What are the key points of Palantir’s post? And why is it causing so much controversy?
Palantir summarized on its social profiles, in twenty-two points, the salient and defining elements of the volume ‘The Technological Republic’, in a long post that became, especially on X, a genuine casus belli of fierce controversies and conceptual speculations.
If we want to thematically group the points, the opening is entrusted to a truth as uncomfortable as it is objective: it is greatly wrong to forget the military roots of technological innovation, the Internet, and Silicon Valley itself.
After all, it is enough to retrace any history of Silicon Valley to find the role and weight of the Department of Defense and its funding in the development of American Tech. Enough with the illusion of a purely consumerist Tech, the tyranny of apps, as Karp calls it.
Then there is a frontal attack on soft power whose outcomes, according to Thiel and Karp’s company, have been unsuccessful, an aspect that also explains the closure of USAID and similar structures during the second Trump administration.
But what are the most controversial aspects?
The most controversial points that have aroused the greatest interest are: the one on mandatory military service: clearly this is an aspect with which we have been familiarizing for some time even in Europe, just think of the photo of the President of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola with her son in uniform.
Our public debate is so polluted that it has obviously led to a ‘pacifist’ reaction, actually masochistic or heterodirected by state actors hostile to the West, against Metsola herself. One of the points addresses precisely the theme of anti-Western self-hatred and I would say it is hard to fault that kind of observation.
Anyway, in Palantir’s case, what outrages is that the proposal comes from a private company…
The defense sector is so peculiar, so connected to the public sphere, that it seems natural to me, also in light of Palantir’s position, that certain suggestions are launched; also because Palantir develops security and intelligence software, not weapons in the strict sense. For this reason, it must also position itself at the heart of public debate.
It is therefore a more organic vision of the role of the State, in which attacks on a certain hyper-bureaucratic way of managing public affairs and on an inert politics are also inscribed.
There are then cultural-geopolitical points, generally the most indigestible for some, since they reaffirm in the strongest way the radical differentiation between the West and the rest of the world, in terms of social, cultural, institutional development.
Is it a “political manifesto” as many have critically judged it?
The Wall Street Journal, reviewing Karp’s volume, spoke of an ambitious text like a treatise on political philosophy. The book has a political vocation, although I would not call it a manifesto. And certainly the summary in points posted on social media is not a manifesto. These are concepts very dear to a certain American tradition and which was recently reaffirmed also by Palantir’s CTO Shyam Sankar, with his volume ‘Mobilize’.
We must not forget that in America there is a consolidated tradition that sees the entrepreneur as an intimately political figure, often more efficient than the elected official or career bureaucrat. Palantir was born in the heart of that tradition, updating it in light of technological evolution. I have no doubt that Palantir would please a James Burnham or a George Gilder.
But isn’t there a certain mixing between company, business, and institutional politics?
The defense and security sectors have always been connected to the public sphere.
Palantir had, with a government contract of May 2025, the assignment to manage data from American public agencies, trying to overcome, as provided by the executive order of March 2025, the information retention that has always characterized public offices: it is doing this with the integration of its various platforms, which goes under the ambitious name of ‘Ontology’.
Then there is Maven, in the defense sector, which has become the central infrastructure of the Pentagon’s defense system.
So Palantir is undoubtedly part of the governmental circuit. It is so in an ostentatious, openly signaling, even provocative way, as are both Thiel and Karp.
But what are the truly relevant novelties compared to what founder Thiel has said so far?
The novelty is not in the twenty-two points nor in Karp’s book. They all belong to a clear tradition that anyone familiar with American political and entrepreneurial lexicon recognizes well.
The novelty lies in the powerful outcry from Putin supporters, neo-Nazis, communists, ‘critical’ intellectuals, conspiracy theorists, Dugin (that Dugin), David Icke (that David Icke), Varoufakis between one dance in Moscow and another complaining about ‘technofascism’ and surveillance capitalism.
Are all the critics wrong?
We must be very clear on this: one thing is sensible and motivated criticism, which however must start from the necessary point of knowing what Palantir really is and does, another is the activation of a background noise instrumental to wanting the West weak, helpless, and in the name of a false and fallacious ‘pacifism’ is metaphorically preparing to bare the throat to the throat-cutting.
Moreover, the fact that this command indignation is instrumental is told by the fact that every time Palantir is called into question waves of indignation and fear arise, while when the skeletons of other realities are discovered, an almost religious silence is observed.
Have you ever heard any particular controversies even remotely similar to these when Google worked in contact with the Chinese government on Project Dragonforce, a censored search engine as per the will of the Chinese Communist Party?
Probably many people have never even heard of Project Dragonforce.
Let’s return to one aspect: is it true that Palantir’s projects and actions are essentially anti-China and only pro-USA?
Referring to what I said earlier, the real issue is that Europe, in all this chaos, finds itself doing what it does best: nothing.
Crushed by the two giants USA and China, the EU can only remain on the sidelines, outraged and monitoring the situation, which has become a tragic meme.
By now we no longer even notice it, but when we reason we do not even evoke the EU.
Palantir has a clearly pro-Western position, originates from a precise historical event, September 11, and refuses to sell its products to non-Western entities.
The historic controversy between Peter Thiel and Google, accused by the former of having pro-Chinese positions, as well as labs located in China, has been reactivated by Alexander Karp.
Palantir operates in line with European regulations and NATO interests: Maven has been used by NATO itself since March 2025.
When operating on the civil side in Europe it is compliant with GDPR regulations on personal data protection and its internal civil liberties and privacy department has been greatly enhanced over time for privacy by design solutions.
Palantir does not handle or store data which remain under the control of the end user, whether private or public. It provides the infrastructure for data refinement and extraction of informational patterns that can turn into decision-making criteria.
I find it bizarre, but highly indicative, that China appears to us almost much less disturbing than Palantir, but this is a bug of a public debate poisoned by third-worldism and anti-Western hatred.
In Europe even some establishment components grumble against Palantir, yet many European governments have signed agreements with the American company. Why?
Ironically, a few days ago, before this surreal case broke out, I submitted a scientific essay entitled ‘The European Technological Republic’.
It is my analysis and response to the statements that the German Minister for Digital Transformation made, interviewed by Politico: he says that a European Palantir should be established.
I agree very much, but the point is this: why does a European Palantir not exist?
Or rather, why despite brilliant European minds working for years in Silicon Valley and also at Palantir, in Europe after years of committees, commissions, tables, green, white, turquoise papers we are still at declarations of intent?
Why does Europe still suffer a terrible hardware and software dependence on extra-European private vendors? Many public administrations continued to use a well-known Russian antivirus for a long time even after the aggression against Ukraine. Or, to cite a case very dear to me, only now are the properties, in terms of strategic independence and digital sovereignty, of open source being discovered.
French intelligence services, and France is one of the strongest voices demanding European independence against Trump, have been using Palantir for seven years and in December 2025 renewed the service contract for another three years.
Simply, and the French, Germans, English, Poles know it well, NATO knows it well too, there is no valid or even credible alternative. They know the indigestible truth: that it is necessary to defend and protect oneself, beyond all the fine words about rules, peace, equality.
The worst thing is that despite the words and indignation no one is really working for a credible alternative.
The politicians who get indignant but decide nothing are an essential part of the problem.
