05.07.2026, The USA.
A compulsory military service in the US is an element of technocratic dictatorship. The maximum number of young men must be put through the mill to teach them to obey.
A futuro technologico libera nos, o Domine!
The rapid development of technology, and especially artificial intelligence, forces us to take a fresh look at the future of humanity. One might even ask whether humanity has a future at all, or whether something else will replace it — something dark and hostile to man. Politicians, philosophers, and scientists speak of a coming radical restructuring of the world. In the speeches of some, one sometimes senses confusion and anxiety; some even predict the destruction awaiting humanity in the near future. Others, on the contrary, are full of optimism and believe that a technological breakthrough will lift humanity to a new level of development.
“Others” are, as a rule, technocrats — heads of IT corporations who, thanks to the technologies they have developed, have gained very powerful tools of influence over society. They are already openly speaking of their intentions to reshape the world at their own discretion, with little concern for how this is perceived by the humanity they are supposedly “benefiting.” At least, the part of it that is capable of assessing all the consequences of this imposed world order, justifiably referred to as nothing less than a “digital concentration camp.” In fairness, it should be noted that the concentration camp desired by the world elites is rather a common multiplier of several competing world-building projects promoted by various actors. Which, in principle, does not negate their anti-humanist content.
What are these projects and what do those who are so actively promoting them want?
Part one
In the spring of 2026, we witnessed a kind of virtual debate between several global players about the impact the development of new technologies will have on humanity.
On April 18, the American technology company Palantir, which suddenly became the talk of the town, published a manifesto on restructuring both US domestic policy and the global security system. Placing, naturally, itself and its technologies at the forefront.
About a month later, on May 25, Pope Leo XIV issued an encyclical on life in the conditions of the impending technological breakthrough. A few days later, Anthropic — one of the most powerful IT corporations in the world — also issued a kind of manifesto on the further development of AI and, as a result, the fate of humanity and the world.
Here it is necessary to briefly recall the conflicts between Anthropic and the Pentagon, Anthropic and Palantir, as well as between the Pentagon and the Vatican, which set a certain context within which the corresponding documents (which we will examine below) were published.
Let us begin with the fact that the new Pope Leo XIV, elected pontiff in May 2025, reacted very negatively to the war with Iran launched by the White House. Reacting much more vigorously than in the case of other conflicts — in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, etc. This means that in this case, some interests of the Vatican or some groups within it, which the current pope, former Cardinal Francis Prevost, represents, were affected.
In April, The New Republic magazine published material that allegedly in January 2026, at a meeting where Deputy Pentagon Chief for Political Affairs Elbridge Colby and the Vatican’s representative to the US, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, were present, Pentagon officials threatened the Holy See and even reminded of a historical precedent — the Avignon Papacy. The meeting was preceded by a speech by the pontiff to representatives of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, which the White House interpreted as a “hostile message” to the administration of Donald Trump.
Both the Vatican and the Pentagon, naturally, denied everything, but… a sediment remained. Moreover, a public squabble between the Holy See and the Pentagon, albeit in a mild form, did take place, clearly signaling a serious conflict between the parties.
In March 2026, after a series of mutual accusations, the Pentagon terminated its contract with Anthropic because the company refused to make certain changes to its AI models that would allow the US military to use weapons against “legitimate targets” in autonomous mode. That is, to kill those it deems necessary. It looked as if Anthropic was fighting against the US military, which, horror of horrors, is ready to cede to robots the decision to kill living people. This happened against the backdrop of American attacks on an Iranian school in Minab, where nearly 170 schoolgirls died as a result of the strike. The Americans attributed this to the fact that the decision to strike was made by an AI trained on old data and “did not know” that a school had been built near the military base.
