Perhaps the nuance is in the eye of the beholder? I don't think it's sustainable to go about our lives wearing blinders and averting our gaze from the misuse of technology because one might be afraid of unhappy feelings creeping in.
One must not be so cowardly as to deny that materials and technology can be misused or deny that their purpose is of oppression for fear of being attacked by group-thinkers.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" as Socrates put it. So, I invite you not play the usual game of narrowly looking at a single if statement and conclude "there's nothing political in this"; but rather look at the bigger picture... the asymmetry in access to information, resources, weapons, and how that impacts everyone's lives...
If we don't admit that there's a couple dozen people with immeasurable wealth and resources who have questionable intentions and opinions that affect our day-to-day lives, then we won't be able to prevent worse outcomes in a timely manner.
It's cute but are there any actual nerds left in big tech leadership? Of the magnificent seven we basically only have Jensen Huang left as a technical leader and maybe you can count Zuckerberg.
Google has some tendencies - Sundar Pichai was a materials engineer, Brin is back working there who considers himself a computer scientist. Maybe Hassabis - depends how you define it I guess.
Hassabis is absolutely a nerd. Joint honours physics and maths from Oxbridge and a PhD in neuroscience (and a Nobel prize in none of these fields).
His driving interest was always games (master standard in chess at 13, five-time winner of the all-round world board games championship, video game programmer in his teens then his own studio in his 20s).
Yeah but the dictionary has "intellectually passionate but socially awkward, or someone considered unstylish and lacking social skills". I think he might be a bit social.
When I watch Ex-machina the degree to which I loathed Oscar Isaac's character surprised me. While much of it was because the character was objectively loathsome, part of it was because I felt the type of person he represented was infecting the tech world.
The thing that seemed really inconguous to me was that he actually made the amazing tech. I don't think I have ever encountered a personality like that who actually made things. Certainly I've seen them talking about how great the thing they made is, but invariably, to them, I made means 'my employees made'
Which is not to say that there aren't toxic people who do actually make things. They exist, but it presents somewhat differently to the 'Tech bro' archetype.
It shouldn't matter whether the leaders are actual technical nerds. They are highly focused and motivated individuals who are harnessing tech for the stated purpose. Maybe this is by design and a coordinated movement - or maybe it is the inevitable consequence of uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism.
If profit maximisation is the ultimate goal every smart individual chases, the current trajectory seems inevitable?
One of the reasons I enjoy coming into HN. Is to read comments stating that the guy that created Facebook, alone in his dorm room, could “maybe“ be counted as a tech lead.
Elon Musk must be one. Seems enough techy to me: Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink - software being used for the hardware in innovative ways.
Edit: Oh, wow, mentioning this guy is surely controversial, sorry. However discussing whether he is a nerd, understands engineering on very deep level/gets his hands dirty OR he only manages people - there must be some psychological aspect related, a form of disagreement to discredit or have a hard time believing it can actually be true.
I think Elon Musk just wants to be Tony Stark and cultivates the appropriate image for that.
And possibly a genuine obsession with (rightwing-ish) meme/youth culture, which I think got him a lot of his initial followers on twitter/reddit/4chan/etc.
Musk is a complicated character. He's had nerdy times programing, fascist turns including the famous salute, emperor delusions - he was named after The Elon, a fictional ruler of Mars.
Maybe he used to be one, who knows. But I doubt he read a book or seen a movie in the past few decades. He got roasted by Joyce Carol Oates on X recently for being an oaf and he immediately started replying to tweets about acclaimed movies. And nothing insightful that proved he had seen them, just 'this is a great movie' or some other stupid oneliner. It would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad that the richest man on earth is such a pathetic little man.
Spoiler: He is not. But he is very good at faking it.
Anytime he tries to give a serious opinion on anything related to computers: It is laughably bad and out of touch (SQL, compilers, languages, performance, etc... ).
He definitively has a scientific background but definitively not "Tech" as far as computer are concerned.
I don’t see how “tech” is limited to software. While your case might be made for software, according to many accounts Musk is a strong driver on the hardware side. For instance, I’ve read the Tesla and SpaceX books by Eric Berger, which are much more focused on technical things compared to the more mainstream books. And while Musk is not in the trenches with a screwdriver, he’s not faking it either.
To be honest, I’m actually interested in this hypothesis: is he legitimately skilled/knowledgeable, or is he indeed faking it? And for either side I would like to see evidence. This question is interesting to me because some of his companies have made substantial contributions to pushing the frontier of technology (reusable landing, high launch cadence, electric cars, energy).
If he is really faking it, that might even be good, because the success of his companies might be replicable and could continue without him. But what if he is not?
He has a public image of "geek/need hero" that is honestly inspiring.
And that benefits him a lot because it bring people to trust his decisions. He has all the interest of the world to maintain this image.
> some of his companies have made substantial contributions to pushing the frontier of technology (reusable landing, high launch cadence, electric cars, energy).
People he hired for these companies made contributions.
Unlike the more common pattern, Elon doesn't hesitate to make straight up engineering decisions for his businesses, including ones that look unnecessarily high risk to a lot of his own engineers. Chopsticks catching spaceships made of stainless steel and self driving cars without lidar are well known examples. The success of those choices earns him legit nerd cred.
Disagree. The current limitations of Tesla self driving are not around difficulties in judging distances that lidar solves. They're around inference deficiencies with accurate geometry.
> Elon was an enthusiastic reader of books, and had attributed his success in part to having read The Lord of the Rings, the Foundation series, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.[11][28] At age ten, he developed an interest in computing and video games, teaching himself how to program from the VIC-20 user manual.[29] At age twelve, Elon sold his BASIC-based game Blastar to PC and Office Technology magazine for approximately $500 (equivalent to $1,579 in 2024).[30][31]
I think it's fair to say he at least was a nerd. He was a dweeb getting beaten up in school, burying himself in books and computers at home. His skills are doubtlessly outdated now, but does that really mean much? Woz's skills (which to be perfectly clear, outclassed Musk's by miles) are doubtlessly out of date now too, but nobody would say Woz isn't a nerd.
I think the part where he grew into an unstable dirtbag might be influencing the way people see him now. Saying that is is, or at least was, a genuine nerd shouldn't be seen as any sort of excuse for his scamming, lying, etc.
He definitely has talked about a lot of nerdy books. Don't know about his attention span and not sure how to square what he likes with his values. He brings up the Culture all the time but I have my doubts that he's actually read them
I don't know either, I haven't read the Culture books (yet) either so I can't really evaluate that.
I do believe he read a lot of sci-fi in his youth, if only because that would fit the pattern of a young boy who doesn't get along well with their peers and turns towards solitary pursuits like computer programming. He seems exactly the sort to have read lots of Heinlein.
You're replying to a single-sentence comment that both calls out the ridiculousness of this book's argument and its funny title. Clearly I can hold two ideas in my head at once and maybe, just maybe, other people can too.
I struggle to imagine that anyone not already sympathetic to the high school classic "nerds suck" world view is going to suddenly be swayed by this funny book title.
As far as I knew I was agreeing with the commenter not condescending. The title is a great example of it's kind. It's funny enough to stop one interrogating the proposition it makes.
