[By Observation Network Columnist Mindset Observatorium]
"First, allow all government employees to retire with full pensions."
"Second, transfer administrative power to the technology industry."
"Third, appoint Google CEO Eric Schmidt as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States."
In the spring of 2014, a transgender anarchist Google engineer petitioned the White House to prevent the decline of the nation. His plan consisted of the above three points, succinct and clear.
A new ideological trend is emerging in the heart of Silicon Valley, promising an interconnected and progressive utopian future. Its disruptive power is no less than the technology it promotes.
This is a story about tech elites, thinkers, and investors who have sharply turned rightward, building a movement that blends technological optimism, authoritarian tendencies, cultural warfare, and deep skepticism toward democratic norms.
Peter Thiel, Curtis Yarvin, Marc Andreessen, and Elon Musk have become the intellectual and financial architects of this movement, reshaping American politics and society through their wealth and influence. Their ideas, once confined to the fringes of blogs and conference rooms, now echo in halls of power from the White House to state capitols, challenging the institutional foundations of American liberal democracy.
Yarvin's ideas found fertile ground among a new generation of tech thinkers, particularly Curtis Yarvin under the pseudonym "Mencius Moldbug".
As a software engineer, Yarvin became the intellectual father of Neoreaction (NRx), a philosophy that completely rejects democracy and advocates for authoritarian rule. Yarvin claimed that America suffers from "chronic kinglessness".
In his extensive blog posts, Yarvin argued that democracy is "inefficient and destructive", leading to "war, tyranny, destruction, and poverty". He proposed the "New Corporatism" model, envisioning a country run like a corporation led by a CEO, with citizens as shareholders.
Yarvin's ideas caught the attention of Steve Bannon, former chief strategist for Trump, whose influence grew increasingly significant. Yarvin's vision of a monarch-like leader resonated with Thiel, who later called him an "interesting and powerful" historian and even gifted him a portrait at an art exhibition.
Thiel's ideological shift was not purely academic; his cultural and political alienation drove him more than anything else. In 2016, Thiel supported Donald Trump, whose slogan "Make America Great Again" he saw as a rejection of traditional politicians' "programmed optimism," aligning with his own pessimism about America's decline. Thiel donated $1.25 million to Trump's campaign and maintained an office in Trump Tower during the transition period, recommending candidates for administrative positions, highlighting his desire to "tear everything down" and reshape a system unburdened by what he called the "decadent center-left regime".
Cultural Warriors and the Unlikely Heirs of Gramsci
Thiel and Yarvin's embrace of neoreactionary ideology reflected their broad dissatisfaction with democratic processes, which they viewed as too slow, too inclusive, and prone to populism. They held great admiration for Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew's "benign dictatorship" model, revealing a belief that efficiency and economic prosperity take precedence over civil liberties.
Quinn Slobodian, in "Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism", described this "market radicalism" as placing capital above people and viewing democracy as an obstacle to maximizing profits.
Thiel even attempted seasteading - establishing autonomous micro-states in international waters. He sought to escape democratic constraints, hoping to create a space where "the great individual choice remains supreme".
Thiel claimed support for a "constitutional republic" rather than democracy, thus avoiding direct criticism of democratic ideals while supporting more authoritarian solutions. Additionally, Thiel appeared more pragmatic and balanced than Yarvin, taking a somewhat ambiguous stance on Yarvin's agenda - deeming it impractical rather than unacceptable.
While Thiel and Yarvin laid the intellectual groundwork, other figures in Silicon Valley took up the mantle of cultural warfare, drawing inspiration from an unexpected source: Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci.
Thiel's ally and conservative activist Christopher Rufo adopted Gramsci's concept of "cultural hegemony" to combat critical race theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and "transgender ideology".
Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, viewed Gramsci's focus on culture as a blueprint for conservative victory. "Gramsci, in a sense, provided a map of political operations," Rufo said, emphasizing the role of intellectuals, institutions, and culture in shaping power dynamics.
Rufo's movement had tangible impacts. His efforts led to the replacement of Harvard President Claudine Gay and influenced Trump's second-term education policies, including a $2.26 billion freeze on funding to elite universities and the closure of the Department of Education.
Universities across America removed DEI initiatives from their websites to avoid federal retaliation. Columbia University lost $400 million due to protests supporting Palestine and placed its Middle Eastern studies department under academic receivership. These actions reflect a broader strategy: using state power to dismantle what conservatives see as leftist cultural hegemony.
