the falseness of scapegoating, as inevitable, with potentially apocalyptic consequences. Thiel, leans toward Girard, suggesting that the "Straussian moment" is temporary because "one day all will be revealed." This contrasts with Strauss’s view of permanent philosophical tension. Thiel sees 9/11 as a wake-up call for the West to rethink its political foundations. I guess he decided we all needed a surveillance state instead hence why he created Palentir! He concludes with a call to Christian leaders to navigate this crisis wisely, balancing peace and violence while recognizing the impermanence of the modern age. He suggests fostering transformative progress, through technology, as a Christian duty to shape a better future. I’m not sure how Technochracy and Christianity are synonymous but he seems to think they are.