Palantir's Manifesto Slams Inclusivity as 'Regressive

Palantir, a company specializing in surveillance and analytics, recently released a “brief” 22-point summary of its CEO Alexander Karp’s book, “The Technological Republic.”

Authored by Karp and Nicholas Zamiska, Palantir’s head of corporate affairs, “The Technological Republic” was published last year. The authors described it as “the beginnings of the articulation of the theory” underpinning Palantir’s operations. However, one critic notably dismissed it as “not a book at all, but a piece of corporate sales material.”

Since its publication, the company’s ideological stance has faced heightened scrutiny, particularly as prominent figures in the tech industry have debated Palantir’s collaborations with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Concurrently, the company has increasingly positioned itself as an entity dedicated to the defense of “the West.”

This increased attention culminated in congressional Democrats recently dispatching a letter to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. The letter sought detailed information on how tools developed by Palantir and “a range of surveillance companies” are being utilized within the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation strategies.

Palantir’s summary post largely sidesteps direct reference to these controversies, stating simply that the summary is provided “because we get asked a lot.” The post then asserts that “Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible” and declares, unequivocally, that “free email is not enough.”

“The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public,” the company states in its summary.

The document covers a broad spectrum of topics, at one point critiquing a culture that “almost snickers at [Elon] Musk’s interest in grand narrative,” and at another, engaging with contemporary discussions surrounding the military’s application of artificial intelligence.

Regarding AI, Palantir contends, “The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose.” The company adds a stark warning: “Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.”

In a similar vein, the company posits that “the atomic age is ending,” giving way to “a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.”

The post also takes aim at the “postwar neutering of Germany and Japan.” It asserts that the “defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price,” and suggests that “a similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism” could “threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.”

Concluding its arguments, the post criticizes “the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism.” Palantir’s perspective argues that an uncritical embrace of pluralism and inclusivity “glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.”

Following Palantir’s publication of the summary on Saturday, Eliot Higgins, CEO of the investigative journalism website Bellingcat, offered a dry observation, remarking that it was “extremely normal and fine for a company to put this in a public statement.”

Higgins further elaborated on his view, suggesting the post extends beyond a mere “defence of the West.” In his analysis, it also constitutes an attack on what he identifies as fundamental pillars of democracy that require revitalization: verification, deliberation, and accountability.

“It’s also worth being clear about who’s doing the arguing,” Higgins wrote. He underscored that “Palantir sells operational software to defence, intelligence, immigration & police agencies. These 22 points aren’t philosophy floating in space, they’re the public ideology of a company whose revenue depends on the politics it’s advocating.”