“The world of cyberpunk was meant as a warning, not as an instruction manual.”
Security“The world of cyberpunk was meant as a warning, not as an instruction manual.”
Palantir published a 22-point manifesto on X. Title: “The Technological Republic”.
Not a product launch. Not a whitepaper. A political program.
In it, a private technology company formulates a leadership claim that deeply interferes with the foundations of our free democratic society: Silicon Valley should co-shape defense, define national security, influence political order.
This is not a discussion contribution. This is a claim to power.
What’s in the Post
22 points. The manifesto repeatedly demands that Silicon Valley take an active role in defense, national security, and political order.
Three examples:
- Point 5: “The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose.”
- Point 12: “The atomic age is ending … a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.”
- Point 17: “Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime.”
One can read this as realism. I read it as a claim: Whoever controls technology also wants to determine political direction.
From Innovation to Power Claim
It doesn’t bother me that companies think big. Innovation is necessary.
But as soon as infrastructure power tips into political definition power, “trust us” is no longer enough.
If private actors co-decide which security logic applies, which risks are prioritized, and which societal costs are acceptable – then it’s no longer about product development.
Then it’s about power. And power without democratic control is a risk.
More Than Patronizing
Patronizing leaves alternatives open.
What happens here goes further: Standards, platforms, supply chains, computing power, security software. Whoever dominates these levels cannot merely recommend decisions – they can impose them.
Politics lags behind technology instead of shaping it.
Cyberpunk Was a Warning
I use this comparison consciously.
Not because we’ll live in a neon dystopia tomorrow. But because the power logic is known: Public institutions lose shaping power, private systems gain it.
Cyberpunk was intended as a warning. Not as a construction manual.
What This Means for Europe
Those who are technologically dependent lose political capacity for action. Then we become a plaything of other interests – no matter how good our Sunday speeches about values sound.
It’s not a lack of ability. It’s a lack of political will:
- Building our own platforms,
- Operating critical infrastructure sovereignly,
- Combining industrial and digital value creation,
- Trading short-term comfort for long-term independence.
Whoever seeks a concrete beginning: The “Digital Independence Day” was presented at the last 39C3. Switch one service on the first Sunday of each month, one dependency less. Sounds small. It isn’t.
Why I Write This So Clearly
I explicitly include myself: We’ve become too comfortable.
We talk about sovereignty and geopolitical risks, but act as if we still have unlimited time. While we discuss, others create facts.
Comfort is no neutrality. In this context, it is a decision – for future dependency.
The question is not whether Europe can build a sovereign technological position.
The question is: How long do we still want to afford not doing it?
Links:
- Palantir post “The Technological Republic” (points 1-22): https://x.com/PalantirTech/status/2045574398573453312
- Mirror of the post text (if X is unreadable): https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/palantir-posted-a-manifesto-that-reads-like-the-ramblings-of-a-comic-book-villain-181947361.html
- Digital Independence Day: https://di.day
- Book on the topic: https://techrepublicbook.com/
Leave a Reply