The Trump administration requested Congress to revoke funding for public broadcasting, directly impacting the operational funds of PBS and NPR. This aligned with Rufo's et al. interpretation of Gramsci's "cultural hegemony" theory, which emphasizes reshaping social ideologies by controlling or weakening key cultural institutions like media and universities. Trump and his allies strongly disapproved of the cultural and ideological stances of media institutions, viewing them as too liberal and representative of leftist cultural hegemony.
Another Silicon Valley giant, Marc Andreessen, joined the fray with the "Techno-Optimism Manifesto," a 5,000-word article echoing the radicalism of Italian futurists like F.T. Marinetti.
This 2023 manifesto declared that "any material problem" could be "solved through more technology" and called for the continuous acceleration of technological progress. Andreessen's rhetoric was filled with resentment toward "tech ethics" movements and "existential risk" campaigns, which he believed stifled innovation.
Andreessen criticized two specific movements: the former involved ethical reviews of artificial intelligence (AI), data privacy, algorithmic bias, and surveillance technology, advocating responsible development and use of technology. The latter focused on potential catastrophic threats to human survival posed by technological advancements, especially the dangers of AI.
Andreessen listed "institutions" and "traditions" as enemies, his views resonating with futurist denials of history and consistent with the movement's disdain for democratic deliberation.
Gramsci, as a staunch opponent of Mussolini's fascism, viewed cultural hegemony as a tool of class oppression. However, American conservatives repackaged it to advance their own agenda.
This strategic appropriation revealed their profound understanding of power dynamics. By targeting universities, media, and cultural institutions, these actors aimed to shift ideological landscapes before reshaping policies. Their methods relied on state intervention - such as funding cuts and academic oversight - exposing, in the eyes of opponents, their willingness to use government power to serve their purposes despite their libertarian packaging.
Andreessen's manifesto embodied the movement's techno-utopian facade. His call to "place wisdom and energy into positive feedback loops, driving infinitely" resembled more of a religious creed than a policy proposal, absolving technical elites of responsibility for societal consequences.
An article in The Atlantic described this "authoritarian technocracy" as posing as enlightened progress but prioritizing the power of unelected technical leaders over public accountability. The extreme tone combined with Andreessen's influence as a billionaire investor highlighted the movement's potential to shape markets and ideas.
Musk, Palantir, and Trump's Intersection
No one embodies the convergence of Silicon Valley's right-wing ideology and political power more than Elon Musk.
Musk, once a symbol of technological optimism, has become a polarizing force, aligning with Trump's agenda while advocating for an unconstrained future.
When Musk took over Twitter (now X), he adopted a stringent management style, sending an email titled "Crossroads" demanding absolute loyalty from employees. This attitude continued into his role in the Trump administration, where he led efficiency measures, including a government-wide buyout proposal seen as a loyalty test.
Musk's vision is of unfettered markets and Mars ambitions, while Trump focused on reviving American nationalism. Despite their seemingly opposite priorities, their partnership flourished due to shared disdain for bureaucratic inertia and progressive ideals.
Musk's influence extends beyond policy: his control over X reshaped digital discourse, amplifying right-wing voices while restricting content moderation, aligning with the broader goal of the cultural movement to promote "frictionless information flow".
Palantir Technologies, founded by Thiel and led by Alex Karp, is another pillar of this movement.
Palantir was born out of the dot-com bust and the aftermath of 9/11, tasked with "supporting the West" through data analysis.
Karp and Nicholas Zamiska's book, "The Techno-State Republic," called for the revival of the military-industrial complex to counter threats from China, Russia, and Iran. Unlike Musk's anarchocapitalist inclinations, Karp envisioned an active role for government, arguing that "a more active government" was crucial for harnessing Silicon Valley's potential for national security.
Karp's rhetoric was steeped in Cold War liberalism, criticizing Silicon Valley's shift toward "narrow consumer products" and calling for a return to meaningful challenges like defense. The New Yorker noted that his references to conservative thinkers like Leo Strauss and Roger Scruton hinted at a post-liberal tendency, lamenting the "hollowing out of American thought" and the loss of national pride. During Trump's second term, Palantir succeeded significantly, with its stock soaring by 600%. As a bridge between Silicon Valley and the nation, this gave the right-wing agenda more power and complexity.
If the alliance between Musk, Karp, and Trump is seen as a marriage of convenience, their different visions are united under a common enemy: the progressive establishment.
