[HN Gopher] The Nerd Reich - Silicon Valley Fascism and the War ...
___________________________________________________________________
The Nerd Reich - Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy
Author : brunohaid
Score : 251 points
Date : 2025-11-27 06:53 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.simonandschuster.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.simonandschuster.com)
| skrebbel wrote:
| 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.
| scandox wrote:
| Classic example of humour as stop-think
| skrebbel wrote:
| 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.
| sach1 wrote:
| Classic example of motivated reasoning as stop think.
| Condescend at your own peril.
| scandox wrote:
| 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.
| jamil7 wrote:
| 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.
| jve wrote:
| 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: http
| s://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/eviden...
| adev_ wrote:
| > 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.
| sam-cop-vimes wrote:
| It doesn't matter. He knows enough to be able to harness
| it for realising his worldview - and that is the problem.
| imtringued wrote:
| 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.
| adev_ wrote:
| Yes. As far as business is concerned, facts speaks for
| themselves.
|
| But that has nothing to do with the valley chips and
| computer nerdery
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| Eberhard and Tarpenning where the co-founders. Musk was
| an early investor, became the third CEO, and then sued to
| claim co-founder status.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| delichon wrote:
| 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.
| adev_ wrote:
| As far as physics is concerned (his initial background),
| he definitively is knowledgeable for a CEO yes.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| Self-driving cars without LIDAR was a pure cynical
| business decision and hasn't worked well technically.
| delichon wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| 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.)
| ben_w wrote:
| If the AI was good enough, vision-only self-driving would
| be at least as good as the best human.
|
| The AI isn't good enough. I'm starting to suspect that
| current ML learning rates _can 't_ be good enough in
| reasonable wall-clock timeframes due to how long it takes
| between relevant examples for them to learn from.
|
| It's fine to lean on other sensory modalities (including
| LIDAR, radar, ultrasound, whatever else you fancy) until
| the AI _gets_ good enough.
| Treegarden wrote:
| 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?
| adev_ wrote:
| > 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.
| freilanzer wrote:
| > 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.
| Treegarden wrote:
| Can you elaborate how this relates to his own competency?
| petra wrote:
| 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.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Good example if anyone wants it:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZslebJEZbE
| mikkupikku wrote:
| > _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.
| sidibe wrote:
| 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
| mikkupikku wrote:
| 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| Almost everything about The Culture will be immediately
| apparent from stuff Musk talks about, but only about half
| of it would look like he's understood it.
|
| The only real crimes are reading/writing someone's brain
| without permission (at which point others may call you
| names and stop inviting you to social events) or
| destroying a consciousness without backups (where you'll
| get permanent supervision to make sure you don't do it
| again). Most biological citizens have a full-brain
| computer interface for backups and general fun, called a
| "neural lace".
|
| The AI Minds in charge of everything give themselves
| fanciful names, which Musk has used for his SpaceX drone
| ships.
|
| For the reverse:
|
| Almost every biological citizen is gender-fluid, can
| change physical gender by willing it, and there's a
| certain expectation that you try things both ways around
| so you know how to be a good lover. They dislike
| explosive population growth regardless of if it's organic
| or machine reproduction, and as everyone can get pregnant
| if they want to (because everyone can be a woman if they
| want to and it all works), it's considered quite
| scandalous to have more than one child.
|
| It's sufficiently post-scarcity that money is considered
| a sign of poverty. They mostly avoid colonising planets,
| instead living on ships, or on habitats so large that if
| one was located at _any_ Earth-Sun Lagrange point
| (including the one on the far side of the sun), we could
| see it.
| tim333 wrote:
| He wrote and sold his first software aged 12. He may not
| be very good with computers but does have some nerd
| origin.
| xg15 wrote:
| 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.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Is there a difference? I mean, he may be Tony Stark to
| himself but end up an oppressor to others.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| A lot of people miss how much of a tit Tony Stark (at
| least the Robert Downey Jr. version) was.
|
| Smart, but not as smart as he thinks he is. Not good with
| anything interpersonal. Flair for the dramatic (and dad
| jokes) at the expense of those working with him.
| shawn_w wrote:
| He thinks he's Tony Stark but he's actually Justin
| Hammer.
| happymellon wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| He invented the very successful hyperloop.
| beAbU wrote:
| Did you forget your /s ?
| tim333 wrote:
| I guessed people would figure that.
| youngtaff wrote:
| I know it's sarcasm but he didn't event invent it... just
| promoted it to undermine high speed rails
| FranzFerdiNaN wrote:
| 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.
| sam-cop-vimes wrote:
| 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?
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| > 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.
| lagniappe wrote:
| >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.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| My body is just the vehicle that carries my brain around
| - and my brain deserves a smooth, luxurious ride.
| lagniappe wrote:
| Your brain doesn't live in isolation, your body and the
| fitness of it are crucial to fueling that brain.
| PNewling wrote:
| > Your brain doesn't live in isolation
|
| Well, we can't completely prove that...[0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| > a lot of us nerds value physical strength, it's 2025,
| we're not mouthbreathers anymore.
|
| Sure, I don't disagree. I just put that in to prevent
| people from claiming he was a jock now because of that
| (which would clearly be absurd).
