W

hat do white supremacist Silicon Valley tech bros and terrorist mass shooters of mosques, synagogues, and migrant centers have in common?

They all subscribe to a death cult that dreams of a utopic world where there is racial and cultural hierarchy, and all non-white migrants are deported from Western countries and imperialism, hard power and exploitation to reign again in the global order.

The world is facing a new form of terrorism threat and fascism: it is called Accelerationism. Accelerationists disdain non-white migrants, Muslims, ethnic minorities, radicals and politicians that advocate for diversity, integrating migrants, decolonial justice, and the reparation for slavery and colonialism.

Death cults

On May 19, 2026, two teenagers attacked a San Diego Mosque, killing three people and livestreamed their shooting. A 75-page manifesto written by the shooters espoused Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-Black racism, Hispanophobia, accelerationism and misogyny was later found online. This was not an isolated incident. On March 15, 2019, a gunman walked into the Al Noor Mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, and murdered 51 Muslims while livestreaming the massacre on Facebook. He left behind a manifesto soaked in the language of accelerationism and had similarities with the San Diego shooters’ manifesto.  Accelerationism espouses the idea that Western/White civilization must be pushed to a violent breaking point so that white and “pure” ethnostates can rise from the ashes and reclaim their glorious past.

The terrorism in Christchurch and accelerationism have a long history. It echoed Anders Breivik’s 2011 massacre in Norway, where 77 people, most of them teenagers, were murdered in the name of protecting Europe from cultural Marxism and Muslim migration. It echoed the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the El Paso Walmart attack targeting Hispanic shoppers, the Buffalo supermarket massacre aimed at Black Americans.

Accelerationist terrorism is carried out in the name of ideological and cultural warfare, carried out by mostly young white men who believe that accelerating racial, cultural and religious conflict would hasten a white supremacist revolution, response and reaction.

AI and the far-right

The question the world has been too slow to ask is this: who is building the intellectual, ideological and political infrastructure that makes this violence justifiable?

Look no further than Silicon Valley.

Elon Musk, today the world’s richest man, owner of X (formerly Twitter), and now the single most powerful unelected figure in the United States, has spent recent years amplifying white nationalist accounts, and platforming “great replacement” conspiracy theories, and signal-boosting neo-Nazi rhetoric to hundreds of millions of followers across the world. His very public embrace of far-right European parties, his attacks on Muslim communities, his obsessive promotion of white demographic anxiety, are not the eccentricities of a distracted Trillionaire. When Musk performed a Nazi salute at a post-inauguration rally and the world shrugged, it confirmed what many had long suspected: white supremacy has found its most powerful champion not in the backrooms of a skinhead bar but in the boardrooms of the most valuable companies on earth.

Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and co-founder of Netscape, published his “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” in 2023, declaring that there is no problem “that cannot be solved with more technology” and that the “techno-capital machine” exists to serve humanity. What he did not say is whose humanity he had in mind. The effective accelerationist movement (e/acc) that Andreessen and his Silicon Valley peers champion is accelerationism with a smile: the same ruthless logic of letting destructive forces run unchecked, dressed up in the language of progress, technology and innovation. The merger of white nationalist politics and Silicon Valley capital is no longer a fringe concern. It is the ideology of most Far Right and white supremacist political movements.

Underneath all of it runs a single obsession: replacement. The “great replacement” theory, the paranoid anxiety that white Western populations are being deliberately displaced by non-white migrants, has migrated from the fever swamps of the internet into mainstream conservative politics across Europe, America, and Australia. Replacement paranoia is the connective tissue between the Christchurch shooter and the French Far Right, between the neo-Nazi accelerationist and the Arktos circle and the recently exposed Dialog list of Peter Thiel. This is an ideological project: a far-right internationalism that stretches from Budapest to Buenos Aires, from Washington to Warsaw, and united by the shared paranoid conviction that the non-white world and its peoples are an existential threat to Western civilization.

Techno-fascism

And now this far right international has acquired its most powerful tool yet: Artificial Intelligence.