However, according to experts, the real background of the conflict is not at all about Anthropic’s supposed humanism (which does not exist), but about the fact that the Pentagon wanted to gain full control over the AI model it was purchasing from Anthropic. The issue is not exactly what restrictions displeased the Pentagon in this particular case (this is merely a pretext to rein in the contractor), but that the manufacturing company should not have the ability to embed its own exceptions and restrictions that prevent the customer from using it as it wishes. Agree, this somewhat changes the essence of the conflict and does not give Anthropic the halo of an unyielding fighter for human rights and humanism.
But Palantir turned out to be much more pliable in moral terms and adapted its software products to the needs of the US Department of Defense and the CIA, surpassing Anthropic. Which is not surprising, since this very project was nurtured under the watchful eye of American intelligence agencies. And wisely did not show obstinacy towards its masters.
On May 26, Pope Leo XIV presented his first encyclical, which by tradition sets the vector of his pontificate. As the main theme of the encyclical, the pope chose the relationship between man and artificial intelligence. Many noted the document’s similarity to the first programmatic encyclical Rerum Novarum, published by Pope Leo XIII in May 1891, which was devoted to the industrial revolution and the place of man in the new world.
Pope Leo XIV
There is symbolism in everything. Both the fact that the new pope took the name Leo, indicating a line of succession with the pontificate of Leo XIII, and that the boom in artificial intelligence and other technical innovations even surpasses in scale the products of the industrial era, which radically changed the social structure. And the fact that Rerum Novarum, which in words proclaimed concern for workers, the greatness of Labor, and simultaneously condemned socialism, brought relief neither to workers nor to the dispossessed, and in a sense even laid the foundations for the development of solidarism, which became the spiritual father of National Socialism.
So nothing good for humanity should be expected from the new encyclical or its author. However, we will give a detailed analysis of it in the second part of our article.
Here we only note that during the presentation of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, one of the co-founders of Anthropic, Chris Olah, was standing next to the pontiff. According to American media, he has long been cooperating with the Vatican on understanding the nature of artificial intelligence. And in places, the encyclical even resembles some Anthropic texts, at least in terms of terminology. So it is not excluded that representatives of the company also had a hand in writing the encyclical.
And, as everyone understands, the issue here is not about man and his greatness, but about who will control the tool of total surveillance and security. The fact that this is precisely what is being discussed can be understood by analyzing the texts of the above-mentioned documents.
First, let us take a close look at the Palantir manifesto. It is impossible to ignore this document, not only because of its radicalism, but also because of the closeness of Palantir and its founder Peter Thiel to the current White House administration. American power is tightly coupled with the largest American technocrats, and it is hardly surprising that the principles proclaimed in the manifesto are already being implemented on the international stage and are actively reformatting the established world politics and the nature of warfare.
Palantir is a software developer in the field of intelligence and security, a key IT contractor for the Pentagon and other American security agencies. It is the software products of this very company, using AI, that select targets for American strikes on Iran, and also help the Immigration Police, which is called Trump’s guard, to spy on their own citizens.
It is noteworthy that on April 10, that is, a few days before the publication of the manifesto, Trump publicly praised Palantir’s work in the Iranian theater of operations. Not every company receives such advertising.
CEO and co-founder of Palantir Technologies Alex Karp
Palantir’s systems are also used by Ukraine in the conflict against Russia. On May 12, the company’s CEO Alex Karp visited Kiev, where he met with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and Minister of Defense Mikhail Fedorov. Following the meeting, Fedorov stated that Palantir software has long been used to select targets on Russian territory and that Karp visited Ukraine to discuss expanding cooperation with the Ukrainian troops.
Peter Thiel is one of the main ideological feeders of American technocrats, actively conducting ideological work in the US and around the world. The manifesto of his company essentially represents the main theses of technocratic ideology.
It consists of 22 points and is a thesis statement of the book “The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Beliefs, and the Future of the West,” written by Thiel’s long-time associate, Palantir CEO Alexander Karp, in co-authorship with his close associate Nicholas Zamiska, and published in early 2025.
