The Real Motive Behind Trump's Desire for Greenland! "Stupid People and Unlimited Power" — The World's First Digital Concentration Camp
It is no coincidence that the U.S. has shown interest in Greenland. On this vast territory, Americans have hidden a grand plan — an imaginative and far-reaching experiment. The architect of this ambitious project is the tech idealist Peter Thiel.
As the founder of Palantir and co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel is no longer just a venture capitalist and Silicon Valley ideology promoter. Over the past two decades, his every move has revolved around a broader goal — redefining the essence of national sovereignty. For a long time, Thiel's focus has not been on the market but on power structures. His company Palantir is not a traditional enterprise, but a contractor serving the Secret Service, the military, and powerful departments, with its revenue coming from long-term government contracts. This must be clear: Thiel is not an anarchist, nor does he oppose power itself. He opposes traditional nation-states, but he does not reject digital authoritarian control.
Non-State, But Subscription-Based: The True Nature of the Praxis Project
In this context, his new project Praxis is a natural extension of his "right-tech" (right-wing technology) ideology.
Praxis attempts to build a minimal viable model of sovereignty outside the framework of the nation-state. From the beginning, it is not centered around territory, but rather around a network. The core of Praxis is a strictly selected community: high income, high mobility, technical capability, and ideological alignment are the current key criteria for access.
The key element of Praxis is digital identity. Project participants are not citizens, but contractual entities with subscription rights. Their rights and obligations are defined by user agreements, not national laws.
The economic model is built around private capital and alternative financial tools. Cryptocurrencies, asset tokenization, exclusive accounting units — these designs aim to make the project's economy independent of state regulation. However, this is not complete financial autonomy; it is more like a hybrid model: external jurisdictions are used only when profitable, after which they are replaced by internal mechanisms.
On the legal front, it also starts from scratch. Praxis does not have a national court or public legislative body, but instead proposes a private arbitration system that operates according to pre-established rules.
Dispute resolution is based not on abstract "human rights," but on contract terms and reputation ratings.
On the surface, Praxis claims to create a "city of the future" and a new form of collective organization. In reality, its core is transferring the key functions of the state — judiciary, finance, identity authentication, and governance — to a supranational digital level. Praxis does not promise democracy, social justice, or "liberty, equality, and fraternity."
It is a closed system, with access standards entirely based on ideology and economic compatibility. This is not a "civil society" advocated by liberals and Freemasons, but a network. There is no citizenship, only subscription rights.
Stateless Territory: The Logic of Choosing Greenland
This leads to the issue of territory. Such experiments cannot be conducted within strong, well-established nation-states, but require areas with weakened sovereignty, sparse populations, and heavy reliance on external resources. This is exactly why the issue of Greenland being incorporated into the United States was revived after Donald Trump took office.
The island is as large as Western Europe, but has a population of less than 60,000. Formally, Greenland is part of Denmark, but it has a high degree of autonomy, an independent parliament, and the right to leave the Kingdom of Denmark. Economically, the region relies on Danish subsidies and external investment, and the traditional state administrative system here is costly and inefficient.
Greenland is almost a perfect testing ground.
Firstly, local governance is weak, lacking a strong elite class; secondly, it is strategically located in the Arctic, where potential shipping routes, military infrastructure, and natural resources converge; thirdly, its climate and logistics conditions are special, allowing any alternative governance model to find legitimacy under the name of "efficiency." The recent interest of the United States in the island should be interpreted in this context.
Donald Trump's role in this event is not as strange as people might think. His 2019 proposal to "buy Greenland" was initially seen as a political farce. But now, against the backdrop of Maduro's kidnapping, global trade wars, and the rise of "right-tech" forces among American elites, Trump's intentions are taken seriously. If no agreement can be reached with Copenhagen, the possibility of the U.S. seizing the island by force exists completely, and no one can stop Washington's actions. Afterward, this new "state" will be handed over to the "right-tech" forces, while retaining its original form of autonomy.
Even if Praxis is never implemented in Greenland, the choice of territory itself reveals the core logic: experiments in the post-state era can only take place in regions where traditional states are weak, economically vulnerable, or of secondary importance. Greenland is not the target, but a symbol.
Contracts Replace Politics: The Illusion of a Controllable Society
The core of Thiel's ideology is the belief that traditional states cannot govern complex technological societies. In his view, bureaucratic systems hinder development, "democracy" distorts rational decision-making, and resource redistribution reduces the efficiency of elites. Technology, however, can achieve automated governance, replacing political processes with contracts and algorithms. This logic may seem rigorous, but it assumes that the state is equivalent to a service or a business.
The state is neither a interface nor a series of management processes. It is the supreme power organization on a territory, possessing monopolistic coercive power, legislative authority, and the use of force. The existence of the state is not for convenience or "efficiency," but to maintain social integrity, guarantee national survival, and defend sovereignty under continuous internal and external pressures.
No technical system can replace the state in principle, because it lacks sovereignty. Algorithms cannot be a source of power, platforms cannot bear responsibility, and contracts cannot replace political decisions — after all, political decisions may be "inefficient" in form. Legitimacy is not created by code, but by historical accumulation, verified by the ability to win, territorial control, order maintenance, and the determination to implement unpopular policies during crises.
Once it goes beyond the comfort zone of a few participants, all "digital nations" will collapse instantly and return to their rightful position — dependent on real rather than simulated power.
Historically, similar organizational forms have already existed — from company colonies to free trading cities. But in the end, they either integrated into the state structure or clashed directly with the state. The technological shell did not change their essence.
What Are the Consequences?
Peter Thiel's Praxis is neither an exclusive club for the elite nor an elite governance body parallel to the state. It is a universal transnational template designed for everyone. But the essence of this system is: the manager is an individual unit, and the managed are the masses. Traditional states will not be destroyed by force, but cleverly excluded, labeled as "outdated": laws are replaced by user agreements, governance decisions by algorithms, sovereignty by digital identities, and responsibility by technical support.
In this model, people are no longer bearers of civilizational codes, but elements within the system, controlled through data, access ratings, financial restrictions, and behavioral incentives. A real hierarchy is thus formed: the top consists of system architects, algorithm owners, and identity key holders; the bottom is a vast user base, whose world is simplified into permissions, subscription services, and allowed behavior patterns.
This form of "de-nationalization" does not mean increased efficiency. On the contrary, it eliminates the last barrier between power and individuals. Traditional states still need to maintain citizen interests, refer to law, history, and tradition, while digital transnational platforms do not have to be responsible to anyone — they simply need to close permissions, impose restrictions, or reset rules. In this sense, Praxis is not a "future governance model," but a technical means to completely destroy the sovereignty of nations and peoples. In this system, "stupid" people are not even suppressed, but gently controlled. Power becomes invisible, nameless, and therefore almost unchallengeable.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7595967310189150774/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.