The global AI economy is being built on a foundation that replicates, with algorithmic precision, the colonial extraction of previous centuries. The data that trains the large language models powering Silicon Valley’s fortunes is harvested from populations across the Global South, often without consent, without compensation, and without benefit. The content moderation labour that makes these platforms usable is outsourced to workers in Kenya, the Philippines, India and Pakistan, paid poverty wages to absorb the worst of humanity’s digital violence so that Western users need not see it.

Moreover, the rare earth minerals that power the hardware are extracted from the Congo, from Bolivia, from Indonesia, by workforces whose conditions would be unthinkable in any country whose citizens Musk and Andreessen consider fully human.

This is the new colonialism, not the colonialism of the gunboat and the governor-general, but of the server farm and the terms of service agreement. The Global South is being incorporated into the AI economy not as a beneficiary but as raw material: its people as cheap labour, its data as free resource, its governments as compliant hosts, and most consequentially the Silicon Valley tech bros dream of a hierarchical world where the Global South is exploited and enslaved.

The accelerationists and the tech bros, in both their violent and techno-utopian forms, agree on one thing: some lives are the fuel, not the destination.

In their hyper-technological and advanced futuristic utopian world, where Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel and other billionaires will go for vacation to Mars, there is no place for Muslims, Africans and peoples of the Global South.

Violent death cults have always worn different suits and hoodies in different eras. Today they wear a hoodie or suit and call themselves disruption innovationists, Techno-Utopianists or efficiency strategists.

The mosques of Christchurch and the sweatshops of Nairobi are not separate stories. They are the same story, told in different registers of the same accelerationist logic: that some people exist to be exploited so that others may prosper and build a civilization that reaches Mars and beyond while the Global South is robbed of its wealth, labour and minds and rendered perpetually poor and miserable.

We should not look away.

All forms and manifestations of hatred, dehumanization and exploitation ought to be challenged and resisted – even when it’s clothed in the language of technological advancement or saving a particular civilization, culture or race.

T

he week of September 13, 2025, marked a historic turning point in shaping the Anglosphere’s direction in the digital age, alongside developments centred in London. Two prominent events of the week laid bare the political and ideological foundations of this transformation: The first was the £350 billion ‘Technological Prosperity Agreement’ signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer during Trump’s second state visit.

The agreement covered investments in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and nuclear energy, as well as redefining Anglo-American data sovereignty and corporate architecture. The second was technology mogul Elon Musk’s warning that ‘violence is coming,’ delivered via video link at the far-right ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally held in London.

At first glance, these seemingly unrelated developments should actually be seen as different reflections of a new techno-political alliance architecture within the Anglosphere and perhaps a kind of digital bargaining.

U.S.-U.K. technology block: investment or allegiance?

This mega package, backed by Microsoft’s $30 billion, Nvidia’s $15 billion, and Google’s $6 billion investments, aims to accelerate the U.K.’s economic growth and innovation targets. The U.K.’s largest artificial intelligence supercomputer, to be built in Loughton, the Stargate data centre at Cobalt Park, and the planned Artificial Intelligence (AI) Growth Region in the north-east are projects that are gradually shaping the infrastructure. However, these projects are more than just technical; they are entirely political in nature.

This is because the critical components of this new digital infrastructure are left under the control of U.S. technology companies, both in terms of financing and operation. Consequently, the U.K. is being drawn into a relationship of dependency that limits its strategic decision-making ability, even through a supercomputer rising on its own soil. With strategic autonomy compromised from the outset, the question of whether these investments are designed in the name of ‘national interests’ or in the name of the Anglo-sphere’s centre is becoming increasingly pressing.

Behind the investment figures lies a quieter but equally significant development: data sovereignty. Oracle’s ‘U.K. Sovereign Cloud’ system partnering with NATO and British public institutions, Palantir securing a new £940 million contract from the British Ministry of Defense, and OpenAI being integrated into British public services demonstrate that digital infrastructure is linked to U.S.-based actors not only commercially but also in terms of security.

This sets the UK apart from Europe’s regulatory approach. While the European Union takes a more interventionist stance with digital taxes, content regulations and competition rules, the Starmer administration, aligning itself with Trump and American tech giants, embraces a ‘less interventionist’ approach to regulation. Some experts view this preference as a natural consequence of the U.K.’s need for alternative economic directions after Brexit. However, it is also clear that this direction could lead to areas of political dependence in the future.