I think it's lost on people outside of the UK - perhaps even to many inside the UK - just how strongly there is a class divide and a ruling elite. The old money is very old indeed
Code absolutely belongs there. Like any technology (be it printing presses, weapons, or algorithms) code is neutral by design, but not by impact.
It can bolster democracies or undermine them. The real agency lies with those who wield it. And it's rarely the coders. It's the leaders, the platforms, the systems that choose how code is deployed.
That's my point. Any tech can (and is) used for this. There's really no point in putting word "code" there. It adds very little additional context. Only in my opinion mostly serves the other goal - to sell.
1. How come people are able to accumulate so much capital?
2. How come people are able to use the capital to influence life of other people in all ways possible to their liking?
are more interesting and worth asking.
Yes code and capital are both "tools". But you can't just write some code and install cameras at every corner. You need some political influence to do so. And capital buys you this influence.
It’s a power distribution law. You can try to influence it artificially and suppress it to varying results.
It’s kind of like asking why are there so many small quakes and why do there have to be great big quakes once in a while? Why don’t we just get millions more small quakes instead?
I don't think you can make this argument. Capital is neither neutral, nor a technology. Currency would at least satisfy one of those two. But capital is a broader concept that is pretty much by definition a form of power, and power's natural tendency is to lead to corruption.
The comment is sincere. You appear to disagree with the book’s argument prior to having heard it — a great candidate for a mind-opening read. If the book (once published) proves its premise, you’ll disproportionately benefit from the read. (I personally like it when a book stretches my existing conceptions.)
I do not disagree with the book's argument. I'm just pointing out (or rather expressing my doubt) that the word "code" brings no additional context to the sentence.
As others (and I) rightfully noted - code and modern tech does make things cheaper and easier, but this can be said about all advances.
The "nerd reich" is not possible without code, code is not possible without computers, computers are not possible without abacus etc.
As I see it the word "code" sells this book better than, say, "taxes". Because taxes are boring and obvious.
>And how did they get those capital, for instance the CEO of Meta?
This is the right question.
I'll quote myself here:
1. How come people are able to accumulate so much capital?
2. How come people are able to use the capital to influence life of other people in all ways possible to their liking?
Yes code and capital are both "tools". But you can't just right some code and install cameras at every corner. You need some political influence to do so. And capital buys you this influence.
And to get this capital you should have laws that allow you to do so (tax rates, evasion etc).
Most of the real democracy dismantling attempts in the world seem more along the lines of the Russians centuries old effort to have everything loyal to the Tzar, including Trump.
And why not code? Are facial recognition models, AI LLMs to spew out spam and addictive social media algorithms not backed by code? The kings and dictators of the past had a lot more capital than Silicon Valley, but could only dream of building such surveillance and propaganda capabilities, as is the case even in a number of tinpot dictatorships in the developing world.
>Are facial recognition models, AI LLMs to spew out spam and addictive social media algorithms not backed by code?
Sure, just like tank is backed by metallurgy and engineers.
>The kings and dictators of the past had a lot more capital than Silicon Valley, but could only dream of building such surveillance and propaganda capabilities.
Soviet union had surveillance and propaganda capabilities you can't even imagine without any of LLM etc.
Surely new tech makes things easier and cheeper, but doesn't change the basic principles.
My point is exactly this: code makes things move faster for everyone, so you can really remove if from the sentence and nothing will change. In adds no meaningful context. It mostly sells.
Israeli companies are selling facial recognition software that has false positives in the low sub 0.0x %.
And their tracking works even if you try to masquerade your looks with beards, hats or glasses.[1]
It is used by agencies from all around the world, with only few admitting to it such as the essex police in UK. [2]
Albeit, if you talk with representatives of these companies behind the scenes you will find that the amount of customers is massive, and includes police forces and governments from all around the world.
You can rest assured that if you've ever taken an international flight (and likely even if you haven't), if you're roaming a random place on the other end of the world a decade later, everybody knows that, phone or no phone, whether there's traces of your trip or not, you are going to be recognized and recorded.
And fighting crime seems to be as much of a concern as is fighting political dissent and journalism.
E.g. in Italy there's a massive amount of journalists that have found they were being spied on through backdoors like Paragon's Graphite or fake 5g/phone antennas intercepting their signals.
Various (mostly Israeli) security companies claim to be able to decrypt encryption keys of any network-connected device at a distance with a machine of some sort (a bit huge, but still small enough to fit a luggage).
And their customers are primarily governments and police forces, more often than not breaching their own countries' laws.
Seriously, nothing grinds my nerves like the gaslighting we get with the China boogeyman, I'm more and more convinced this is all brainwashing to create the impression that we should worry about a borderline non-existing threat, when our own governments and agencies everyday are entering our data, manipulating it, and leveraging it for their political and financial gains.
And to some extent, the same applies to US big tech. It's an easy scapegoat globally for privacy breaches, and takes a lot of light off the very serious consequences of what our own governments do.
Our liberties and freedom are being eroded quickly and massively every day, yet the constant privacy narrative of focusing on big tech or borderline non-existing foreign threats is giving our own governments the means to control our societies with ease and with very serious and immediate consequences.
It is being dismantled by those who claim that the public can't have a say but that we should go to "official sources" (government appointed) or "trusted sources" (their pals) to avoid misinformation. This isn't capitalist driven (the standard Marxist line) because this system limits profits and maximalises government control.
Problem is not with nerds or Silicon Valley, even if Thiel is a lunatic.
Problem are, and always were, obscenely wealthy people destroying the society that created them. In the world where greed is not considered sin anymore, or even a character flaw, they don't even need to pretend anymore.
I would assume by default that billionaires are politically active and causing a problem. However this link doesn't give a lot of hints about how or wherefore. I assume this is a jab at Thiel; but it is a bit light on in the synopsis department.
There are a huge number of threats to democracy and the biggest one is probably the total lack of principles and common sense possessed by the median voter. It is a real problem and a bigger one than some billionaire or even the consensus of the billionaires. Sometimes voters and capital come into actual conflict and generally the voters tend to win Pyrrhic victories when that happens.
> the biggest one is probably the total lack of principles and common sense possessed by the median voter.
Hard disagree.
The biggest problem is a misinformed electorate.
An accurate, honest and truthful press is vital for democracy; how else do people know whom to vote for! The fact this is being dismantled (often supplying deliberate misinformation) is truly worrying.
After all, the electorate is entitled to have a lack of principles and no common sense; nobody ever said democracy was perfect. However the electorate needs to be provided with an honest set facts on which they can base their decisions without cries of "fake news". Whatever their political leanings.
I don't know if you will find a time in US history where the press was accurate, honest, and truthful.
I agree with GP that a primary missing feature is a principled public - without principles people swing wildly in opinion depending on the topic and popular rhetoric.
I see this with much of my own family. They mostly consider themselves conservatives and Republicans of the small government and balanced budget era. Those presumed values go out the window though and when a particular political topic of the day comes up they seem to completely contradict it. The most egregious example in my family is a Ron Paul libertarian that somehow still holds those opinions while supporting virtually everything Trump does.
