Introduction
The acquisition of Wiz by Google is far more than just a massive tech deal-it is an indicator of a much darker transformation taking place in the world. We are entering the age of technofascism, where technological monopolies, authoritarian politics, and economic instability converge to establish a new order of digital surveillance, labor elimination, and climate-driven collapse. This crisis is not emerging spontaneously; it is being deliberately engineered by those in power to justify greater control.
Foreword
The loss of American leadership is not just a political shift but a fundamental collapse of the global order that the U.S. built and maintained for decades. The Bretton Woods system, which cemented the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and anchored global trade, is unraveling as nations seek alternatives to a weaponized and unstable dollar. With China, BRICS nations, and even U.S. allies exploring alternative financial systems, the inevitable consequence is the dollar’s decline as the world’s dominant currency, stripping the U.S. of its unique ability to finance its deficits endlessly. This decline is further accelerated by ballooning national debt, which will eventually force either a catastrophic default or a debt restructuring as creditors lose confidence in an America that no longer serves the global interest but only its own internal chaos and corporate elites.
At the same time, the U.S. military, once the enforcer of global stability, is losing its strategic supremacy as rivals like China and Russia assert themselves in key regions. With no moral authority left, America is no longer the beacon of stability it once claimed to be but an aggressive, desperate, and resource-hungry power. As economic pressures mount, the U.S. risks becoming a declining empire lashing out rather than a "shining city on a hill." Instead of leading by example, it increasingly resembles a regional power obsessed with protecting its own decaying influence through economic warfare, technological surveillance, and militarized responses to its own failings. Without decisive intervention, this transformation will not only accelerate the collapse of global financial stability but will also ensure that the coming era is shaped by conflict, resource wars, and authoritarianism rather than cooperation and progress.
Expanded Explanation of Concerns
This issue touches on three interconnected problems:
1. Funding of Ultra-Right Movements by Tech Companies
Major technology firms, once seen as champions of innovation and democratization, have increasingly positioned themselves as patrons of authoritarian and ultra-right political movements. Through direct contributions, PACs, venture capital, and platform governance, these companies are shaping a political landscape that favors deregulation, centralized control, and the erosion of democratic institutions.
A. Influence Through Political Funding and Regulatory Manipulation
Tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple, while maintaining centrist branding, have supported political action committees (PACs) that fund candidates favoring deregulation and minimal antitrust oversight-conditions that benefit tech monopolies.
Microsoft and Apple PAC contributions: Both companies have contributed to candidates opposing stringent tech regulations through indirect channels. While their direct contributions are often bipartisan, their PACs tend to support politicians advocating laissez-faire economic policies, weakening public oversight of digital monopolies.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org; ProPublica Political Data Archive
Lobbying for monopolistic gains: The lobbying budgets of Google, Amazon, Apple, and Meta each exceed tens of millions annually. These funds are strategically deployed to influence bills such as Section 230 reforms or antitrust legislation in ways that favor corporate consolidation over market competition.
Source: FEC Filings; Public Citizen Report, “Big Tech’s Big Money”
B. The PayPal Mafia: Financial Architects of Technofascism
The so-called “PayPal Mafia”-a group of early PayPal executives and investors-has served as a nucleus for libertarian-to-authoritarian ideological and financial strategies in Silicon Valley. The "PayPal Mafia" refers to a group of former PayPal employees and founders who have significantly influenced the technology sector and U.S. politics. Prominent members such as Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and Elon Musk have not only amassed considerable wealth but have also actively promoted policies favoring deregulation, monopolistic practices, and digital surveillance, aligning with certain authoritarian governance principles.
Peter Thiel: Thiel has been a vocal critic of democracy, once writing, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” He has donated tens of millions to candidates including Donald Trump, Blake Masters, and J.D. Vance, all of whom espouse far-right populist and nationalist views.
Source: The Guardian 2020, Wired 2022
Citation: Thiel, P. “The Education of a Libertarian.” Cato Unbound, 2009
- Libertarian and Conservative Views: Thiel's political ideology leans toward libertarianism and conservatism, advocating for minimal government intervention in markets and society. His upbringing in apartheid-era South Africa is believed to have shaped his perspectives, fostering a skepticism toward democratic processes and a preference for hierarchical governance structures.
