T
he “Technological Republic” manifesto published by Palantir has sparked new debates. This is because the published manifesto can be read not merely as a corporate vision, but as an explicit declaration of the new regime of domination in the age we live in—a form of digital colonialism. This text, signed by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp, shifts artificial intelligence from being merely a technical tool and directly elevates it to a core element of geopolitical domination. The software industry’s famous rhetoric of a ‘moral debt’ owed to the United States demonstrates that technology is no longer viewed as a neutral field, but rather as a terrain for political and military mobilization—in other words, a kind of digital front.
In essence, the landscape we are witnessing here is a reproduction of classical colonialism in the digital age. Yesterday, the imperial mindset that derived its legitimacy from the claim of bringing civilization is today re-establishing itself through security justifications and notions of algorithmic superiority. Just as the rhetoric of the ‘white man’s burden’ once constructed a hierarchical world order, today’s AI-centerd technological discourse is producing a similar epistemic domination. Given that the idea that some cultures are “more inclined towards progress” whilst certain societies are “in need of guidance and management” is explicitly stated in the manifesto, it is difficult to claim that this mindset has been dismantled or left behind. Consequently, the necessity to fight no longer arises solely on the military battlefield or at diplomatic tables, but directly within the decision-making architecture of algorithms and in lines of code.
The most striking aspect of the Palantir manifesto is that the specific oligarchic interests, which for years have been concealed behind masks of universality, transparency and the common good of humanity, are now being declared without any need for concealment. Whilst the tech giants have for a long time presented themselves as structures that transcend borders, stand above ideologies, and serve the greater good of humanity, with this manifesto we see the mask has fallen. The call contained in the manifesto, whilst inviting other companies to adopt a similar stance, promises to turn artificial intelligence into a weapon, to protect the supreme interests of Western society, and to turn technology into a tool for exercising dominance over the weak.
The rhetoric of universalism is, in fact, merely a strategic mask for expanding the market and gaining infrastructural influence, and a reflection of past capitalist experiences. In reality, particular interests continue to masquerade as universal values, whilst labelling regulatory interventions by other countries as resistance to progress. Globalised trade, which in the past was driven by the bourgeoisie in opposition to mercantilist rhetoric, today seeks to constantly fend off countries’ legitimate and legal regulatory measures by invoking the balance between freedom and security, under the pretext of ‘attacks on freedom’.
This Western-centric technological paradigm takes refuge in ‘acceptable margin of error’ defences whilst claiming human lives in Gaza and Iran. Rather than distinguishing the innocent and the oppressed, it does not shy away from systematic massacres carried out by code. Children, women, those in schools, those in hospitals; in the eyes of the code, they are reduced to nothing more than acceptable numbers. This brutality, which aligns with Karp’s rhetoric of “intimidating the enemy” as stated in the manifesto, points to the mental landscape of technology.
Thiel’s transhumanist vision and his obsession with “upgrading the human race”, also featured in the manifesto, are the outward expression of yet another corrupt mindset. Behind this mindset, one can discern a constant master-servant hierarchy, a perpetual elitist approach, and a claim to authority. Indeed, by directly asserting that some societies are superior to others, he regards domination through AI as quite reasonable. However, this is not the fault of the AI itself, nor is it sufficient to blame the AI. What matters is being able to see the mindset underlying the algorithm and to understand how this tainted mindset views “us”. The issue is recognizing that technology in general, and AI in particular, is not a neutral field, but a terrain for geopolitical mobilization.
In fact, with every crisis originating from a tech company, we see a fresh batch of dirty laundry being aired, yet we still fail to grasp the true scale of the issue. Whilst the fallout from Palantir’s manifesto continues, Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, filed in 2026, has brought yet another storm to the fore. While Musk argues that the company has strayed from its mission ‘for the benefit of humanity’ and evolved into a profit-driven tyranny, he overlooks the efforts of his own AI company xAI, the allegedly transhumanist Neuralink, and SolarCity—a firm which exploits the energy needs of millions of people on a massive scale. Whilst he himself holds dominant positions in sectors such as energy, space, the global internet, smart vehicles, artificial intelligence and medicine, he criticises other companies’ attempts at hegemony. However, Musk is correct in pointing out that OpenAI, which set out claiming to work for humanity, has begun to contribute to turning AI into a weapon in wars.
Whilst the Western world repeatedly lays bare its mindset through these manifestos, lawsuits and revelations, the fact that the views of two figures in the Turkish agenda opposing this mindset have come to the fore actually prompted this article. Selçuk Bayraktar’s emphasis on the need to develop technology with a vision centered on moral, ethical and human dignity—in response to the Palantir manifesto—and his approach questioning the mindset behind technology are, in this regard, highly valuable. On the other hand, Esra Albayrak’s address at the World Decolonization Forum was significant in terms of questioning the colonialist mindset. This address, which reminded us that this mindset dominates the world it has occupied through the triad of ‘erasing identity, erasing language, and establishing mastery’, actually describes the triad of data exploitation, linguistic dominance and algorithmic control in the digital age.
Naturally, since the colonialism of the digital age is now carried out not with tanks but with algorithms, there is no need for vast territories. From digital publishing platforms to social media, from apps to technological tools, and from operating systems to software, acts of occupation continue to infiltrate our intellectual world at every point—whether at home or in our pockets. This open yet covert occupation manifests itself in the form of platform dependency, algorithmic steering, and the shaping of our mental landscape. For this reason, the struggle for decolonization continues, and the need for a struggle for independence in the digital world grows day by day. On the one hand, there is the aim of not falling behind in the technology race; on the other, the aim of serving humanity by blending technology with human values. A key dimension of the aspiration to be a refuge for the oppressed, a voice for the innocent, and a defender of the righteous and justice lies in the construction of a value-driven digital space.
Faced with this global landscape, Turkey’s historic duty is to construct a new paradigm that blends algorithmic independence with human dignity, and to chart its own sovereign roadmap in opposition to Western-centered algorithmic hegemony. The current path to establishing epistemic independence on the intellectual plane lies in being able to give a unique voice to the thoughts and emotions that shape technology and the digital sphere. This is only possible by having a say in the trajectory of technological development.
In the initial phase, it is imperative to rapidly strengthen national data sovereignty, oversight mechanisms and domestic artificial intelligence infrastructure at the institutional level. Our priorities include both protective measures against existing threats and steps that support initiatives to shape the future. Whilst capitalizing on opportunities, we must not overlook risks such as algorithmic bias, privacy breaches and geopolitical dependency; the aim should be to transform the individual from a data object into a subject whose agency is safeguarded.
Whilst we may believe we are protected by simple user agreements; it is now clear that technology—as a force—and the discourse of those who produce it serve as a strategic tool for building global influence. We must therefore strive to understand that neither social media, nor large language models, nor the phones in our hands, nor other data-collecting technologies are innocent, and we must discern whom they serve and to what extent.
We must not overlook the fact that these discussions could enable today’s algorithms to quietly erode civil rights and the right to life. In fact, in the face of this mindset that reduces human beings to a data set, what is required is the establishment of a paradigm rooted in ‘our values’ to counter algorithmic hegemony. A civilizational initiative that centeres compassion, ethics and human will against systems that code our children as ‘acceptable losses’ is not merely a national but a global imperative.
(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)
Stay informed by subscribing to
our weekly newsletter.
