Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,
And what you can do about it (besides complaining).
Palantir dropped a manifesto last weekend. 22 bullet points distilled from Alex Karp’s book The Technological Republic, posted to X with the casual framing of “because we get asked a lot.” I haven’t seen a reaction so widespread, unanimously opposed and viscerally aghast since James Damore’s infamous “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”.
The usual suspects lost their minds. Engadget called it “the ramblings of a comic book villain.”
TechCrunch was scandalized by the bits about “regressive” cultures and “vacant and hollow pluralism.”
Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins noted, (via Bluesky, of course), that these aren’t just philosophical musings floating in the ether: they’re the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it’s advocating.
He’s not wrong, Palantir sells to ICE, DoD, NYPD, and the intelligence community. It may be a manifesto, but it’s also product literature.
Even Alexander Dugin, the Russian “Fourth Political Theory” philosopher, not exactly known for having a libertarian bent, seemed triggered by it, calling it “the plan of the Western techno-fascism” on X, “Pure Satanism” on his Substack.
Palantir manifesto is the plan of the Western techno-fascism. The superiority of the white race based on the technology. No antisemitism, no sacredness, no socialism of old historic fascism. This time pure capitalist, Jews friendly, profane, materialist. Anglo. Posthumanist.
— Alexander Dugin (@AGDugin) April 19, 2026
Former Greek FM Yanis Varoufakis called it “evil” and put out his own point-for-point on it – he calls it a refutation, it’s actually more of a rant.
So everyone across the political spectrum is outraged. Fine.
The thing is, none of this should surprise anyone. Let’s now look at why the policy this “manifesto” outlines was always going to arrive, with or without Karp’s prosaic stylings.
Karp Didn’t Invent “The Technate”
The merger of corporate power and state apparatus, the “technate” that people are suddenly discovering with horror on a Sunday afternoon, is not a new idea. It’s not even a recent one.
Back in 2013, Eric Schmidt (then Google’s executive chairman) and Jared Cohen (Google Ideas, ex-State Department advisor to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton) published The New Digital Age. The book was blurbed by Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, and General Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA. That’s an elite-class blurb list for a book that explicitly argued for the intersection of Silicon Valley and state power, the fusion of corporate infrastructure with national security logic, and the reshaping of diplomacy through private platforms.
In 2013 it was called “transformational.” Kissinger gushing that it was, “a searching meditation on technology and world order” (he would go on to co-author The Age of AI with Eric Schmidt that should be every bit as concerning as Karp’s Technological Republic).
Not too long after that, Google’s Sergey Brin and Klaus Schwab held a fireside in Davos where Herr Schwab pontificated that with the advent of AI, since the algos would be able to predict election outcomes with 100% certainty, they may as well pick the winners anyway and we could do away with elections altogether.
Nobody batted an eye. My timeline certainly wasn’t overflowing with rage over it and the people who were calling attention to it were using facing all kinds of headwinds.
In a conversation with Google founder Sergey Brin, founder of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, delights at the thought of a future without elections:
“Digital technologies mainly have an analytical power. Now [we’re going] into a predictive power, and your company is very much involved in… pic.twitter.com/9shJlXw3DG
— Wide Awake Media (@wideawake_media) August 13, 2023
My personal favorite clip about all-pervasive corporate surveillance that absolutely nobody cared about, was this one, also via the darlings of Davos:
This is important to understand:#CBDCs will not be “money”: in the sense we understand it. They will be social credit scores, capped by your personal carbon footprint quota👇 pic.twitter.com/e6ibVwXM65
— Mark E. Jeftovic (@jeftovic) October 4, 2024
Here we have an ex-Goldman Sachs guy running a Chinese multi-national sermonizing about mass surveillance and personal carbon footprint quotas and my timeline was not filled with angry tweets from elite A-listers calling for the dismantling of Ali Baba.
Here in 2026 it’s the exact same structural narrative, now with Karp’s sharper edges and fewer Davos euphemisms, only this one is being called a fascist manifesto instead of drooled over by media elites.
The only major difference I can see is where Davos/WEF inspired technocracy was globalist, Palantir, Karp, Thiel et al are nationalist. Perhaps, a North American nationalist.
This map is from 1940
(This fits with what I wrote in my last edition of The Bitcoin Capitalist, about the factional rivalry between the intellectual descendants of Samuel Huntington (“The Clash of Civilizations”) vs his former pupil, Francis Fukuyama (“The End of History”) I posted an excerpt here.)
Fukuyama thought the entire world would become one big Neo-Liberal circle-jerk.
Huntington said future conflict wouldn’t be between countries, but between cultures. And some cultures were less compatible with how we live here in the West, than others (Palantir’s point #21).
Overall, the project didn’t change. The faction driving it did.
Driving what? The inexorable drive toward post-Democratic technocracy.
Here’s what nobody wants to hear.
If you’re reading Karp’s 22 points and feeling a cold prickle of recognition, if you’re realizing that what Palantir is describing is the operational blueprint for the next 40 years, there’s something you have to sit with first:
You put your hand up for this.
In case you wondering what makes a company like Palantir even possible…. (find out why, here 👇) https://t.co/1mOEQ9JkLR pic.twitter.com/aLIjg1Sqw5
— Mark E. Jeftovic (@jeftovic) April 20, 2026
Perhaps not you personally. But collectively, “we”, the Western mass public already went through a dress rehearsal. And we all passed (or failed) with flying colors.
During the pandemic and in the years immediately after, the political and managerial class was wrong about effectively everything.
The origin of the virus.
The failure of lockdowns and vaccines, along with the erosion of personal freedoms, should have led to a mass uprising against the establishment. Instead, people obediently followed contradictory directives and enforced them on others. This compliance has paved the way for a technocratic society where corporations and governments merge to control every aspect of our lives. The manifesto outlining this future is already in motion, and the only response is to adapt and invest in the system. True self-sovereignty can only be achieved by recognizing and navigating the new reality. Those who are now shocked by the manifesto are the same ones who allowed this system to take root through their compliance.
Several of us even documented it. What transpired with many of those individuals was they were deplatformed, canceled, and ostracized by the same group who are now protesting against Palantir. I am no longer focused on alerting the general public about the direction things are heading. At this point, we are simply investing in the market. Stay tuned for the sequel to this piece, “The Pareto Paradox In The Age of Mass Compliance,” by joining the mailing list. Follow me on X for updates or explore The Post Singularity Stack with a premium trial.
given sentence in passive voice.
“The teacher assigned the homework to the students.”
The homework was assigned to the students by the teacher.