Elon Musk: Between techno-populism and imperial spokesperson

In the shadow of this very agreement, Elon Musk’s participation via video link in the far-right rally ‘Unite the Kingdom’ organized by right-wing populist activist Tommy Robinson in the U.K., and his warning that ‘violence is coming,’ made the silent backdrop of the agreement all too visible. Musk did not merely engage in ideological rhetoric here. He has positioned himself as a techno-political, even techno-populist actor. He is no longer just the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX; he is also involved in public discourse through the X platform, in defense and communications through Starlink, and in the AI sector through AI.

It appears that Elon Musk’s techno-political transformation has paved the way for a cultural and ethical debate that goes beyond economic or strategic considerations. The Royal Society, the U.K.’s most prestigious scientific institution, has reconsidered Musk’s membership following his remarks at the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally, where he said, ‘Violence is coming, you will either fight or die,’ in the context of anti-immigration sentiment. The Society’s president, Sir Adrian Smith, emphasized that scientific values are based on ‘tolerance, respect and freedom of expression,’ stressing that resorting to ‘the language of violence’ threatens these values.

We can clearly see that Musk has become an ideological and rhetorical actor in addition to his identity as a technology entrepreneur. The timing and content of the rally are also noteworthy, coming just days before the Starmer-Trump meeting. Musk’s words, with their tone of direct intervention in the political balance and immigration debates in the U.K., now place him in the position of a ‘techno-populist hegemon’ oscillating between international diplomacy and domestic politics. Even scientific institutions are being forced to redefine their own ethical boundaries in the face of the insecurity created by this discourse.

At the aforementioned rally, Musk also stated that the U.K. Parliament should be dissolved and the government replaced. The language Musk used against the Starmer government and his timing reveal that tech giants can be decisive not only in the business world but also in social and political arenas. This raises the question of whether the actions of techno-populist figures like Musk will become a sword of Damocles as the details of the Anglosphere techno-political alliance are determined.

Trump’s new technology strategy

Donald Trump’s technology policy in his second term, contrary to classic protectionism, is moving forward with a more aggressive, anti-regulation and investment-incentive approach in the areas of data and AI. With new directives issued to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, there is a push to remove issues such as diversity, climate change, and disinformation from the AI risk framework. This creates a framework that frames AI policies solely in terms of economic growth, viewing social responsibility and democratic oversight as secondary.

This vision is both accelerating AI investments in the U.K. and leading to the restructuring of nuclear infrastructure to meet the energy needs of data centres. Starmer’s plan for 12 new nuclear reactors is becoming not only an energy issue but also a matter of digital sovereignty.

Trump’s approach to AI is transforming classic ‘protectionist trade’ policies into a ‘libertarian freedom’ in the technology sector. Just like the AI action plan in the U.S. that eliminates tax, environmental and diversity regulations, a company-focused order is being established under the guise of a free market.

In this atmosphere, while AI investments appear to be driving significant economic growth, other industries (energy, manufacturing, green technology) are experiencing decline. Numerous corporate reports also highlight this horizontal shift.

The Trump administration is reacting against the U.K.’s Digital Services Tax and Online Safety Bill. Trump interprets such regulations as hostility towards American tech giants and threatens retaliatory trade tariffs. Although these issues are not formally part of the agreement, it is clear that pressure on the U.K. is being felt in the negotiations.

Backing down on issues such as digital taxation and content regulation, which concern national sovereignty, has the potential to narrow the U.K.’s room for manoeuvre both in domestic politics and in terms of global norm-setting.

All these developments give new meaning to the question posed in an earlier article regarding the famous intelligence alliance debates: ‘Is the Five Eyes becoming a five-eyed monster?’ This technological architecture points to a bluff and dominance contest between Washington and London over who will define digital strategy, rather than multilateralism within the Anglosphere.

E

lon Musk, the world’s wealthiest person until recently, has become one of the most controversial figures in the U.S. media especially after he acquired Twitter in October 2022. With the $44 billion buyout of the mega social media company, Musk has opened a new political front in an already divided country. His very first decisions, including reinstating former U.S. President Trump’s Twitter account, have made conservatives very happy while liberals have unleashed their anger against him.