Hard power instead of Soft power and AI Deterrence instead of nuclear deterrence
Several points of the manifesto are devoted to US national security. According to Karp, the era of soft power and moral appeals is over; it is time to use hard power. At the same time, hard power must be based on AI-powered systems.
The authors of the manifesto place so much faith in the technological revolution associated with AI that they seriously declare the end of the existing global security system based on nuclear deterrence.
Karp, in particular, writes that the decisive wars of the future will be fought with the help of AI, swarms of drones, and robots. How exactly AI weapons will be able to withstand a potential enemy’s nuclear strike, Karp does not write, but postulates that America’s opponents, primarily China, will not bind themselves with moral restrictions on the development of AI weapons and will be the first to enter a new arms race.
In this connection, the author calls on the US government and technology companies not to limit themselves with ethical issues about lethal AI weapons and to “implement a new Manhattan Project without delay.“
Perhaps someone harbored illusions that American Big Tech would develop technologies for humanity’s leap to new horizons, space exploration, or something similar. Not so! Palantir postulates that technological development should be aimed at military dominance and can be stimulated solely by the presence of an external threat.
Declaring hard power and a new arms race, the authors of the manifesto effectively proclaim an era of new armed conflicts.
And we see that the US has indeed switched to a policy of hard power. Recall that immediately after taking power in January 2025, Trump began dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID) — an organization that, over decades of work, had become a symbol of that soft power so fiercely criticized by Palantir’s leadership. Well, 2026 was marked by the beginning of direct US military aggression, first in Venezuela, then in Iran. That is, the manifesto records an already accomplished transition and expresses support for ongoing, as well as future planned, military operations.
Another point of the manifesto is devoted to the post-war disarmament of Germany and Japan. Palantir believes that this was an excessive measure that now needs to be reconsidered. Recall here that in 2025, Musk, speaking in Germany at an event of the right-wing party “Alternative for Germany,” promoted a similar position, stating that “children should not be guilty of the sins of their parents, let alone their great-grandparents.“
Karp explains in the book that Germany should contain Russia, and Japan should contain China. And for this, they need to arm themselves more actively, including with drone systems and AI-based systems.
Presumably, this implies the transfer to Germany and Japan of nuclear weapons as well. After all, if nuclear deterrence is replaced by AI deterrence, nuclear weapons will lose their sacred status and will be easier to transfer, and the nuclear non-proliferation agreements will need to be replaced with agreements on non-proliferation of AI weapons.
Moreover, Germany currently has no military restrictions in effect except for the ban on nuclear weapons. So it is unclear what else Karp and Musk could be talking about if not German nuclear weapons.
Let us also note another aspect related to the devaluation of nuclear weapons. If nuclear weapons cease to be the most terrible and deadly weapons, ceding primacy to AI, then it will be time to use them. The other side of the coin is that in conditions of digital dominance, and particularly AI, data centers will become the main targets for nuclear strikes, since their destruction will lead to the total collapse of the enemy’s entire economy. In this regard, it becomes clear why the Americans are so eager to move AI infrastructure somewhere farther away, for example, to the Moon or Earth’s orbit.
What will the merger of technocrats with power lead to?
Several points of the manifesto and a significant part of Karp’s book are devoted to a call for major American IT companies to develop software for military purposes.
The authors claim that Silicon Valley companies have directed all their engineering potential into the consumer sector, learning to earn billions on gadgets, social networks, and online commerce.
At the same time, according to the authors of the manifesto, the IT giants have forgotten that the peace and freedom that allowed them to get rich rest on US military superiority. And now it is time to repay the debt to the state, that is, to start working for the security agencies.
“If a Marine asks for a better rifle — we must create it. The same applies to software,” the manifesto states.
In the book, Karp cites examples of how the largest IT companies Microsoft, Google, and OpenAI refused to cooperate with the Pentagon due to protests from their employees, and criticizes this behavior.
