Palantir manifesto, between technology and ideology: here are the 22 'commandments' for its 'Technological Republic'

Palantir has released a summary in 22 points of the book "The Technological Republic", written by CEO Alex Karp together with Nicholas Zamiska, head of corporate affairs at the company. The document provides a nuanced view of the role of technology - and particularly software - in national security and the development of Western societies.

An undoubtedly interesting text that helps to understand the "model of the future" - long considered "dystopian" - that Palantir intends to pursue. The company, involved in projects related to sectors such as defense, intelligence, and immigration control, including collaboration with U.S. government agencies, is seen by many observers as the "deus ex machina" behind some moves of the Trump administration in both foreign and domestic policy.

Because we get asked a lot. The Technological Republic, in brief.

1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.
2. We must rebel…

One of the central points of the document is the idea that Silicon Valley has a "moral debt" to the United States, and that the engineering elite must actively contribute to national defense. In this perspective, software becomes a key component of contemporary so-called "hard power".

According to Palantir, the traditional balance based on nuclear deterrence is giving way to a new phase, in which artificial intelligence will play a decisive role. The question is not whether AI-based weapons will be developed, but by whom and with what objectives. The company emphasizes that rival powers will not slow down technological development for ethical or political reasons.

The document also reveals a critique of the direction taken by technology culture in recent years. Palantir contests what it calls the "tyranny of apps", suggesting that innovations like the smartphone - while revolutionary - may have limited the ability to imagine new technological scenarios.

At the same time, it is highlighted how widespread digital services, like free email, are not sufficient to ensure prosperity and security. For the company, a society can only be considered solid if it is capable of ensuring economic growth and protection for its citizens.

The summary also addresses political and social themes, advocating for the need for greater collective commitment to defense, including a potential return to forms of universal national service. It also criticizes the management of internal security, calling for greater involvement of the technology sector in combating violent crime.

Other points touch on the role of the United States in global stability, defined as a phase of relative peace guaranteed by American power, and propose a revision of post-war geopolitical balances, including limits imposed on countries like Germany and Japan.

Among the most discussed elements are cultural considerations. Palantir criticizes what it calls a "empty pluralism", arguing that the idea of equivalence among all cultures would prevent a critical assessment of historical and social outcomes.

The publication of the 22 points contributes to fueling the debate on the role of tech companies in contemporary society, as well as proposing a critique of the West. Palantir's post was followed by a series of reactions from X users, with some agreeing with the vision presented and others strongly opposing it, recalling the connection between Peter Thiel (the company's founder) and Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the use of Palantir technologies in bloody wars such as Israel's in Palestine.

What we are asking ourselves is: is involvement in "public affairs" of Big Tech what we really want? Do we want capitalists to gain more power than they already have over the daily lives of governments and people? Do they have the 'moral thickness' that is needed? And finally, can the advance of corporations in influencing the political and intellectual vision of governments really be stopped in today's society?