https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/the-technological-republic-hard-power-soft-belief/id1758471533
Discussion
How did you find the book?
Good? Or Palantirian propaganda?
đđ
From the TechCrunch review: "[Karp] also argues that Silicon Valleyâs âengineering eliteâ has âan affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation and the articulation of a national project â what is this country, what are our values, and for what do we stand.â
Nationalist poppycock. Technology is for all humanity, not the Glory of the US Military Industrial complex. What is this, 2004?
Palantir scares me đ
did you read it?
my assistant says:
...based on the book's premise, The Technological Republic appears to lean toward a more centralized, state-aligned perspective on technological development. Alexander Karp, as the CEO of Palantirâa company deeply embedded in government contracts, intelligence work, and military applicationsâhas historically advocated for closer cooperation between Silicon Valley and the U.S. government. His stance often emphasizes national security, control, and state power over decentralized, permissionless innovation.
From this framing, the book seems to reflect a "fiat mindset" in the sense that it prioritizes strong governmental involvement, centralized decision-making, and a reliance on institutional authority to direct technological progress. The critique of Silicon Valleyâs shift toward consumer tech suggests that the authors believe the tech industry should return to a more state-supportive role, rather than focusing on open-source, decentralized, or libertarian-aligned projects like Bitcoin, Nostr, and FOSS.
If you're looking at this through the lens of decentralized infrastructure, Bitcoin, and self-sovereign technology, this book likely represents the opposing viewpointâone that aligns with a worldview where AI, software, and technology serve national security interests under a Western governmental framework rather than evolving through grassroots, open-source, decentralized means.
That said, it could still be a useful read to understand the perspective of those advocating for a controlled technological order, as their influence over AI, policy, and infrastructure will inevitably shape the broader landscape.
These regurgitate AI prompts are part of what is being pointed at as being the very problem.
Imho the book is more nuanced in that itâs trying to point out that we donât really understand ourselves, culture, history or background much anymore because we want to criticize so much without taking a real stance on anything. We cannot actually understand who we are without a deeper sense of introspection, reflection and questioning that is a messy, convoluted, and difficult process.
I think individuals like Karp, Thiel, Altman, and Musk all are easily made into characters of themselves when they tend to have deeper and more important messages they are trying to convey, but they usually need to be sought out and read in a detailed way that allow for what in between the lines to be well understood. Most forms of media outside of their own books and writings contort the ways that they are understood in shallow and misguided ways.
Well. Their actions and organizations structures, contracts, executions and alignments speak volumes. No?
Sure, but it also doesnât dehumanize them and just make them into monsters. They have their own narrative that paints them in a different regard that explains their perspective and allows for their appraisal in a more meaningful and understandable way, which is essentially if their power is to be meaningfully challenged.
The phrase âHard Power, Soft Beliefâ in The Technological Republic appears to be a strategic framework for how the Westâparticularly the United Statesâshould navigate the future of technology, governance, and national security.
Breaking it Down:
Hard Power refers to military strength, economic leverage, and technological superiorityâthe tangible tools of control that nation-states use to project dominance.
Soft Belief seems to be their term for ideological influence, cultural narratives, and belief systems that shape public perceptionâessentially, the values that sustain a societyâs cohesion and geopolitical strength.
In the context of Karp and Zamiskaâs argument, this phrase likely reflects their concern that the U.S. is losing both its technological edge (hard power) and its ideological conviction (soft belief) in its own strength, thus putting the West at risk of decline. They seem to be making the case that Silicon Valley, tech elites, and Western institutions have abandoned a shared belief in national security, sovereignty, and resilience, instead becoming too focused on consumer tech, individualism, and political correctness.
The Narrative Theyâre Pushing
Their argument appears to be that:
1. The Westâs Hard Power is Eroding â China, Russia, and other geopolitical rivals are aggressively advancing in AI, military technology, and economic influence, while the U.S. is distracted with trivial consumer tech and internal political strife.