- Promotion of Authoritarian Governance: Thiel has expressed admiration for certain authoritarian figures and governance models, suggesting that such systems can be more effective in implementing decisive policies. This viewpoint aligns with his broader skepticism toward traditional democratic institutions and processes.
David Sacks: A consistent funder of conservative PACs and outspoken critic of regulatory enforcement, Sacks has publicly advocated reducing oversight of tech platforms, opposing content moderation, and rejecting antitrust action against major players.
Source: Financial Times 2023, CNBC Tech Reports 2022
- Advocate for Deregulation: Sacks has been a vocal proponent of reducing regulatory barriers, particularly in the technology and cryptocurrency sectors. His stance aims to foster innovation and economic growth but has also raised concerns about insufficient oversight and potential for monopolistic behaviors.
- Role in Government: Appointed by President Trump as the advisor on AI and cryptocurrencies, Sacks has played a pivotal role in shaping policies that favor technological advancement and deregulation. His influence has been instrumental in crafting a legal framework that benefits tech industry giants and aligns with the interests of the PayPal Mafia. (Source: UCSB Presidential Archives, Investopedia 2024)
Elon Musk: Since acquiring X (formerly Twitter), Musk has reinstated extremist accounts, reduced content moderation, and boosted conspiracy narratives, all under the guise of “free speech.” This has enabled the resurgence of far-right voices previously banned from mainstream platforms.
Source: MIT Technology Review 2023, The Atlantic 2023
Elon Musk’s role in the consolidation of digital authoritarianism is no longer speculative-it is central to the emerging architecture of technofascism. According to multiple media reports and financial analysts, Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of Twitter (now X) was partially (the required equity portion was structured specifically to meet bank requirements for loan approval. Although the full 100% of the deal amount may appear to be covered by financing, be not mistaken- there has to be a deposit opened in Saudi Arabia and pledged as collateral for an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a Saudi bank in favor of the lending institutions. This letter of credit has to secure up to 35% of the total transaction amount, effectively satisfying the lenders’ equity contribution criteria without requiring direct cash equity from the borrower and I expect it to be placed by Russian banks as collateral for the mentioned letter of credit. This structure was accepted by the banks as it meets both the risk mitigation and capital commitment standards typically required for loan disbursement. Beloved Russian scheme), while daily activities may be financed through crypto-linked schemes involving Russian oligarchs and intermediaries from Saudi Arabia. While some details remain hidden behind shell companies and offshore accounts, experienced financial experts have emphasized that such a colossal transaction cannot be concealed without the support of powerful foreign interests. The strategic aim of this funding was to enhance influence over the American public sphere and erode trust in traditional media institutions. (Source: New York Times, Business Insider)
Based on anonymous leaks and intelligence briefings, the Kremlin’s objective was to simultaneously support both far-right and far-left factions in U.S. politics to destabilize democratic cohesion. This included using Musk’s platform to promote conspiracy theories, reinstate extremist accounts, and algorithmically suppress centrist and journalistic voices. These moves amplified disinformation, sowed division, and transformed Twitter/X into a vehicle of state-aligned digital subversion. (Source: MIT Technology Review, The Atlantic)
Parallel to these developments, Russia and China, according to several analytical reports (including the Stratfor briefing, 2025), have supplied funding and weapons to a broad range of Middle Eastern actors, including Palestinian militant groups and states hostile to Israel. The purpose is to distract U.S. diplomatic and military attention from Europe, undermine America’s role as a global guarantor of democracy, and provoke geopolitical crises. (Source: Stratfor Briefing 2025, Express News)
Faced with growing economic and military setbacks due to the war in Ukraine, Russia is attempting to fracture U.S. resources, while China sees the situation as a strategic opportunity to weaken American global dominance. The Biden administration has so far failed-or been unable-to prevent coordinated operations by Russia and China to reconfigure the Middle East and interfere in U.S. politics. (Source: The Intercept, Financial Times)
Meanwhile, Musk’s growing alliances with far-right political figures, including open endorsements of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), underline a clear ideological orientation. His public positions have increasingly aligned with nationalist, anti-immigration rhetoric. These endorsements are not symbolic-they serve as a signal of elite consolidation around digital-authoritarian values. (Source: Southern Poverty Law Center, CNBC)
