Hard power, hollow pluralism: A reading of Palantir’s ‘technofascist’ manifesto

What does Palantir do?

Valued today at about $350 billion, Palantir was founded in 2003 by conservative mega-donor and PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel with Joe Lonsdale, Stephen Cohen, and Alex Karp, the current CEO. The company was funded by a venture capital firm linked with the US Central Intelligence Agency, and its software was actively used in the US’s war on terror in Afghanistan.

Its two flagship offerings, Gotham, used in defence, and Foundry, used commercially, analyse complex, isolated datasets to support a range of uses – from intelligence operations and law enforcement to enterprise analytics.

Interestingly, the company is named after the orbs in JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy — the fictional palantir is a stone through which its user can see far into the future. However, they risk being corrupted by the all-powerful, evil being Sauron, who can distort reality and manipulate the viewer. Critics of the company have accused it of supporting regimes they claim are oppressive, highlighting Palantir’s work in aiding Israel’s ongoing war against Palestine.

Palantir has become a darling of the Trump administration, with the US President praising the company for its “great war fighting capabilities and equipment” in a social media post earlier this month. It closed contracts worth $900 million with the Pentagon last year; in March, the Pentagon committed to incorporating Palantir’s AI software Maven as a core US military system. Palantir’s $10 billion deal with the US Army will see it manage its core software and data needs over the next decade.

Here are the notable themes from the manifesto.

1 – The manifesto is unduly invested in the supremacy of the US.

While emphasising that the US “is far from perfect”, the manifesto claims that the US provides more opportunities than any other nation for “those who are not hereditary elites”.

It also credits American power with an “extraordinarily long peace” lasting nearly a century, without a “great power military conflict” — a statement that ignores the US’s direct post-World War II military action in every decade, in Korea, Vietnam and West Asia, including the ongoing war against Iran.

2 – The manifesto tasks Silicon Valley with the patriotic responsibility of supporting American defence.

The manifesto says that Silicon Valley owes a “moral debt” to the nation in which it operates, a point prefaced in The Technological Republic. In the book, Karp and co-author Nicholas Zamiska claim that the great tech companies of the US have “made the strategic mistake of casting themselves as essentially outside the country in which they were built.”

It also calls on tech companies to find ways to fight violent crime, claiming that US politicians have not done enough to address the issue.

The manifesto also calls on tech companies to build AI weapons regardless of potential opposition, claiming that the age of AI weapons is inevitable. “Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications,” the manifesto says. This is not merely an abstract argument – the Pentagon has frequently cited China’s advances in AI-powered weapons as a justification for contracts like Palantir’s Maven system.

It calls upon tech companies to build better software to aid American defence, just as military personnel serving abroad should be equipped with superior physical weapons. It also claims that the atomic age is ending, ending the need for nuclear deterrence.

3 – The manifesto calls for an embrace of hard power and abandonment of ‘soaring rhetoric’.

The manifesto says that tech companies, through their software, will herald in an era of hard power. It claims that soft power, or “soaring rhetoric alone” has its limits. More controversially, the manifesto calls for undoing the “postwar neutering” of Germany and Japan, Axis powers in World War II that were forced to disarm. The manifesto argues that Europe and Asia are paying the price for this move.

Both countries have recently commenced efforts to rearm themselves in the wake of global threats. Germany has committed to spending €650 billion on its military over the next five years, more than double its spending in the previous five years. Defence has been exempted from the constitutional debt brake, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz planning to borrow an additional €400 billion over five years for rearmament. This is arguably the most dramatic real-world vindication of the manifesto’s argument.

4 – The manifesto calls for mandatory enlistment in the US military.

The manifesto explicitly calls for mandatory military service, urging the US to move away from an all-volunteer force. The needle has already moved on this front with bipartisan support: the Selective Service System (SSS), the agency tasked with military enlistment, announced this month that it would move to a “streamlined” registration process that would automatically register eligible men between ages 18 and 26, effective December. This would mark the largest change to military enlistment since 1980.

On potential opposition from the government and bureaucrats, the manifesto bluntly says “public servants need not be our priests,” adding that businesses compensating their employees like public servants would struggle to survive.

5 – The manifesto also has opinions about public life and governance.

The manifesto argues that the consumer-centricity of tech companies has resulted in a “tyranny of the apps”, calling on users to rebel against this. It also argues that users should not settle for “free email”. In The Technological Republic, Karp and Zamiska argue that Silicon Valley has “turned inward” and focused on narrow consumer products instead of projects of national importance.

Continuing with its rejection of soft power, it says that the “psychologization of modern politics” sets up the public for disappointment, especially for those “who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self”.

6 – The manifesto has many, many things to say about intolerance. Especially of those in power.

The manifesto makes several statements about purported cancel culture and derision. One of the points recommends that “far more grace” be shown towards those who have subjected themselves to public life,” while another statement claims that society is “gleeful towards the demise of its enemies.”

A separate point asks to laud billionaires who “attempt to build where the market has failed to act”, identifying Elon Musk as the recipient of public ire, and suggesting jealousy as a reason for public scorn.

Two separate points are made in this vein, calling the caution exercised in public life “corrosive” and decrying ridicule of those in public office: “The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service,” it says.

The manifesto makes contradicting points about cultural intolerance. In one point, it calls for resistance against the “pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles.” A separate point is made about the merits of different cultures — some that have produced “vital advances” while “others remain dysfunctional and regressive”.

The manifesto also calls to do away with a “vacant and hollow pluralism”, claiming that the US and the West have “resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity” over the last 50 years.

Interestingly, while progress is being made on the manifesto’s hard power prescriptions, such action has thus far not been visible in these cultural points.