> I don't know if you will find a time in US history where the press was accurate, honest, and truthful.
1) Spare us the US defaultism!
2) If we are going to make this conversation about the USA, didn't US broadcast media have a 'fairness doctrine' that was abolished some years back? Hence the growth in outlets providing heavily biased dishonest news on broadcast media? I suggest this has driven much of the popular rhetoric of which you speak.
Frankly, every country has seen a growth in biased social media "news" sources regardless as to the broadcast media fairness doctrines that still exist in those countries. Deliberate misinformation and a lack of trust in journalism is real.
1. Consider preordering the book if you're already reacting to part of its premise; it should be a juicy read.
2. Regarding the power of billionaires vs the power of the median voter, consider that each lever in a system deserves attention before pulling on it or reconfiguring it. How can one determine "the biggest threat to democracy" without digging into the details?
This is far more similar to Communism than Fascism. Their mentality is that they are a scientific vanguard (like Marxism) and that the ends justify the means. They also share the binary thinking of Marxists. They part company with Fascism because most of them are internationalist.
This book appears to be available only for preorder now, not yet published. Nobody here has read it, nobody here can read it, and even if they could, this submission will disappear off the front pages before commenters have a chance to order and read the book. Thus the comments section here is going to be useless (or at least more useless than usual).
Very good question - posted it for awareness / sparking hopefully nuanced “are we the baddies here?” reflection in the community, and curious folks to preorder.
I don't know what happened to this website but stuff like this keeps hitting the front page more and more often despite having close to zero value. It feels like SEO spam to me.
Yes, the bad link given here doesn't do the content justice, whatever your opinion would be. It would've been better to link to one of the author's articles on the Nerd Reich website. I'm assuming you're talking about the link itself as opposed to the content of the book or topic in general
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
So why would it take off there instead of in a larger city with more resources?
I'm not disagreeing with you completely, but I would like to know more about what other factors you would consider to have been more impactful. I don't know that you really need hippies around to get that kind of 'california capitalist' mentality either tbf.
Now it goes beyond money: they are aiming at shaping societies. From mars colonies (imagine musks tantrums when they vote him out) to project 2025 type of political works.
When you have too much money, it's kinda boring to keep making more of them. You want self-expression to the max extent the society will allow you.
I know it's fashionable to say that democracy itself leads to these outcomes that destroy democracy. I think Arendt was right about self-colonization and overproduction of elites being the main thing that leads to totalitarianism. There wouldn't even be such a thing as a silicon valley billionaire if the United States wasn't the most wildly successful political entity for the past 2000 years. Power corrupts, but that's distinct from an argument that the systems which created it in this case should be replaced by systems that funnel power in other ways.
Whenever I heard that expression I have never perceived people to mean "so don't obtain power". More like, "if you do get power be careful". Or "even if he seems like a nice guy, we should maintain a separation of powers".
Like it's more a force than a destiny. Gravity pulls the moon down every day yet it doesn't fall on our heads.
> There wouldn't even be such a thing as a silicon valley billionaire if the United States wasn't the most wildly successful political entity for the past 2000 years.
It's less wildly successful as a political entity than Christianity or Islam.
I'm not talking about the number of impoverished converts or believers. In terms of prosperity and global power, no religion or former empire has come close.
Thiel is probably the most obvious example, being explicitly anti-democracy and pro-authoritarian. Musk is also known for endorsing fringe far-right views and activists. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many more such attitudes in the SV elite, but the rest of them are better at self-regulating.
Most people who complains about Musk was celebrating whan Facebook, twitter and youtube where silencing the other side when the democrats where in power.
The truth is, big capital doing what big capital likes to do: accumulating power and trying to steer opinions via media. Not the first time, wont be the last. The us had a business insurrection with proto facist characteristics in the 30's that did not succeeded and in the only reason the people in charge where not arrested was because the country had barely ended the latest grand recession, and doing so would break the market again.
I think it's both. For sure Curtis Yarvin, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and others all have some extremely out there beliefs, lots of power, a desire to wield it, and connections to POTUS and the vice president who both seem to be about gaining and wielding as much power as possible.
I haven't read the book but I've read some stuff on a website of the same name, and the way it ties it all together felt very tinfoil hat to me. I think these guys all mutually tolerate each other's insanity in their common lust for ever more power and insatiable egos.
> Has anyone? It's got an August 2026 publication date. Is there even a first draft?
I'd guess the book is an expanded version of the blog. (Which I don't recommend - I do think this is conspiracy theory territory and of negative value.)
It's just the classic of people with a whole lot of money getting what they want from the government, only boosted by the fact that for the previous decade and a half the left has legitimized political action from corporations since it benefited them, as platforms were largely left-leaning. Now the boot is finally on the other foot and panic ensues.
Can't say I like it, but it has been my position from the very start that this would happen, and as such I'm fresh out of sympathy.
It's at least a little bit amusing that, five or ten years ago, if you opposed big corporate tech allying with government to impose undemocratic political programs, then you were a fascist, while all good thinkers supported that partnership. Only to have that valence switch on a dime when the context changed.
If the Left (and the Right, for that matter) want to make durable political change, they really need coherent theory beyond who's the Bad Guy of the moment.
This is real. Gil Duran is extremely well respected among those of us who are against the fascist takeover of Silicon Valley, which has been well-documented for quite some time.
Not trying to say that you or Gil Duran is wrong, but any anti vaxxer or flat earther can say the same about their "theory" and their well respected writers.
Fair point so let me qualify that. Among the fairly mainstream US left, who have put significant work into documenting and pushing back against the rise of tech oligarchs, Gil Duran is well respected.
I would not call these people "nerds", many are entitled bros (gals?) with rather rich parents. If you look at many of their family history, their parents are well into the upper middle class, borderline rich. In most cases, they went to the best schools.
It just so happens, tech is were the real money is now. If this was 40+ years ago, they would have ended up on Wall Street or Madison Avenue.
Funny how points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and often also 2 and 13 are fundamental for rhetoric of the modern "progressive" left. Thank you for the link. It's the best thing to send to those who are too quick to call their opponents fascists these days.
Fascism is a form of ultranationalism based on a myth of national rebirth (“we must purge decadence and be born again”), which seeks to create a new, regimented society through authoritarian power and mass mobilization, often embracing violence.
==
Facism is a very appealing form of organizing society, so no surprise that people would like to have it. The same way many europeans though that facism is an answer to many problems of those times.
But wait, why, beyond shallow demonisation, such seemingly great idea could be considered undesired? Thoughts?
Violence and chaos for anyone with "wrong" ideas, or friends, or genealogy. One man dictating your life choices and options. State control of quite literally everything you do, with the threat of violence and death as their tool.
I think a good comparison would be the word "puritan". At one point puritanism was an existing social movement that mattered, and lead to a lot of upheaval.
But the context in which it existed is gone. So if someone calls someone a puritan now, they don't mean they're trying to rid the Church of England of catholic influences. The reformation is over. It's now a fuzzier kind of "cultural" insult.
I think people are finding hard to let the word "fascist" go. For so long you could use it to immediately put people on the defensive. But much like puritan, the sting is basically all gone. Hard for people to grasp here as I know this place trends older and more left wing, but time marches on.
“Puritan” retains meaning beyond its historical context, since it was originally a descriptive term that became a term for a specific movement. “Fascist” does not, because it doesn’t have a (useful) descriptive meaning, it was only ever a symbol for a specific ideology.
>The word "fascist" now has positive connotations for me
Spoken like somebody who never had to endure real fascism.
>I realise a lot of you will want to call me fascist for this comment, or more likely something a bit snider and less direct. Just know that I genuinely don't care. It's just a word now.
No, you may not be a fascist, but it's opinions like yours that helped make it possible. Mitläufer.
Anything that is a millimeter to the left in US politics, which happens to still be considered right in the rest of the world, gets immediately coined as left wing activists.
Right wing activists working with and within government (think taxation, immigration, housing, environment, race, gender) have made a mess of government and society, and are calling anyone who criticizes the current mess as far radical left.
This is stupid and dangerous, but an obvious deflection from the root cause, concervatives who have made quality of life worse prompting an angry reaction that threatens their power.
--
The phrases constructed by your pattern don't bring any clarity, ability to distinguish one from another. It's pure flow of emotion and abstraction which would work only among same-way-thinkers. Good for groups bonding, bad for any communication outside of the group.
You use universally true patterns without even realizing that.
Right wing? In Canada, UK, and many other western nations?
I am not interested in US politics, but if you don't think the current government is not a REACTION to past governments and actions(the summer of love riots of 2020, remember that?), I don't know what to say.
I really don't like the inflationary use of the term Fascism.
There are multiple definitions of fascism, but this one captures many of them:
> Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
In those silicon valley movements mentioned, I see no support per se for a dictatorial leader, or for strong regimentation of society (quite the opposite!), to name just a few.
I find it reasonable to disagree with a lot of those movements, but please use proper arguments. To simply call everything you don't like fascism doesn't help the cause at all.
Are you familiar with Curtis Yarvin, and his influence with Thiel, JD Vance etc? He absolutely advocates for monarchy and dismantling democracy. He's also, if we are to judge his extensive writing, very much a racist
Have you read Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-fascism per chance? The dictator bit comes later, if it comes at all. Eco made 14 points that let you detect fascism - the higher the score, the higher the chance of a fascist regime being established.
Well this is exactly what I mean with inflation of the term fascism.
Surely there are lots of things wrong in US society, and surely some of them can be seen as part of a fascist society.
But really this is nothing compared to self declared fascist regimes such as Franco, Mussolini or Hitler.
Yes the current Trump regime is trying to suppress other opinions, sometimes quite openly. But luckily there is still plenty of room in the US to criticize the sitting president.
What do you think would have happened to someone like Seth Meyer under Franco or Hitler?
It seems nicer than the Woke Reich
I'm not a big sucker for this kind of un-nuanced "us vs them" rhetoric, but I gotta admit, the title is a stroke of genius.
Perhaps the nuance is in the eye of the beholder? I don't think it's sustainable to go about our lives wearing blinders and averting our gaze from the misuse of technology because one might be afraid of unhappy feelings creeping in.
One must not be so cowardly as to deny that materials and technology can be misused or deny that their purpose is of oppression for fear of being attacked by group-thinkers.
"The unexamined life is not worth living" as Socrates put it. So, I invite you not play the usual game of narrowly looking at a single if statement and conclude "there's nothing political in this"; but rather look at the bigger picture... the asymmetry in access to information, resources, weapons, and how that impacts everyone's lives...
If we don't admit that there's a couple dozen people with immeasurable wealth and resources who have questionable intentions and opinions that affect our day-to-day lives, then we won't be able to prevent worse outcomes in a timely manner.
It's cute but are there any actual nerds left in big tech leadership? Of the magnificent seven we basically only have Jensen Huang left as a technical leader and maybe you can count Zuckerberg.
> maybe you can count Zuckerberg
I think that you definitely need to count him. He's always been a massive nerd, his attempts to bulk up and become a MMA competitor notwithstanding.
>his attempts to bulk up and become a MMA competitor notwithstanding
a lot of us nerds value physical strength, it's 2025, we're not mouthbreathers anymore.
My body is just the vehicle that carries my brain around - and my brain deserves a smooth, luxurious ride.
Your brain doesn't live in isolation, your body and the fitness of it are crucial to fueling that brain.
Google has some tendencies - Sundar Pichai was a materials engineer, Brin is back working there who considers himself a computer scientist. Maybe Hassabis - depends how you define it I guess.
Hassabis is absolutely a nerd. Joint honours physics and maths from Oxbridge and a PhD in neuroscience (and a Nobel prize in none of these fields).
His driving interest was always games (master standard in chess at 13, five-time winner of the all-round world board games championship, video game programmer in his teens then his own studio in his 20s).
He's the end game boss of nerdland.
Yeah but the dictionary has "intellectually passionate but socially awkward, or someone considered unstylish and lacking social skills". I think he might be a bit social.
Carmack? Also ended up drifting right, but you can't fault his technical credentials.
Wozniak is still alive and seemingly not in the rightwing set, although also too retired to count as "leadership".
When I watch Ex-machina the degree to which I loathed Oscar Isaac's character surprised me. While much of it was because the character was objectively loathsome, part of it was because I felt the type of person he represented was infecting the tech world.
The thing that seemed really inconguous to me was that he actually made the amazing tech. I don't think I have ever encountered a personality like that who actually made things. Certainly I've seen them talking about how great the thing they made is, but invariably, to them, I made means 'my employees made'
Which is not to say that there aren't toxic people who do actually make things. They exist, but it presents somewhat differently to the 'Tech bro' archetype.
It shouldn't matter whether the leaders are actual technical nerds. They are highly focused and motivated individuals who are harnessing tech for the stated purpose. Maybe this is by design and a coordinated movement - or maybe it is the inevitable consequence of uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism.
If profit maximisation is the ultimate goal every smart individual chases, the current trajectory seems inevitable?
One of the reasons I enjoy coming into HN. Is to read comments stating that the guy that created Facebook, alone in his dorm room, could “maybe“ be counted as a tech lead.
Elon Musk must be one. Seems enough techy to me: Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink - software being used for the hardware in innovative ways.
Edit: Oh, wow, mentioning this guy is surely controversial, sorry. However discussing whether he is a nerd, understands engineering on very deep level/gets his hands dirty OR he only manages people - there must be some psychological aspect related, a form of disagreement to discredit or have a hard time believing it can actually be true.
Here is a list of credible persons commenting on Musk whether he understands engineering or not. With all the sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
I think Elon Musk just wants to be Tony Stark and cultivates the appropriate image for that.
And possibly a genuine obsession with (rightwing-ish) meme/youth culture, which I think got him a lot of his initial followers on twitter/reddit/4chan/etc.
Is there a difference? I mean, he may be Tony Stark to himself but end up an oppressor to others.
Musk is a complicated character. He's had nerdy times programing, fascist turns including the famous salute, emperor delusions - he was named after The Elon, a fictional ruler of Mars.
Except that he didn't invent any of it.