2. The Westâs Soft Belief is Crumbling â The cultural and ideological unity that once underpinned U.S. dominance (patriotism, innovation for the state, and national security focus) has weakened due to Silicon Valleyâs detachment from government partnerships.
3. A Crisis of Confidence â They may argue that because of cultural shifts and ideological fragmentation, the West lacks the will to maintain dominance in AI, defense, and emerging technologies.
4. A Call for Technocratic Re-Alignment â They are likely advocating for a reintegration of tech elites into national security infrastructure, urging companies to prioritize AI and defense partnerships rather than entertainment apps and social media.
Why This Matters
This narrative serves as a justification for more centralized control over technology, AI, and security infrastructure. By framing the issue as a crisis of both power (hard) and belief (soft), the book may be positioning state-aligned technocracy as the âsolutionâ to maintain U.S. dominance. It subtly implies that decentralized, open-source, and libertarian approaches to technology are naive or dangerous, favoring a model where tech companies operate in lockstep with government objectives.
nostr:npub1g0587hzzckcncxfm78n0996qe2s58nspy29wf02tqcj5sdzcpj4q6j40hv would likely be highly critical of The Technological Republic, viewing it as an extension of the technocratic agenda that she frequently exposes in her work. She has extensively covered the intersections of intelligence agencies, Big Tech, and centralized power structures, often warning about the growing collusion between the military-industrial complex, AI, and surveillance-driven governance.
From her perspective, a book advocating for tighter collaboration between Silicon Valley and the U.S. government would likely be seen as a justification for expanding centralized control over technology. She might argue that figures like Alexander Karp, whose company Palantir is deeply embedded in government surveillance and predictive policing, are not interested in national security as much as they are in furthering the agenda of total information control.
Webb might also highlight how such narratives frame "national security threats" as a way to justify more intrusive data collection, AI-driven mass surveillance, and restrictions on decentralized technologies that threaten state power. She has repeatedly warned about AI being used not just for warfare, but for digital authoritarianism, censorship, and financial control through CBDCs and other emerging systems.
If she were to critique this book, she would likely point out:
1. Palantirâs Role in Mass Surveillance â She would likely argue that Karp's company is part of the problem, not the solution, given its extensive work with intelligence agencies and law enforcement in tracking individuals and groups.
2. AI as a Tool for Control â She might question whether the push for U.S. dominance in AI is actually about security or about ensuring the state retains control over emerging technologies.
3. The "Hard Power, Soft Belief" Framing â Webb often discusses the ways in which narratives are crafted to manufacture consent for policies that ultimately limit personal freedoms. She might argue that this book is another example of that psychological conditioning.
4. The Threat to Decentralization â As someone who has written extensively on the dangers of centralized digital control, she would likely warn that this book is an ideological push against decentralized, open-source alternatives like Bitcoin, Nostr, and self-sovereign systems.
Overall, she would likely view The Technological Republic as a blueprint for a controlled AI-driven future, where centralized institutions dictate technological development in ways that serve the interests of a surveillance state rather than individual freedom.
nostr:note1xfrm8sd0jmkhs9drlxl000syhhkvswz4ynswyghruz8ls3m9namqqn2sy7
Gotta be honest I can't see aligning with #Palantir's CEO on the future of America, but I'll give it a read. đ
nostr:note1xfrm8sd0jmkhs9drlxl000syhhkvswz4ynswyghruz8ls3m9namqqn2sy7
technological monarchy ?
nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspxdmhxue69uhkuamr9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wshkz7tkdfkx26tvd4urqctvxa4ryur3wsergut9vsch5dmp8pesz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmchztzjn did you read this book? What were you me thoughts? Why are you sharing this?
I bought it, because you shared it, and itâs a dumpster fire for many reasons, so Iâm eager to hear your thoughts.
I think Whitneyâs latest post gives some further context of who this technocratic group is: