A few weeks ago, Palantir sparked controversy by publishing on X its doctrine—a 22-point summary of the book “The Technological Republic”. This news item raises questions about the power of the new masters of AI and their limits.
Palantir and Techno-Fascism
As its founder Peter Thiel recalls, Palantir was born in the crucible of the 9/11 attacks. “How could a private company help the State guarantee the security of citizens without infringing on their individual liberties?”—this was the niche the startup positioned itself in at its inception. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then, and the now internationally renowned company, listed on Nasdaq, has become indispensable… to the point that it still works for the DGSI (French internal intelligence agency), even though we recently learned that the contract would not be renewed and that it would be replaced by Chapvision (3).
While Thiel has stepped back somewhat, his partner and co-founder Alex Karp holds the reins and handles the company’s communication. Today, the company presents itself as a major provider of defense and intelligence software, with contracts from the U.S. government. It was in this context that in April 2026, Karp triggered controversy by publishing on the company’s X account a 22-point manifesto (1) that summarizes the core ideas of the book “The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West” (2), which he co-authored with Nicholas Zamiska. This summary on X generated no less than 35 million views and sparked a broad debate, centered around accusations of techno-fascism.
The heart of the doctrine is as follows: “Silicon Valley (and the West more broadly) has lost its way… It is obsessed with trivial consumer applications, social media, and the rhetoric of ‘soft power’ and inclusion. To survive in an era of great power competition (especially against China), the West needs ‘hard power’—in particular military and national security capabilities based on software and AI. Technology companies have a ‘moral debt’ to the United States and the West and must actively support defense, deterrence, and cultural cohesion rather than remaining neutral or consumer-focused.”
One of the key points developed in the book is that AI is taking the place of nuclear deterrence: those who master this technology best will not hesitate to use it. It is therefore essential to be the best in its applications in order not to suffer threats from other nations.
Here are some central ideas:
– Moral obligation of Silicon Valley companies to participate in the defense effort;
– Opposition to the tyranny of apps (attention-capturing devices) and the need to focus on more important civilizational goals;
– AI is the new deterrent weapon as we approach the end of the atomic age… “the question is who builds them and why”;
– Importance of supporting U.S. troops and providing them with the best possible weapons;
– Critique of cultural relativism;
– Support for exceptional builders, of the Elon Musk type;
– Reminder that American power enabled a long period of peace.
Critics of the post emphasized that Palantir, founded with early ties between the CIA and Peter Thiel, is known for data analysis platforms used in counterterrorism, military targeting, immigration law enforcement, and by allies such as Israel. This controversy fits into a broader debate on AI in warfare, the role of technology in geopolitics, and Western decline. It was the philosopher Mark Coeckelbergh who first used the term “techno-fascism” (4). Others criticized it as a “manifesto” for arming AI, killer robots, and an arms race. Yanis Varoufakis warned against adding an “AI-centered threat” to nuclear risks. Other critics attacked the supremacist tone of the manifesto. In the wake of these attacks, Palantir’s stock value fell, even though it did not lack defenders… Notably, some voices rose against the wokism that blinds Silicon Valley while China advances rapidly.
The Paradox of Tolerance in an Open Society
The play on words doesn’t work in English, but the founding duo of Palantir is the blend of “Karp” and the rabbit (a pun on “Karp” sounding like “carp,” but more relevantly evoking the Karp-Rabbit pairing in French). While Peter Thiel identifies more as right-wing and a disciple of René Girard, Alex Karp defines himself as a Democrat with training in social theory: a student of Theodor Adorno, he passed through the Frankfurt School. It therefore seems difficult to attribute fascist intentions to them.
All the more so because when reflecting on this question, it is neither Adorno nor Girard who come to mind, but Karl Popper and his political work, notably the book “The Open Society and Its Enemies” (5), written during the Second World War in defense of democracy and against totalitarianism.
To recap, the open society is based on critical rationalism: ideas, institutions, and leaders should be criticized, tested, and improved through reason and evidence. It defends values such as individual freedom, tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law. No one possesses absolute knowledge or the “final truth” about society or history. Changes within it occur through debate, elections, and reform rather than violence or dogma. It opposes closed societies, which are authoritarian. Popper notes, however, that open societies, far from being perfect, proceed by trial and error.
What particularly interests us in our reflection is that in these societies we find a fundamental concept: the paradox of tolerance. Unlimited tolerance in an open society could lead to its own destruction.
Thus, according to Popper, “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. […] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should assert that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
It should be specified that rational argument must always prevail and the use of force should always be a last resort. It must apply to intolerant groups that resort to violence. This is not a blank check for censoring unpopular opinions but a defense of the conditions that make tolerance possible.
It seems obvious upon reading these statements that the logic underlying Palantir’s doctrine aligns with Karl Popper’s philosophy and fits within the framework of the paradox of tolerance. Let us not forget that defenders of the open society must themselves remain open to criticism. Isn’t this what Karp and Thiel are doing by submitting their doctrine to popular critique (via the 22-point summary on X), by participating in numerous debates, by writing essays, and by anchoring their actions in philosophical reflection?
On the Road to Algorithmocracy?
If, as we have just seen, it seems difficult to speak of “techno-fascism” regarding Palantir’s doctrine, we can nevertheless question the emergence of a form of Algorithmocracy (3)—that is, a concentration of power in the hands of politicians, decision-makers, businessmen, and ideologues who use algorithms to better implement certain ideologies in public opinion.
Take the example of a society that wanted to implement a carbon permit to steer the degrowth of consumption. It could rely on tools like Doconomy or Lifestyle Simulator, whose goal is to measure an individual’s carbon footprint based on their lifestyle. Regardless of whether the tools in question are biased, their implementation in society would result in changing lifestyles and preventing individuals from thinking for themselves by forcing them to take certain actions legitimized by “Science” (in other words, the rules of the said algorithm). There is no doubt that if we are not careful, in the coming years new applications will flourish that will allow better control of populations… Just look at the Chinese Social Credit system. Planners of all kinds will be able to have a field day.
Is this the case with Palantir? Should we consider the use of a technology serving a country’s internal and external security on the same level as a technology whose objective would be to take control of populations and use algorithms to impose an ideology on them? It seems to us that we have refuted this hypothesis: while algorithmocracy is the antithesis of the open society, Palantir on the contrary proposes solutions to defend it.
Counterpowers and Sovereignty
That said, it would be wrong to give this type of company a blank check. The real issue raised by Palantir is much more that of technological sovereignty—a problem that every State must seize by participating in the race for mastery of Artificial Intelligence. As we saw recently with Anthropic’s Fable 5 episode, the U.S. government was able to cut off access to the solution for users.
The best way we have to defend open societies is still to develop competing companies and achieve sovereignty over these technologies on which the future of our democracies depends.
(1) https://fortune.com/2026/04/22/palantir-alex-karp-mini-manifesto-national-security-defense-tech-ai/
(2) Livre d’Alexander C. Karp et Nicholas W. Zamiska, publié en 2025.
(3) https://sifted.eu/articles/chapsvision-to-replace-palantir-in-major-contract-with-french-intelligence-agency
(4) https://coeckelbergh.medium.com/palantirs-manifesto-technofascism-in-plain-sight-c160ca377e9a
(5) Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Routledge
(6) Jean-Paul Oury, Greta a ressuscité Einstein (VA éditions, 2022)
Read also
“Evolution: There is a Tendency Toward Homo – A Paradigm Shift” Vincent Fleury (Exclusive Interview)
This post is also available in: FR