Just a savvy investor, and as far as I understand, hasn't really worked on any of it. His contributions were rants until he just took ketamine.
His work was making a yelp clone.
He invented the very successful hyperloop.
Did you forget your /s ?
I guessed people would figure that.
Maybe he used to be one, who knows. But I doubt he read a book or seen a movie in the past few decades. He got roasted by Joyce Carol Oates on X recently for being an oaf and he immediately started replying to tweets about acclaimed movies. And nothing insightful that proved he had seen them, just 'this is a great movie' or some other stupid oneliner. It would be hilarious if it wasnt so sad that the richest man on earth is such a pathetic little man.
> Elon Musk must be one
Spoiler: He is not. But he is very good at faking it.
Anytime he tries to give a serious opinion on anything related to computers: It is laughably bad and out of touch (SQL, compilers, languages, performance, etc... ).
He definitively has a scientific background but definitively not "Tech" as far as computer are concerned.
I don’t see how “tech” is limited to software. While your case might be made for software, according to many accounts Musk is a strong driver on the hardware side. For instance, I’ve read the Tesla and SpaceX books by Eric Berger, which are much more focused on technical things compared to the more mainstream books. And while Musk is not in the trenches with a screwdriver, he’s not faking it either.
To be honest, I’m actually interested in this hypothesis: is he legitimately skilled/knowledgeable, or is he indeed faking it? And for either side I would like to see evidence. This question is interesting to me because some of his companies have made substantial contributions to pushing the frontier of technology (reusable landing, high launch cadence, electric cars, energy).
If he is really faking it, that might even be good, because the success of his companies might be replicable and could continue without him. But what if he is not?
> or is he indeed faking it ?
On a domain side to nerdery: video games. There is zero doubt he is faking it entirely.
The streams he publishes on game like PoE or Elden Ring, have been long commented on online boards
https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/1hwe0id/elo...
And honestly, I can understand it entirely.
He has a public image of "geek/need hero" that is honestly inspiring. And that benefits him a lot because it bring people to trust his decisions. He has all the interest of the world to maintain this image.
There was a podcast with Mark Andreesen, the VC, and he said that Elon has deep understanding and involvement in the technical side in his companies.
> some of his companies have made substantial contributions to pushing the frontier of technology (reusable landing, high launch cadence, electric cars, energy).
People he hired for these companies made contributions.
Can you elaborate how this relates to his own competency?
Good example if anyone wants it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZslebJEZbE
Unlike the more common pattern, Elon doesn't hesitate to make straight up engineering decisions for his businesses, including ones that look unnecessarily high risk to a lot of his own engineers. Chopsticks catching spaceships made of stainless steel and self driving cars without lidar are well known examples. The success of those choices earns him legit nerd cred.
Self-driving cars without LIDAR was a pure cynical business decision and hasn't worked well technically.
Disagree. The current limitations of Tesla self driving are not around difficulties in judging distances that lidar solves. They're around inference deficiencies with accurate geometry.
LIDAR provides dense point clouds from which you can derive geometry that Tesla's vision methods struggle to perceive.
(Subtle things, like huge firetrucks parked straight across the road.)
It must be a bit embarrassing having Waymo and Baidu cracking ahead with the driverless taxis while the Tesla ones still don't work well though.
As far as physics is concerned (his initial background), he definitively is knowledgeable for a CEO yes.
It doesn't matter. He knows enough to be able to harness it for realising his worldview - and that is the problem.
He wrote and sold his first software aged 12. He may not be very good with computers but does have some nerd origin.
> Elon was an enthusiastic reader of books, and had attributed his success in part to having read The Lord of the Rings, the Foundation series, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.[11][28] At age ten, he developed an interest in computing and video games, teaching himself how to program from the VIC-20 user manual.[29] At age twelve, Elon sold his BASIC-based game Blastar to PC and Office Technology magazine for approximately $500 (equivalent to $1,579 in 2024).[30][31]
I think it's fair to say he at least was a nerd. He was a dweeb getting beaten up in school, burying himself in books and computers at home. His skills are doubtlessly outdated now, but does that really mean much? Woz's skills (which to be perfectly clear, outclassed Musk's by miles) are doubtlessly out of date now too, but nobody would say Woz isn't a nerd.
I think the part where he grew into an unstable dirtbag might be influencing the way people see him now. Saying that is is, or at least was, a genuine nerd shouldn't be seen as any sort of excuse for his scamming, lying, etc.
He definitely has talked about a lot of nerdy books. Don't know about his attention span and not sure how to square what he likes with his values. He brings up the Culture all the time but I have my doubts that he's actually read them
I don't know either, I haven't read the Culture books (yet) either so I can't really evaluate that.
I do believe he read a lot of sci-fi in his youth, if only because that would fit the pattern of a young boy who doesn't get along well with their peers and turns towards solitary pursuits like computer programming. He seems exactly the sort to have read lots of Heinlein.
Elon Musk is probably one of the most cutthroat businessmen on the planet. His skills don't lie in technological implementation whatsoever.
Martin Eberhard was the technical co-founder of Tesla and Elon Musk is trying his best to erase his contributions to Tesla.
Yes. As far as business is concerned, facts speaks for themselves.
But that has nothing to do with the valley chips and computer nerdery
Eberhard and Tarpenning where the co-founders. Musk was an early investor, became the third CEO, and then sued to claim co-founder status.
Yeah there's an interesting interview with Eberhard https://youtu.be/88KHfX_kPIY?t=88
Eberhard wasn't that technical and was the CEO in the early years.
Zuckerberg? The genius coder according to the movie. Programming in PHP.
Are you new? PHP was the standard for that type of app at the time.
Your point is 100% correct, but for the sake of our discourse please strive to be more polite!
I'd prefer you focus your attention elsewhere
There is a better one. It was about how the far right was trying to take over Furry Fandom... The title was "the Furred Reich".
Classic example of humour as stop-think
You're replying to a single-sentence comment that both calls out the ridiculousness of this book's argument and its funny title. Clearly I can hold two ideas in my head at once and maybe, just maybe, other people can too.
I struggle to imagine that anyone not already sympathetic to the high school classic "nerds suck" world view is going to suddenly be swayed by this funny book title.
Classic example of motivated reasoning as stop think. Condescend at your own peril.
As far as I knew I was agreeing with the commenter not condescending. The title is a great example of it's kind. It's funny enough to stop one interrogating the proposition it makes.
> "The Sovereign Individual" by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg.
Lord William Rees-Mogg being the father of Jacob Rees-Mogg, of Brexit fame.
Interesting how often you meet the same people if you just start digging a little.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sovereign_Individual : 1997, since I had to check.
> Interesting how often you meet the same people if you just start digging a little.
Endemic problem in UK politics, and a lot of other countries.
I think it's lost on people outside of the UK - perhaps even to many inside the UK - just how strongly there is a class divide and a ruling elite. The old money is very old indeed
Indeed. You are literally likely to be in a better social class today if your ancestors were Normans conquerors rather than the Anglo-Saxon conquered.
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60593/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRAR...
Thanks that sounds fascinating. Will take a look
That's how and why they get published. Little names don't get in there. I haven't read the book so can't judge the content.