At the same time, Musk’s companies-particularly Neuralink and Starlink-have become deeply entangled in military-industrial applications. Neuralink’s collaboration with DARPA-linked research initiatives raises concerns about future cognitive surveillance. Starlink, while serving strategic roles in conflict zones like Ukraine, has also highlighted the danger of private actors having unilateral control over military-grade communications infrastructure. (Source: Defense One, Bloomberg)
These actions coincide with deeper geopolitical dynamics. Demographic shifts between 2020 and 2024 secured Trump’s return to power in 2025. According to several media reports, Donald Trump successfully increased his support among key voter groups, particularly Hispanic voters (32 percent in 2020 → 45 percent in 2024, +13 percent) and young voters aged 18–29 (35 percent in 2020 → 43 percent in 2024, +8 percent). This shift has been attributed to rhetoric centered on social conservatism, job creation, and targeted social media campaigns. Ironically, these same groups were the first to be affected by regressive policies introduced by Trump within the first weeks after the election. (Source: Harvard Political Review, NBC News)
The return of Trump in 2025 is the result of a complex tangle of forces: public discontent, populist rhetoric, external interference (including covert financing through cryptocurrency, interference from Moscow and Beijing), and internal divisions within the Democratic Party. (Source: Columbia Journalism Review, The Guardian)
Tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China are driving up prices and reviving fears of a protectionist collapse akin to the 1930s (Smoot–Hawley). Global actors-particularly Russia and China-are waging hybrid warfare, funding political extremes within the U.S. and using the Middle East conflict to distract America from key theaters like Europe, where Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine, and the Indo-Pacific, where China aims for dominance. (Source: Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz)
The United Nations Security Council is effectively paralyzed by the veto power of Russia and China. Russia’s claim to its permanent seat-based on the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991-remains legally contested, as does the legitimacy of China’s seat, historically belonging to Taiwan. This imbalance blocks responses to global crises, from military aggression to foreign election interference. (Source: UN Charter Commentary, Stratfor)
These developments confirm a strategic trajectory in which Musk’s digital platforms, military-linked tech ventures, and political endorsements converge with international efforts to dismantle U.S. leadership, destabilize liberal democracy, and inaugurate a new era of corporate and geopolitical authoritarianism. (Source: Financial Times, MIT Media Lab, Stratfor Briefing 2025)
The collective influence of Thiel, Sacks, and Musk exemplifies the intersection of tech industry power and political policy-making. Their advocacy for deregulation and market dominance, coupled with their involvement in government, underscores a trend toward aligning corporate interests with governmental authority. This convergence has significant implications for democratic processes, regulatory frameworks, and societal values, necessitating ongoing scrutiny and debate.
C. Venture Capital’s Shift Toward Authoritarian Infrastructure
Many venture capitalists have shifted their portfolios toward firms that build tools for surveillance, suppression, and social control-blurring the lines between private capital and state power.
Predictive policing and surveillance AI: Venture-backed firms such as ShotSpotter, Clearview AI, and Banjo have deployed algorithmic policing tools disproportionately targeting minority and protester communities. ( Source: Bloomberg 2021, Wired 2022)
Palantir and Neuralink:
Palantir, cofounded by Thiel, has deep contracts with ICE, the Pentagon, and the CIA. Its software is used for predictive policing, mass data surveillance, and targeting dissenters. ( Source: The Intercept 2020, Business Insider 2021)
Neuralink, Musk’s brain-computer interface venture, has begun collaborating with military agencies under the DARPA umbrella, with ethical concerns regarding cognitive surveillance. ( Source: Defense One, Business Insider 2023)
D. Social Media Platforms as Propaganda Machines
Tech platforms are not neutral: their algorithms amplify certain voices while suppressing others, producing an asymmetrical digital discourse that empowers ultra-right ideologies.
Facebook (Meta): Internal Facebook documents (the “Facebook Papers”) revealed that algorithmic changes in 2018 boosted divisive, outrage-driven content, much of which aligned with far-right messaging.
(Source: MIT Media Lab, The Verge 2021)
YouTube: Google’s video platform has been criticized for pushing viewers toward radical content through its recommendation engine. Simultaneously, it has demonetized independent journalists and critics.
(Source: Columbia Journalism Review 2021, The Guardian 2020)
X/Twitter under Musk: Since the acquisition, X has reinstated white nationalist figures, removed protections for marginalized groups, and blocked independent researchers tracking hate speech and disinformation. ( Source: Southern Poverty Law Center 2023, The Atlantic 2023)
The convergence of tech monopolies, venture capital, and far-right political agendas signals a dangerous shift toward technofascism-a system in which private technological power is mobilized to undermine democratic governance, empower authoritarian actors, and suppress dissent. This transformation is occurring not only through campaign contributions but also through strategic investments in surveillance, algorithmic control, and social engineering.
2. Historical Parallels – 20th Century Fascism and the Digital Age
While the fascist movements of the 1930s relied on military conquest and physical suppression, technofascism operates through digital control, social engineering, and economic monopolization. The mechanisms have shifted from jackboots to algorithms, but the structural dynamics of authoritarian consolidation remain strikingly similar.
Corporate Sponsorship of Fascism: In the 1930s, major industrial and technology corporations including IBM, Ford, Siemens, and Deutsche Bank financially and logistically supported the Nazi regime. IBM, through its German subsidiary Dehomag, provided punch card technology used for tracking and cataloging Jewish populations. Ford published antisemitic propaganda and was admired by Hitler. Today, corporations such as Google, Palantir, and OpenAI build and supply digital infrastructure that supports predictive surveillance, mass data collection, and AI-powered tools with authoritarian potential.
Source: Yad Vashem archives; Stanford History Journal on IBM and Nazi Germany; Edwin Black’s “IBM and the Holocaust”
Erosion of Democracy Through Capital Influence: During the final years of the Weimar Republic, industrial magnates funded Adolf Hitler’s ascent to power in order to protect their economic interests and crush leftist labor movements. Democratic institutions, already weakened by economic volatility and hyperinflation, collapsed under the pressure of coordinated elite influence. A similar pattern is emerging today, where billionaires use campaign donations, media control, and lobbying to override public will and institutional checks. The concentration of political power in the hands of tech elites mirrors past oligarchic interventions in democratic decline. (Source: Harvard Political Review; “How Democracies Die” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt)
Economic Collapse as a Catalyst: The Great Depression devastated middle classes across Europe, providing fertile ground for the rise of authoritarian regimes promising order and national revival. In today’s context, economic instability driven by automation, AI-driven job displacement, housing crises, and climate-induced migration is creating comparable conditions. Mass precarity is increasingly met not with social reforms, but with digital containment strategies and authoritarian governance models.
(Source: Paul Krugman, New York Times columns on inequality and automation; Joseph Stiglitz, “People, Power, and Profits”)
The analog past and the digital present converge in their structural logic-concentration of wealth, technological control, manufactured crises, and the erosion of civil institutions-all laying the groundwork for technofascist governance.
3. Technocracy and Collective Silence
The rise of technofascism is not solely the product of top-down directives by tech executives or political elites. It is also enabled by a broad and pervasive culture of complicity within technology companies, where engineers, designers, product managers, and data scientists often participate in building systems of control without confronting their ethical consequences. This collective silence-whether driven by fear, ideological alignment, or compartmentalized labor-has allowed authoritarian digital infrastructure to flourish under the guise of innovation.
Corporate Culture of Silence: Employees within major tech firms frequently report internal pressure to avoid criticizing corporate decisions, particularly those involving government contracts, surveillance capabilities, or politically sensitive partnerships. Whistleblowers are rare, and when they emerge, they are often subject to retaliation, legal threats, or professional blacklisting. For example, Google employees who protested the company’s involvement in Project Maven (a Pentagon drone AI initiative) faced significant internal resistance. Others who opposed Google’s plans to re-enter the Chinese market with a censored search engine (Project Dragonfly) left the company or were silenced. (Source: New York Times, “Google Walkout Protesters Say They Faced Retaliation” (2019); The Verge, “Inside Google’s Culture of Retaliation” 2019)
Illusion of Neutrality: Many technologists believe that digital platforms are neutral tools, not agents of ideological power. However, studies by the MIT Media Lab and other academic institutions have shown that algorithmic design choices consistently amplify inflammatory content, favor political extremes, and suppress independent or dissenting voices. These systems are rarely neutral-they are structured to optimize engagement, often at the cost of truth, balance, and democracy. Belief in neutrality masks the political agency embedded in code. (Source: MIT Media Lab, “Quantifying the Amplification of Polarizing Content on Social Media” 2020; Zeynep Tufekci, “Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest” 2017)
Freedom of Speech as a Weapon: Far-right groups have strategically weaponized liberal values like free speech to dominate online platforms. They flood discourse with hate speech, disinformation, and harassment while simultaneously decrying moderation as censorship. This paradox allows them to create an asymmetrical communication environment, where fascist and supremacist ideologies proliferate while opposing voices-especially from marginalized communities-are driven offline through coordinated abuse. Far-right influencers and networks use “free speech” arguments to shield calls for violence, conspiracy theories, and disinformation from removal. (Source: Southern Poverty Law Center, “Free Speech or Weaponized Speech?” 2021; The Atlantic, “The Paradox of Free Speech Online” 2020)
This technocratic complicity-shaped by corporate silence, moral disengagement, and an uncritical acceptance of techno-neutrality-has created a labor force that, wittingly or not, builds and maintains the very systems now threatening the foundations of democratic society.
The growing convergence between the tech industry, Trump-aligned political forces, and ultra-right agendas represents a systemic threat to democratic structures. What once appeared as disparate developments-corporate lobbying, disinformation campaigns, deregulation-are now coalescing into a coordinated architecture of control. Strategic funding of far-right candidates, regulatory capture of oversight institutions, and the construction of parallel tech ecosystems are shifting the balance of power away from public governance and toward private technocratic-authoritarian alliances.
The Alphabet-Wiz merger exemplifies this trend. Beyond the financial magnitude of the deal, it consolidates unprecedented influence over cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, and data governance into the hands of a company already under scrutiny for monopolistic practices. This merger tightens Alphabet’s grip on national security systems, effectively fusing private surveillance capital with public infrastructure-a dynamic reminiscent of historical corporate complicity in authoritarian regimes.
Simultaneously, Israel’s tech sector continues to exert disproportionate influence over U.S. political and security frameworks. Firms with deep roots in military intelligence, including NSO Group and Cellebrite, have supplied tools of digital repression to authoritarian governments worldwide. These same networks have forged alliances with American ultra-right factions, further embedding foreign surveillance technologies into the heart of U.S. domestic governance. This alliance bolsters a model of governance that views dissent as a threat and surveillance as a solution.
Together, these developments point toward a future where democratic oversight is bypassed by corporate-state hybrids, civil liberties are subordinated to predictive policing, and dissent is algorithmically neutralized before it can mobilize. The erosion of journalistic independence through platform demonetization, content suppression, and algorithmic manipulation further accelerates this shift. Media systems, once a check on power, are being restructured to serve as tools of control.
This is not speculative-it is unfolding in real time. Without broad and organized resistance, the future will not be one of open societies and shared digital commons, but one dominated by algorithmic oppression, economic feudalism, and an unprecedented scale of digital authoritarianism.
Direct Corporate Donations from Google, Meta, and Amazon:
Tech giants such as Google, Meta, and Amazon have played a central role in financing political campaigns, contributing millions to former President Donald Trump’s 2025 campaign. And be not mistaken about the scale- what is visible is only a faint outline of the broader machinery. In the absence of functioning oversight or prosecutorial will, the true architecture of this corruption remains untraceable, and therefore unpunishable. What appears as isolated donations is in fact the surface residue of a systemic alignment between corporate capital and authoritarian governance. These donations serve as a strategy to secure favorable regulatory policies, as these corporations often face scrutiny and regulation from government bodies. By offering substantial financial support, they seek to influence decision-makers, ensuring policies that allow them to operate with greater flexibility, reduce constraints, and potentially avoid heavier regulations.
Meta:
- Policy Shifts Favoring Conservative Content: Meta’s approach to content moderation has been increasingly criticized for favoring conservative voices. In response to mounting pressure from right-wing figures, Facebook, under its rebranding to Meta, significantly reduced its fact-checking efforts on certain political content. This has allowed right-wing groups to share content with less oversight. Critics argue that these shifts in policy have been made to appeal to conservative figures, including Trump, who has repeatedly accused social media platforms of censoring conservative voices. In 2021, Meta reinstated Trump's Facebook account after a suspension, signaling an attempt to balance regulatory concerns with the desires of conservative groups. This policy change reflects a broader trend of companies like Meta aligning their moderation strategies with the preferences of the political right. (Source: AP News, 2021)
- Influence of Conservative Advisers: One of the most significant influences on Meta's political strategies has come from Joel Kaplan, a former White House deputy chief of staff under President George W. Bush and a well-known Republican lobbyist. Kaplan has played a central role in shaping Meta’s strategies, particularly its approach to regulation and content moderation. Kaplan's influence is crucial in ensuring that Meta's political stance aligns with conservative interests. His position at the company has been linked to Meta’s decreasing effort to moderate conservative political content, which has been widely interpreted as a move to secure favor with right-wing groups. Meta's alignment with conservative political interests is clear not only through policy changes but also through strategic decisions regarding leadership and advisory roles. (Source: Financial Times, 2024)
Amazon:
- Financial Contributions and Political Alignment: Amazon’s financial contributions have been strategic in maintaining favorable relations with political figures, particularly those aligned with conservative causes. Amazon’s large donations to Trump’s inauguration fund demonstrate its desire to secure positive interactions with his administration. Moreover, the company has been involved in lobbying efforts that align with conservative interests. For instance, Amazon has lobbied on tax policies and corporate regulations in ways that benefit its market position and reduce competitive pressures. Amazon’s financial and political engagement with right-wing politicians may also be seen in its opposition to legislation that could regulate its market dominance, such as antitrust reforms. These donations and lobbying efforts show that Amazon is working to shape the political landscape in a way that benefits its business interests, particularly by influencing policies that affect its competitive advantage, tax structure, and regulatory environment.
- Amazon's Influence on Conservative Agendas: Aside from campaign contributions, Amazon’s influence extends into the broader realm of political engagement. CEO Jeff Bezos has long been a figure in political discussions. Although Bezos himself has occasionally clashed with the Trump administration, Amazon’s actions in making these large contributions indicate a recognition of the need to maintain positive relationships with conservative politicians. Amazon has frequently engaged in conservative-friendly lobbying on issues like labor laws, data privacy, and online sales tax, all of which affect its bottom line. Bezos’ ownership of The Washington Post has also played a complex role in the political landscape, as the media outlet has been critical of Trump, while Amazon's corporate policies align more with the political right in some cases. (Source: Financial Times, 2024)
Google:
- Engagement with Conservative Politicians: Google’s engagement with conservative politicians and leaders has been crucial to its political strategy. Executives from Google have attended events with right-wing figures and aligned with conservative politicians. The company has repeatedly faced criticism from conservatives, particularly regarding accusations of anti-conservative bias in its search algorithms and content policies. Google has worked to counteract this narrative by engaging in public discussions and meetings with right-wing figures, ensuring that its policies do not alienate a significant part of its user base.
- Regulatory Influence: Google’s lobbying efforts have primarily focused on influencing regulatory policies, especially in areas like antitrust law, data privacy, and tax regulations. The company has strategically engaged with lawmakers who share conservative views on regulation, using their donations and lobbying power to push for laws that protect their business interests. Google’s donations to Trump’s campaign are part of a broader pattern where the company has cultivated relationships with conservative policymakers in an attempt to soften regulatory frameworks that could otherwise challenge its business practices. By donating to the campaign, Google aims to solidify its influence over policies related to the tech sector, with a particular focus on data protection, competition law, and corporate tax codes. (Source: Public Integrity, Independent, Issue One, OpenSecrets 2024)
Strategic Contributions and Broader Support to Trump:
In addition to direct campaign contributions, these tech companies have taken actions that suggest a deeper, more strategic relationship with Trump and his administration. Beyond the donations, these companies have supported political initiatives and policies that align with right-wing agendas:
- Regulatory Favor: By donating millions to Trump’s campaign, these companies are aligning themselves with his administration in hopes of securing regulatory leniency, particularly in sectors like privacy, data security, and monopolistic practices. As large tech firms, they benefit from policies that reduce the threat of anti-trust regulation, protect their market dominance, and prevent stricter data regulations that could be more harmful to their bottom lines.
- Lobbying and Legal Defense: These companies also engage in high-level lobbying to advance their agendas, including pushing for legislative changes that benefit their business models. They frequently seek to block or delay antitrust investigations and changes to the legal frameworks governing data collection and advertising practices. This ongoing lobbying is often conducted in tandem with large political donations to ensure their efforts are politically viable.
"All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts..."
- William Shakespeare, As You Like It (Act II, Scene VII)
Donald Trump’s absence of curiosity is not neutral-it is weaponized apathy. His refusal to engage deeply with any issue beyond its utility for spectacle or self-preservation allows more competent but malign actors to fill the vacuum. Enter Elon Musk-Trump’s surrogate executor of disruption. Trump does not govern; he distracts. His entire method is to create noise while delegating authority to those willing to convert state dysfunction into irreversible institutional decay. The fewer decisions he must make, the more space there is for those designing the new architecture of collapse.
This design has architects: Peter Thiel, David Sacks, and Elon Musk form the nucleus of the operational cabal. Trump is the figurehead-a lazy, empty conduit through which their project flows. Thiel provides the philosophical blueprint: an explicit contempt for democracy, articulated in his writings and confirmed by his funding of candidates who seek to dismantle pluralist institutions. Sacks builds the policy scaffolding-he was placed directly inside Trump’s machinery as AI and crypto adviser to ensure that deregulation, surveillance expansion, and legal immunity for tech platforms are codified. Musk operates as the executor-controlling communication infrastructure (X), surveillance and cognitive experimentation (Neuralink), and even satellite-based military platforms (Starlink), all while aligning with foreign authoritarian regimes.
This is not ideological alignment-it is logistical coordination. Trump is the perfect delivery system because he does not resist. His laziness is their asset. He wants Canada absorbed into the U.S. not because of geopolitical calculus, but because he sees negotiations as laborious. His desire to “just take Greenland” is not a joke-it is symptomatic of an elite who have convinced him that annexation, disruption, and spectacle are governance. And when questions become difficult, he pivots. When responsibility calls, he disappears. And every time he does, Musk and Thiel step in-not to stabilize, but to accelerate decay. The plan is not to restore America-it is to fracture it. The red state–blue state divide is being deepened deliberately, with the long-term goal of formal rupture. Fragmentation into three ideological zones-red states aligned with Christian nationalism, blue states economically destabilized and demoralized, and a technocratic "enclave" state governed by AI, surveillance, and privatized infrastructure-is the continuation of the Soviet-era strategy to destroy the United States from within.
Trotsky’s blueprint, refined by Stalin, Andropov, Primakov, and now executed by Putin, aimed to dismantle the indivisible structure of American federalism. The current actors are simply finishing that plan under a new flag: digital accelerationism. Trump, in this construct, is not irrelevant-he is essential. He distracts the population with crisis after crisis while refusing to resolve any of them. This constant juggling of manufactured chaos draws attention away from the foundational restructuring happening beneath.
The real work is being done in venture capital portfolios, algorithmic content flows, and backchannel diplomatic deals with foreign authoritarian regimes. While Trump flails in public, Thiel funds ultra-right networks, Sacks shapes deregulatory doctrine, and Musk manipulates not just narratives but entire communication networks-now strategically compromised by foreign capital, including Russian and Saudi backers. The goal is the destruction of democratic sovereignty through a sequence of crises: media collapse, legal paralysis, interstate hostility, economic shock, and finally a manufactured war-likely with Mexico or Canada-as a tool for martial unification under emergency powers.
The outline is identical to the sequence used by Putin in Russia and Belarus: control the press, replace the judiciary, militarize the police, create internal enemies, and initiate constitutional change to secure indefinite rule. Trump’s team has already floated constitutional edits (“consecutive terms”), fake opposition parties, and emergency scenarios. Elon Musk is not a distraction-he is the relay switch for transferring state functions into private hands. With Neuralink, he probes the boundary between mind and surveillance. With X, he controls political discourse. With Starlink, he holds military infrastructure hostage to private discretion. And with Thiel and Sacks behind him, the tools of control are not being built-they are already in place. This is no longer a warning. It is a map.
So the inside actors are:
Donald Trump – Strategic Void, Enabling Infrastructure
Trump is not the planner, financier, or executor. He is the void through which others act. His apathy, incuriosity, and chronic laziness make him the perfect tool for bypassing institutional resistance. He does not read, does not question, does not govern-he signs, performs, distracts, and retreats. Every manufactured crisis, every shift in attention, creates space for systemic actions beneath the noise. He functions as a shell, absorbing impact while the structural transformations proceed unnoticed.
Peter Thiel – Ideological Architect, Political Financier
Thiel provides the doctrinal and financial backbone of the operation. His open rejection of democratic compatibility with capitalism is not theory-it is policy direction. He funds the candidates, underwrites the networks, and supplies the long-term vision: deregulated, post-democratic rule via digital dominance and legal immunity. Palantir is not a product company-it is a state-building tool. He has repurposed venture capital into an ideological weapon.
David Sacks – Legal Strategist, Policy Channel
Sacks converts doctrine into law. Installed as Trump’s adviser on AI and crypto, he authors the deregulatory and privatization policies required to transfer state functions to private tech infrastructure. He legitimizes monopolistic immunity under the guise of innovation. His role is bureaucratic insertion-redefining regulatory scope to shield the project from democratic interference. He is the connective tissue between executive power and private capital.
Elon Musk – Operational Commander, Infrastructure Seizure
Musk captures the infrastructure of public discourse, military communications, and surveillance architecture. X (formerly Twitter) is the ideological pipeline, amplifying disinformation and reinstating extremist channels. Starlink is the militarized communications platform, privately controlled and unaccountable. Neuralink is the frontier of cognitive surveillance, now merged with DARPA-linked projects. Musk’s loyalty lies not with public interest, but with transnational capital and autocratic alignment. His financing by Saudi and Russian entities is not incidental-it is the core mechanism of state subversion.
Afterword
Let us synchronize our watches.
The United States is no longer governed by a functioning two-party system. Institutional authority has collapsed, replaced by a façade of MAGA populism, behind which external actors operate with increasing boldness. What presents itself as domestic unrest is, in fact, the coordinated dismantling of American sovereignty from abroad.
The U.S. Constitution now survives only in fragments. The system of checks and balances has been shattered under the weight of figures like Musk and the corporate-authoritarian complex he represents. Legal structures remain, but governance has been overtaken by propaganda, chaos, and extrajudicial influence.
A national fracture is inevitable. The federal government is rapidly losing its cohesion, and de facto power is shifting to individual states. In a paralyzed economy and disintegrating political framework, the emergence of multiple successor states is no longer speculative-it is a matter of time.
The country faces two exits: a prolonged economic depression or a desperate war for new markets. The latter, modeled on Russia’s own external aggression, becomes increasingly likely as American industrial capacity erodes and elite panic sets in. Both scenarios lead to systemic collapse.
With alliances in tatters and manufacturing outsourced, the U.S. moves toward confrontation with China utterly unprepared-isolated, unarmed, and ideologically fractured. The once unified West is gone, replaced by fragmented interests and failed coalitions.
The dollar’s reign is ending. U.S. influence through financial domination is evaporating. Alternatives already exist. De-dollarization is underway. Washington’s reliance on sanctions and transactional control cannot preserve its fading hegemony. (Source: Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz)
China understood this before anyone. Just as Germany deployed Lenin to Russia in 1917, China supported Trump to destabilize the U.S. from within. MAGA is not an ideology-it is an instrument. The destruction of bipartisan order, the collapse of regulatory governance, and the radicalization of political culture are not accidents-they are deliberate, cultivated outcomes.
Only reckoning will suffice. Nothing less than an open and immediate political purge-a modern McCarthyism-can salvage democratic legitimacy. Impeachment, lifetime sentencing for sedition, criminal prosecution of media collaborators, denaturalization of totalitarian sympathizers, and mass arrest of foreign agents must begin now, or not at all.
Absent this, the end is clear. Whether by civil implosion or foreign war, the United States in its current form will not survive. The political class will argue. Legal experts will debate. Committees will stall. Meanwhile, history will move forward, indifferent to their inaction.
I find little-if any-hope that this could be turned around from within. The American system is too compromised, too fractured, and too deeply infiltrated. If there is any hope left, it lies in the hands of Old World-Europe. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany still retain some institutional memory of what it means to fight for civilization. They may carry forward what the United States is leaving behind. One can expect some leadership help from Japan, but they are historically cautious and slow to act. The burden, for now, falls to the remnants of Enlightenment Europe to decide whether democracy will be preserved or whether we are simply witnesses to its final hours.
* * *