As the tension is getting higher, Musk has begun to uncover some buried files related to Hunter Biden, U.S. President Joe Biden’s son, and his alleged business relations with China. Musk’s decision to float the relations between the ex-Twitter management and the Biden administration by releasing Hunter Biden’s story has shaken the social media platform. Under the Twitter Files tag, Twitter released ten different files to the public so far, and the fight between liberals and conservatives has just got more intense.

Musk’s Twitter takeover

Elon Musk completed his $44 billion buyout of Twitter on October 28, and immediately started to reshape the company. He fired some high-level managers and executives on the very first day, and told the human resources department to prepare for a widespread layoff. After paying $44 billion, Musk aimed to take the company to a profitable financial level by reshaping it.

As the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, many people expected Musk to do a great job at Twitter too, even if his $44 billion buyout was thought to be risky. In trying to make Twitter thoroughly profitable, Musk has a challenging financial mission ahead of him – “Mission Impossible” for some market analysts.

From the beginning, Musk aimed to change Twitter’s policies from a far-left approach to a more balanced one. Musk’s “recalibration” approach is a kind of balance between the liberal and conservative wings, Democrats and Republicans, LGBTQ communities and anti-gay groups, abortion rights activists and pro-life advocates, etc. Mainstream American media has labeled him a pro-conservative antihero, yet Musk has described himself as a champion of free speech even if it needs a positive discrimination in favor of some groups.

Musk’s Twitter reinstated Trump’s banned account and did the same for hundreds of leading conservative figures whose accounts were suspended after the January 6 United States Capitol attack.  It’s still a matter of debate whether Musk is an antihero for liberal values or a champion for free speech.

Twitter Files bombshell

Elon Musk made a promise before he acquired the company: he would release buried internal Twitter files to the public in line with his transparency policy. Musk fulfilled his promise and released ten Twitter files, including internal messages, emails, and screenshots of journalists such as Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and Michael Shellenberger.

The first part, “Twitter Files-1” was released on December 2, and the last part, “Twitter Files-8.” was released on December 20, 2022. Starting with “Twitter Files-1,” which was about how Twitter handled Hunter Biden’s laptop controversy in October 2020, every file has shaken social media platforms and the media.

The first file was about how Twitter internally suppressed the Hunter Biden story through the platform in coordination with the FBI. As the U.S. presidential elections were approaching, the Hunter Biden story had the capacity to hurt Joe Biden’s election campaign. At the time, Twitter, alongside the whole mainstream media, chose to suppress the allegations by advocating that the material source was a hacked laptop so it shouldn’t be used.

Meanwhile, half the country believed that they had the right to be informed about the Hunter Biden allegations. Musk stated that he believes the same thing and released the details of how Twitter suppressed the story. After the first reveal, American media immediately blamed Musk with stoking the fire in an already divided America. Musk responded to liberal media by saying that it would be hypocritical on his part not to reveal the files exposing the corruption of the then Twitter management.

The second and the third files were about how Trump and certain conservative figures were shadow banned from Twitter starting in 2018. The following file concerned Twitter’s decisions in the days surrounding the January 6 Capitol attack, including Trump’s indefinite ban from the platform. The files have clearly shown that the company managers were leaning towards far-left political tendencies. The uncovering of such internal deliberations in Twitter, offered conservatives the proof that the company was shadow banning Trump and his supporters, and acting against conservatives.

The next two files were about the influence of the FBI over the company especially regarding sensitive political and/or national security issues. According to the files, the FBI helped shape the company narratives related to both the Hunter Biden story and the U.S. military campaign in Syria. In October 2020, the FBI reportedly guided Twitter on how to suppress the Hunter Biden story.

More interestingly, but not surprisingly, the FBI files have also revealed that Twitter has easily (even voluntarily) agreed with the FBI to allow some U.S.-backed fake accounts to promote American foreign policy and military interests. The FBI-Twitter “brotherhood” promoted widespread publications in the media and drew a backlash from different groups. According to the released files, the FBI set up a team of 80 agents to monitor suspicious accounts while Twitter made sure to help them as much as possible. If Musk hadn’t decided to make these files public, we wouldn’t know about the close FBI-Twitter cooperation.