This is the book that introduced the idea of disaster capitalism - how to profit from other people's misery.
>democracy is being dismantled not by coups or tanks, but by code, capital, and the illusion of innovation
Not sure "code" belongs here. Even less sure about "illusion".
Take those away and what is left is "dismantled... by capital". Nothing new, really.
Code absolutely belongs there. Like any technology (be it printing presses, weapons, or algorithms) code is neutral by design, but not by impact.
It can bolster democracies or undermine them. The real agency lies with those who wield it. And it's rarely the coders. It's the leaders, the platforms, the systems that choose how code is deployed.
Does open source code count as "capital"? It also has a real and significant effect.
That's my point. Any tech can (and is) used for this. There's really no point in putting word "code" there. It adds very little additional context. Only in my opinion mostly serves the other goal - to sell.
You can argue the same for the capital that goes in. It’s used for what it’s used. By itself it’s neutral.
Yes, but I think that questions like
1. How come people are able to accumulate so much capital?
2. How come people are able to use the capital to influence life of other people in all ways possible to their liking?
are more interesting and worth asking.
Yes code and capital are both "tools". But you can't just write some code and install cameras at every corner. You need some political influence to do so. And capital buys you this influence.
It’s a power distribution law. You can try to influence it artificially and suppress it to varying results.
It’s kind of like asking why are there so many small quakes and why do there have to be great big quakes once in a while? Why don’t we just get millions more small quakes instead?
I don't think you can make this argument. Capital is neither neutral, nor a technology. Currency would at least satisfy one of those two. But capital is a broader concept that is pretty much by definition a form of power, and power's natural tendency is to lead to corruption.
By code doesn’t mean all code it just describes the modus operandi to distinguish them from the old type that used oil for instance
Again, this is my point: there's no real reason to distinguish them from the old types. :)
Code:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue
https://simonwillison.net/2025/Feb/3/a-computer-can-never-be...
The purpose of software is to reduce the cost of change.
Of course “code” belongs here.
I take parent's meaning to be that "code" is redundant in the repetition not blameless.
Yes, thank you.
It sounds like this book would be a good candidate for your reading list.
It would be great if you have tried to express yourself other than some weird implications.
The comment is sincere. You appear to disagree with the book’s argument prior to having heard it — a great candidate for a mind-opening read. If the book (once published) proves its premise, you’ll disproportionately benefit from the read. (I personally like it when a book stretches my existing conceptions.)
I thing you might have misunderstood me.
I do not disagree with the book's argument. I'm just pointing out (or rather expressing my doubt) that the word "code" brings no additional context to the sentence.
As others (and I) rightfully noted - code and modern tech does make things cheaper and easier, but this can be said about all advances.
The "nerd reich" is not possible without code, code is not possible without computers, computers are not possible without abacus etc.
As I see it the word "code" sells this book better than, say, "taxes". Because taxes are boring and obvious.
And how did they get those capital, for instance the CEO of Meta?
And isn’t social media that prefers rage over information a danger to democracy?
>And how did they get those capital, for instance the CEO of Meta?
This is the right question.
I'll quote myself here:
1. How come people are able to accumulate so much capital?
2. How come people are able to use the capital to influence life of other people in all ways possible to their liking?
Yes code and capital are both "tools". But you can't just right some code and install cameras at every corner. You need some political influence to do so. And capital buys you this influence.
And to get this capital you should have laws that allow you to do so (tax rates, evasion etc).
Same goes for political influence.
Most of the real democracy dismantling attempts in the world seem more along the lines of the Russians centuries old effort to have everything loyal to the Tzar, including Trump.
And why not code? Are facial recognition models, AI LLMs to spew out spam and addictive social media algorithms not backed by code? The kings and dictators of the past had a lot more capital than Silicon Valley, but could only dream of building such surveillance and propaganda capabilities, as is the case even in a number of tinpot dictatorships in the developing world.
>Are facial recognition models, AI LLMs to spew out spam and addictive social media algorithms not backed by code?
Sure, just like tank is backed by metallurgy and engineers.
>The kings and dictators of the past had a lot more capital than Silicon Valley, but could only dream of building such surveillance and propaganda capabilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu (and not only him most likely) would disagree.
Soviet union had surveillance and propaganda capabilities you can't even imagine without any of LLM etc.
Surely new tech makes things easier and cheeper, but doesn't change the basic principles.
My point is exactly this: code makes things move faster for everyone, so you can really remove if from the sentence and nothing will change. In adds no meaningful context. It mostly sells.
Israeli companies are selling facial recognition software that has false positives in the low sub 0.0x %.
And their tracking works even if you try to masquerade your looks with beards, hats or glasses.[1]
It is used by agencies from all around the world, with only few admitting to it such as the essex police in UK. [2]
Albeit, if you talk with representatives of these companies behind the scenes you will find that the amount of customers is massive, and includes police forces and governments from all around the world.
You can rest assured that if you've ever taken an international flight (and likely even if you haven't), if you're roaming a random place on the other end of the world a decade later, everybody knows that, phone or no phone, whether there's traces of your trip or not, you are going to be recognized and recorded.
And fighting crime seems to be as much of a concern as is fighting political dissent and journalism.
E.g. in Italy there's a massive amount of journalists that have found they were being spied on through backdoors like Paragon's Graphite or fake 5g/phone antennas intercepting their signals.
Various (mostly Israeli) security companies claim to be able to decrypt encryption keys of any network-connected device at a distance with a machine of some sort (a bit huge, but still small enough to fit a luggage).
And their customers are primarily governments and police forces, more often than not breaching their own countries' laws.
Seriously, nothing grinds my nerves like the gaslighting we get with the China boogeyman, I'm more and more convinced this is all brainwashing to create the impression that we should worry about a borderline non-existing threat, when our own governments and agencies everyday are entering our data, manipulating it, and leveraging it for their political and financial gains.
And to some extent, the same applies to US big tech. It's an easy scapegoat globally for privacy breaches, and takes a lot of light off the very serious consequences of what our own governments do.
Our liberties and freedom are being eroded quickly and massively every day, yet the constant privacy narrative of focusing on big tech or borderline non-existing foreign threats is giving our own governments the means to control our societies with ease and with very serious and immediate consequences.
[1] https://www.corsight.ai/
[2] https://www.essex.police.uk/police-forces/essex-police/areas...
It is being dismantled by those who claim that the public can't have a say but that we should go to "official sources" (government appointed) or "trusted sources" (their pals) to avoid misinformation. This isn't capitalist driven (the standard Marxist line) because this system limits profits and maximalises government control.
There's a youtube interview with the author here https://youtu.be/FWjR6_qYJAw?t=44
A lot seems about Curtis Yarvin and fans thereof.
Problem is not with nerds or Silicon Valley, even if Thiel is a lunatic. Problem are, and always were, obscenely wealthy people destroying the society that created them. In the world where greed is not considered sin anymore, or even a character flaw, they don't even need to pretend anymore.
I would assume by default that billionaires are politically active and causing a problem. However this link doesn't give a lot of hints about how or wherefore. I assume this is a jab at Thiel; but it is a bit light on in the synopsis department.