However, there are signs that Musk's libertarian futurism, Karp's state-centered pragmatism, and Trump's populist nationalism do not coexist harmoniously. After all, theoretically speaking, Musk's attitude of viewing employees as "replaceable" conflicts with Karp's call for a cohesion-driven technological culture driven by a shared purpose.
This tension highlights the challenge facing this cultural movement in America: the movement itself is rife with anti-government (at least deep state) rhetoric and tendencies, yet achieving cultural and economic goals requires reliance on state power. A reconciliation is needed between these two forces. For example, Karp's vision of reviving the military-industrial complex requires a strong state, whereas Musk and Thiel advocate dismantling bureaucratic structures. The movement has had notable successes influencing Trump's policies, such as education cuts and anti-DEI measures, but its long-term coherence remains uncertain.
Business Model: The Weaknesses of Silicon Valley's Right-Wing Movement on the Cultural Battlefield
Social media platforms, once hailed as tools of empowerment, have become battlegrounds for ideological control in America.
Algorithmically prioritizing user engagement (clicks, shares, etc.) over content veracity, without the regulatory governance seen in China, has led to widespread dissemination of misinformation on social media platforms operated by companies like Meta, Google, and X.
Facebook conducted a secret "emotional manipulation experiment" in 2012, deliberately adjusting users' news feed content to observe its impact on emotional states. Facebook was used as a tool to incite violence during the 2017 Rohingya genocide, and X reduced content moderation after Elon Musk's takeover, further amplifying the spread of extremist views.
These social media platforms also built massive business models through mass collection of user data for targeted advertising (including browsing history, location, personal preferences, etc.). User data became a commodity, with public consent considered only after the fact. In Facebook's early days (around 2004), Zuckerberg's instant message with friends, "They 'trust me'. Dumbasses," recorded his mockery of Harvard students trusting Facebook and submitting personal information, becoming a symbol of Silicon Valley technocratic arrogance.
In the eyes of their progressive establishment opponents, the "authoritarian technocracy" mindset of Silicon Valley elites places them above moral and democratic constraints, prioritizing scale and profit over public welfare. Tech elites wield "enlightenment values" (such as freedom and progress) as a guise, actually promoting an undemocratic and illiberal ideology.
To shape public discourse in the cultural movement, the moral issues of their business model are bound to be seized upon by opponents, making it the original sin of Silicon Valley's right wing and the Achilles' heel in ideological clashes.
Silicon Valley elites pursue profit and the extreme pursuit of personal desires, epitomized by the quest for immortality. Thiel's investments in cryopreservation and anti-aging research, along with his admission that "my money can't do many things," reveal a belief that technology can transcend human limitations, including death.
This techno-utopianism aligns with the beliefs of peers like Larry Ellison and Sergey Brin, creating a paradox: providing elites with a vision of infinite progress while holding dystopian views of democratic societies.
Supporters appreciate how this movement reshapes American social norms, prioritizing efficiency and profit as a cultural victory for elite governance. Opponents amplify Silicon Valley's erosion of privacy, weaponization of data, and suppression of dissent.
Quinn Slobodian described the way this right-wing movement in Silicon Valley reflects a "deep fatalism" toward democracy. In "Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism," Slobodian analyzed the phenomenon of "market radicalism" globally (such as free trade zones and offshore financial centers) attempting to escape democratic constraints. He viewed the right-wing movement in Silicon Valley as an extension of this trend, aiming to create a capital-dominated society through the control of technical elites and selective use of state power.
Conclusion
Trump's initiation of tariff wars shocked the world, masking another America riddled with problems. Whether Trump's tariff war can reshape the global economy is questionable, but American domestic politics and society are already undergoing profound reshaping in reality.
From Thiel's funding of Trump to Rufo's cultural battles, from Andreessen's techno-optimism fervor to Musk's digital dominion, these figures challenged the status quo with their wealth, intellect, and platforms. Rooted in a hybrid of libertarianism, neoreactionism, and cultural warfare, their ideas found receptive audiences in a polarized nation, pushing policies that reshaped education, media, and governance.
This American cultural revolution driven by Silicon Valley's rightward turn faces internal contradictions and external resistance no less formidable than tariff wars. It remains an open question whether it can reshape America's future or collapse under its own contradictions.
Currently, the battle for America's "national soul" continues, with tech giants at the forefront, wielding their code and capital as weapons in a war they believe only they can win.
This article is an exclusive piece by Guancha Network, and the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal action will be taken for violations. Follow us on WeChat at guanchacn for daily engaging articles.
Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7500027615916294692/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback via the "like/dislike" buttons below.