Palantir directly calls on the IT sector to work for the state. “Silicon Valley has a moral duty to the country that made its existence possible. Silicon Valley’s engineering elite is obliged to participate in the defense of the nation,” the manifesto states.
But what does it mean for the largest American IT companies to work for security agencies? At minimum, it means providing access to the existing information environment, that is, to all American social networks, operating systems, computers, and other devices. Needless to say, how dependent the whole world is on American hardware and software.
It is clear that even now, the conditional CIA, upon request, can read a WhatsApp message of any user. But it is another matter when the entire flow of information from all devices and applications controlled by Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other major companies will be processed in real time using AI as part of Pentagon military operations.
And Palantir wants to manage all these data flows. After all, they are not calling on their competitors to cooperate with the Pentagon in order to be squeezed out of the market by more powerful corporations. Of course not. Palantir, as the author of “The Technological Republic,” wants to lead this movement.
It is not hard to guess that this appeal, at first approximation, aims to inflate the military budget through new military contracts, that is, to make the American military-industrial complex the main engine of economic growth. But more importantly, the transformation of the state management system will occur simultaneously, where power will pass into the hands of a public-private hybrid, essentially into the hands of a kind of power techno-intelligence syndicate with a very blurred sphere of responsibility and not subject to any democratic norms.
Palantir founder and libertarian Peter Thiel, together with other technocrats who openly hate state power, is financing the construction of cities free from state governance in California and on the coast of Honduras. What is the true purpose of his current call to merge technocracy with the state? Does he want technocrats to come to power, destroy the state apparatus, and control people through systems of total surveillance and control? Or did they nevertheless need state institutions (the army, for example) to realize their own power, so that citizens would direct their claims not at them, but at the state? In any case, we can already discern the features of a new technocratic power, unconstrained by any public norms or state regulation, which, however feeble, is still accountable to society.
Under total control will first and foremost fall the Americans themselves. For them, Palantir will become that very “Big Brother” of George Orwell. One of the points of the manifesto directly addresses this: “Silicon Valley should play a role in the fight against violent crime.“
In the book, this point is developed in detail. It implies precisely total surveillance of people, which supposedly will leave Americans no space for committing crimes. Karp calls for abandoning disputes about whether control over the population is ethical, and discussing only the issue of its effectiveness. Well, it is not for nothing that BigTech representatives are called tech-feudal lords behind their backs, for they treat citizens as serfs or slaves, to whom no moral or ethical norms apply by definition.
Let us note here that in a 2024 interview with Joe Rogan, Peter Thiel already spoke about total control over society. Then the founder of Palantir, discussing UFOs, stated that a highly developed civilization, in order to limit individual decision-making threatening its existence, would have to establish not just external control over the individual, but control over his mind. Only in this case, according to Thiel, can a civilization achieve a level of technical development of interstellar travel without destroying itself.
It is clear that these considerations apply not only to abstract aliens, but also to ordinary earthlings. And that Thiel wants to solve the problem of advanced technologies falling into the hands of degrading people not by developing the people, but by establishing control over their minds. Here again, one cannot help but recall Orwell with his concept of “thoughtcrime” and brain chipping “named after Elon Musk.”
To the control over the population, the authors of the manifesto add compulsory military service. “As a society, we should seriously consider abandoning an all-volunteer military and fight the next war only if everyone shares its risks and costs,” says one of the points.
It would seem, why do zealots of drone systems, robotization, and widespread AI implementation need universal military service? The answer is simple: military service is needed as one of the stages of tightening the screws. That is, compulsory military service is an element of technocratic dictatorship. The maximum number of young men must be put through the mill to teach them to obey.
The authors of the manifesto emphasize that the US can start the “next war” only after introducing this very conscription. With whom exactly the war is implied is not specified. Probably, the conditions are set here, without which it will be impossible to start military confrontation with China.
(To be continued.)
Source: Rossa Primavera News Agency