There are a huge number of threats to democracy and the biggest one is probably the total lack of principles and common sense possessed by the median voter. It is a real problem and a bigger one than some billionaire or even the consensus of the billionaires. Sometimes voters and capital come into actual conflict and generally the voters tend to win Pyrrhic victories when that happens.
> the biggest one is probably the total lack of principles and common sense possessed by the median voter.
Hard disagree.
The biggest problem is a misinformed electorate.
An accurate, honest and truthful press is vital for democracy; how else do people know whom to vote for! The fact this is being dismantled (often supplying deliberate misinformation) is truly worrying.
After all, the electorate is entitled to have a lack of principles and no common sense; nobody ever said democracy was perfect. However the electorate needs to be provided with an honest set facts on which they can base their decisions without cries of "fake news". Whatever their political leanings.
I don't know if you will find a time in US history where the press was accurate, honest, and truthful.
I agree with GP that a primary missing feature is a principled public - without principles people swing wildly in opinion depending on the topic and popular rhetoric.
I see this with much of my own family. They mostly consider themselves conservatives and Republicans of the small government and balanced budget era. Those presumed values go out the window though and when a particular political topic of the day comes up they seem to completely contradict it. The most egregious example in my family is a Ron Paul libertarian that somehow still holds those opinions while supporting virtually everything Trump does.
> I don't know if you will find a time in US history where the press was accurate, honest, and truthful.
1) Spare us the US defaultism!
2) If we are going to make this conversation about the USA, didn't US broadcast media have a 'fairness doctrine' that was abolished some years back? Hence the growth in outlets providing heavily biased dishonest news on broadcast media? I suggest this has driven much of the popular rhetoric of which you speak.
Frankly, every country has seen a growth in biased social media "news" sources regardless as to the broadcast media fairness doctrines that still exist in those countries. Deliberate misinformation and a lack of trust in journalism is real.
[dead]
1. Consider preordering the book if you're already reacting to part of its premise; it should be a juicy read.
2. Regarding the power of billionaires vs the power of the median voter, consider that each lever in a system deserves attention before pulling on it or reconfiguring it. How can one determine "the biggest threat to democracy" without digging into the details?
This is far more similar to Communism than Fascism. Their mentality is that they are a scientific vanguard (like Marxism) and that the ends justify the means. They also share the binary thinking of Marxists. They part company with Fascism because most of them are internationalist.
Go read some books first.
As Marx so famously wrote, all the wealth earned by the people should be concentrated into the hands of a few chosen elites.
Is there a HN convention for links to books?
This book appears to be available only for preorder now, not yet published. Nobody here has read it, nobody here can read it, and even if they could, this submission will disappear off the front pages before commenters have a chance to order and read the book. Thus the comments section here is going to be useless (or at least more useless than usual).
Perhaps a link to the author's website and podcast would be more appropriate?
https://www.thenerdreich.com/
Very good question - posted it for awareness / sparking hopefully nuanced “are we the baddies here?” reflection in the community, and curious folks to preorder.
I wanted to disagree then checked the release date. It’s August of 2026. Really early to be discussing this.
I don't know what happened to this website but stuff like this keeps hitting the front page more and more often despite having close to zero value. It feels like SEO spam to me.
Yes, the bad link given here doesn't do the content justice, whatever your opinion would be. It would've been better to link to one of the author's articles on the Nerd Reich website. I'm assuming you're talking about the link itself as opposed to the content of the book or topic in general
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The person who submitted the link already explained the submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46068363
The comments section here is a phenomenal expository of biases, for the very reason you cite.
I think it's simpler,money has no Color, no religion.
Silicon valley just happened to reside next to the hippies in the first decades
So why would it take off there instead of in a larger city with more resources?
I'm not disagreeing with you completely, but I would like to know more about what other factors you would consider to have been more impactful. I don't know that you really need hippies around to get that kind of 'california capitalist' mentality either tbf.
It won the transistor lottery, then the money oiled the machine.
Recent events prove that there was nothing ideological about it. Once a positive feedback loop is established, it's difficult to break
Now it goes beyond money: they are aiming at shaping societies. From mars colonies (imagine musks tantrums when they vote him out) to project 2025 type of political works.
When you have too much money, it's kinda boring to keep making more of them. You want self-expression to the max extent the society will allow you.
I don't think those pass the sniff test, but grand narratives help to fuel the stocks and invesment bubble
I know it's fashionable to say that democracy itself leads to these outcomes that destroy democracy. I think Arendt was right about self-colonization and overproduction of elites being the main thing that leads to totalitarianism. There wouldn't even be such a thing as a silicon valley billionaire if the United States wasn't the most wildly successful political entity for the past 2000 years. Power corrupts, but that's distinct from an argument that the systems which created it in this case should be replaced by systems that funnel power in other ways.
There's some complaints about this book not being out, but Arendt's book has been out since 1963 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality... and is highly regarded reading on this subject.
> Power corrupts
It doesn't, although they would like you to believe so, so you avoid obtaining it.
But it definitely attracts those corrupted.
You don't believe that there are people who honored a principle until temptation became to strong? Only people who pursued the temptation?
Whenever I heard that expression I have never perceived people to mean "so don't obtain power". More like, "if you do get power be careful". Or "even if he seems like a nice guy, we should maintain a separation of powers".
Like it's more a force than a destiny. Gravity pulls the moon down every day yet it doesn't fall on our heads.
> There wouldn't even be such a thing as a silicon valley billionaire if the United States wasn't the most wildly successful political entity for the past 2000 years.
It's less wildly successful as a political entity than Christianity or Islam.
I'm not talking about the number of impoverished converts or believers. In terms of prosperity and global power, no religion or former empire has come close.
Is this tinfoil level conspiracy theory or there’s something to the allegations?
Thiel is probably the most obvious example, being explicitly anti-democracy and pro-authoritarian. Musk is also known for endorsing fringe far-right views and activists. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many more such attitudes in the SV elite, but the rest of them are better at self-regulating.
Musk was literally campaigning for the German right wing nationalist party.
Most people who complains about Musk was celebrating whan Facebook, twitter and youtube where silencing the other side when the democrats where in power.
The truth is, big capital doing what big capital likes to do: accumulating power and trying to steer opinions via media. Not the first time, wont be the last. The us had a business insurrection with proto facist characteristics in the 30's that did not succeeded and in the only reason the people in charge where not arrested was because the country had barely ended the latest grand recession, and doing so would break the market again.
Are you talking about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
It looks like nothing actually happened...
I think it's both. For sure Curtis Yarvin, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and others all have some extremely out there beliefs, lots of power, a desire to wield it, and connections to POTUS and the vice president who both seem to be about gaining and wielding as much power as possible.
I haven't read the book but I've read some stuff on a website of the same name, and the way it ties it all together felt very tinfoil hat to me. I think these guys all mutually tolerate each other's insanity in their common lust for ever more power and insatiable egos.
>I haven't read the book
Has anyone? It's got an August 2026 publication date. Is there even a first draft?
> Has anyone? It's got an August 2026 publication date. Is there even a first draft?
I'd guess the book is an expanded version of the blog. (Which I don't recommend - I do think this is conspiracy theory territory and of negative value.)
Some starting points for you: Curtis Yarvin, Peter Theil, Elon Musk, Balaji Srinivasan, TESCREAL, The Californian Ideology.
Look at who was and is consulting the President or paying for his vanity projects, judge for yourself.
[flagged]
My heart goes out to you.
LMGTFO:
...singling out ennemies of the Reich... https://www.google.com/search?q=thiel+antichrist
...democracy aiming to be a fair competition of ideas... https://www.google.com/search?q=thiel+competition+is+for+los...
It's just the classic of people with a whole lot of money getting what they want from the government, only boosted by the fact that for the previous decade and a half the left has legitimized political action from corporations since it benefited them, as platforms were largely left-leaning. Now the boot is finally on the other foot and panic ensues.
Can't say I like it, but it has been my position from the very start that this would happen, and as such I'm fresh out of sympathy.
Don't like it? Build your own Silicon Valley.
It's at least a little bit amusing that, five or ten years ago, if you opposed big corporate tech allying with government to impose undemocratic political programs, then you were a fascist, while all good thinkers supported that partnership. Only to have that valence switch on a dime when the context changed.
If the Left (and the Right, for that matter) want to make durable political change, they really need coherent theory beyond who's the Bad Guy of the moment.
This is real. Gil Duran is extremely well respected among those of us who are against the fascist takeover of Silicon Valley, which has been well-documented for quite some time.
Not trying to say that you or Gil Duran is wrong, but any anti vaxxer or flat earther can say the same about their "theory" and their well respected writers.
Fair point so let me qualify that. Among the fairly mainstream US left, who have put significant work into documenting and pushing back against the rise of tech oligarchs, Gil Duran is well respected.
I would not call these people "nerds", many are entitled bros (gals?) with rather rich parents. If you look at many of their family history, their parents are well into the upper middle class, borderline rich. In most cases, they went to the best schools.
It just so happens, tech is were the real money is now. If this was 40+ years ago, they would have ended up on Wall Street or Madison Avenue.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
For a more rigorous definition than “things I don’t like”, there’s Umberto Eco’s core characteristics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism
Funny how points 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14 and often also 2 and 13 are fundamental for rhetoric of the modern "progressive" left. Thank you for the link. It's the best thing to send to those who are too quick to call their opponents fascists these days.
Fascism is a form of ultranationalism based on a myth of national rebirth (“we must purge decadence and be born again”), which seeks to create a new, regimented society through authoritarian power and mass mobilization, often embracing violence.
==
Facism is a very appealing form of organizing society, so no surprise that people would like to have it. The same way many europeans though that facism is an answer to many problems of those times.
But wait, why, beyond shallow demonisation, such seemingly great idea could be considered undesired? Thoughts?
How is fascism even slightly appealing?
Violence and chaos for anyone with "wrong" ideas, or friends, or genealogy. One man dictating your life choices and options. State control of quite literally everything you do, with the threat of violence and death as their tool.
Fuck. That.
I think a good comparison would be the word "puritan". At one point puritanism was an existing social movement that mattered, and lead to a lot of upheaval.
But the context in which it existed is gone. So if someone calls someone a puritan now, they don't mean they're trying to rid the Church of England of catholic influences. The reformation is over. It's now a fuzzier kind of "cultural" insult.
I think people are finding hard to let the word "fascist" go. For so long you could use it to immediately put people on the defensive. But much like puritan, the sting is basically all gone. Hard for people to grasp here as I know this place trends older and more left wing, but time marches on.
“Puritan” retains meaning beyond its historical context, since it was originally a descriptive term that became a term for a specific movement. “Fascist” does not, because it doesn’t have a (useful) descriptive meaning, it was only ever a symbol for a specific ideology.
>The word "fascist" now has positive connotations for me
Spoken like somebody who never had to endure real fascism.
>I realise a lot of you will want to call me fascist for this comment, or more likely something a bit snider and less direct. Just know that I genuinely don't care. It's just a word now.
No, you may not be a fascist, but it's opinions like yours that helped make it possible. Mitläufer.
Mitläufer
The English phrase you are looking for would be "fellow traveller".
Fascism is a well defined ideology. RIP to your bizarre comment.
[flagged]
Anything that is a millimeter to the left in US politics, which happens to still be considered right in the rest of the world, gets immediately coined as left wing activists.
I use the term progressive as a slur for the idiots who think communism is good and capitalism is evil (posted from their iPhones at Starbucks).
There is a middleground between communism and late stage capitalism.
One of them being, not end on the street because one cannot afford to pay their healthcare.
Which from US politics point of view makes the rest of the world communist.
Right wing activists working with and within government (think taxation, immigration, housing, environment, race, gender) have made a mess of government and society, and are calling anyone who criticizes the current mess as far radical left. This is stupid and dangerous, but an obvious deflection from the root cause, concervatives who have made quality of life worse prompting an angry reaction that threatens their power.
--
The phrases constructed by your pattern don't bring any clarity, ability to distinguish one from another. It's pure flow of emotion and abstraction which would work only among same-way-thinkers. Good for groups bonding, bad for any communication outside of the group.
You use universally true patterns without even realizing that.
Right wing? In Canada, UK, and many other western nations?
I am not interested in US politics, but if you don't think the current government is not a REACTION to past governments and actions(the summer of love riots of 2020, remember that?), I don't know what to say.
I really don't like the inflationary use of the term Fascism. There are multiple definitions of fascism, but this one captures many of them:
> Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
In those silicon valley movements mentioned, I see no support per se for a dictatorial leader, or for strong regimentation of society (quite the opposite!), to name just a few.
I find it reasonable to disagree with a lot of those movements, but please use proper arguments. To simply call everything you don't like fascism doesn't help the cause at all.
Are you familiar with Curtis Yarvin, and his influence with Thiel, JD Vance etc? He absolutely advocates for monarchy and dismantling democracy. He's also, if we are to judge his extensive writing, very much a racist
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right...
I'm not saying that none of the Silicon Valley oligarchs have some fascist sympathies. But this book is generalizing over all of Silicon Valley.
Have you read Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-fascism per chance? The dictator bit comes later, if it comes at all. Eco made 14 points that let you detect fascism - the higher the score, the higher the chance of a fascist regime being established.
It makes for a stunning read https://www.openculture.com/2024/11/umberto-ecos-list-of-the.... Brett Deveraux (historian) once tried to match US society to those 14 points with the expected result: the US matches all 14. He wrote on his blog about it here: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
Well this is exactly what I mean with inflation of the term fascism. Surely there are lots of things wrong in US society, and surely some of them can be seen as part of a fascist society. But really this is nothing compared to self declared fascist regimes such as Franco, Mussolini or Hitler.
Yes the current Trump regime is trying to suppress other opinions, sometimes quite openly. But luckily there is still plenty of room in the US to criticize the sitting president. What do you think would have happened to someone like Seth Meyer under Franco or Hitler?
> I see no support per se for a dictatorial leader, or for strong regimentation of society
Everyone who donated to the Trump inauguration knew what they were buying into, and it has definitely delivered troops-on-the-streets fascism.