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| The nerd/jock dichotomy is at best loosely pointing at
| some genuine clusters of interests and predilections that
| exist among people in the world, and is more often taking
| a set of tropes from 80s Hollywood movies about high
| school and using them to try to explain how real people
| in the world are today, which is stupid.
|
| (Who _wrote_ all those 80s movies? _Bookworms_! Who acted
| in them? _Theater kids_!)
| tekla wrote:
| The jocks at my school (Championship Winners) were also
| simultaneously the smartest kids at it. Most went to Ivy
| Leagues on academic scholarships. I know a few of them
| were the first engineers on several well known unicorns.
| expedition32 wrote:
| I couldn't care less about muscles but I do go to the gym
| 3 times a week.
|
| My dad died from a heart attack in his fourties and my
| mom only has 30% lung capacity left thanks to smoking.
|
| Your health always catches up with you and it's better to
| prevent trouble.
| alecco wrote:
| Zuckerberg? The genius coder according to the movie.
| Programming in _PHP_.
| lagniappe wrote:
| Are you new? PHP was the standard for that type of app at
| the time.
| orzig wrote:
| Your point is 100% correct, but for the sake of our
| discourse please strive to be more polite!
| lagniappe wrote:
| I'd prefer you focus your attention elsewhere
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| And that was really bad, although Mark Zuckerberg himself
| can hardly be blamed for that.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| At the time your choices for dynamic server web apps were
| php or perl. The LAMP stack (Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP or
| Perl) was very popular back then (early to mid 00s)
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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".
| sillyfluke wrote:
| Yeah, as I recall Carmack came out against some of the
| anti-trust actions of Lina Kahn, soecifically blocking
| certain type of acquisitions and mergers by big tech
| companies.
|
| Though I'm curious what the take of "founders first" type
| of VCs like YC on the Figma IPO is, after the acquisition
| by Adobe was blocked. Whatever the stock price of Figma is
| now, would they specifically argue that of the two outcomes
| the Figma IPO was worse for the founders? To be clear, if
| that acquisition wasn't blocked the IPO wouldn't have
| happened.
| Lerc wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| ycombigrator wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| myvoiceismypass wrote:
| I thought it was super cool when a few years ago I found
| out that Eric Schmidt was the author of Lex! I struggled
| mightily with lex and yacc in college, but that was a me
| thing, I think.
| wtcactus wrote:
| 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.
| nephihaha wrote:
| 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".
| rolandog wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| >deny that their purpose is of oppression...
|
| A lot of the uber-nerds are just regular nerds who got lucky,
| not part of some evil genius cabal. By all means keep an eye
| on them but I think for the most part they are regular
| people.
| array_key_first wrote:
| They're some of the most powerful people in America and, by
| extension, the world. Wielding such power required immense
| restraint, control, and consideration.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| People don't stay 'regular' for long after gaining immense
| power or money. I imagine it's quite difficult to stay
| grounded and humble in such situations, especially with
| legions of sycophants and yes-people hyping them up.
| sgnelson wrote:
| See: banality of evil
| sunrunner wrote:
| Is there anything 'regular' about walking onto stage
| wearing a cap and sunglasses and then brandishing a
| chainsaw as a 'symbolic' gesture (at anything other than a
| chainsaw conference)?
| tim333 wrote:
| I'd make an exception for Musk.
| sillyfluke wrote:
| >I'm not a big sucker for this kind of un-nuanced "us vs them"
| rhetoric
|
| Everyone usually has this stance by default until they think
| some batshit crazy redlines have been crossed regardless of
| what end of the political spectrum they reside in and decide to
| adopt an "us vs them, hope for peace, prepare for war"
| approach.
|
| I'm sure you have some "if they actually do <xyz> then I'll
| adopt a more alarmed stance" line in the sand, it's just drawn
| at a different point probably. That's why it's best to talk
| specifics of the case instead of declaring an abstract high-
| road stance.
| skrebbel wrote:
| You misunderstand my point. I made no remark about whether
| big tech bosses behave harmfully or not (and in fact I
| believe that many do). My point is about blaming "nerds" or
| "Silicon Valley" for power grabs by a few asshole
| billionaires.
|
| As a nerd running a startup, I dislike the tendency of many
| journalists to blanket blame "nerds" for the behavior of
| nutjobs like Musk. It's pure "us vs them" thinking, blaming
| the group for the behavior of a few.
| zrn900 wrote:
| The uncomfortable reality is that there does exist an 'us vs
| them' situation in every other aspect of society today, and
| those who ignore it end up on the losing side.
| tremon wrote:
| It's not new. Quoth one of the best lyricists of the past
| century:
|
| > There is a war between those who say there is a war and the
| ones who say there isn't
|
| - Leonard Cohen, 1974
| brabel wrote:
| Is this tinfoil level conspiracy theory or there's something to
| the allegations?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Look at who was and is consulting the President or paying for
| his vanity projects, judge for yourself.
| pbiggar wrote:
| 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.
| konart wrote:
| 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.
| pbiggar wrote:
| 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.
| polotics wrote:
| 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...
| n4r9 wrote:
| 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.
| navane wrote:
| Musk was literally campaigning for the German right wing
| nationalist party.
| chickensong wrote:
| Some starting points for you: Curtis Yarvin, Peter Theil, Elon
| Musk, Balaji Srinivasan, TESCREAL, The Californian Ideology.
| furyofantares wrote:
| 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.
| 5555624 wrote:
| >I haven't read the book
|
| Has anyone? It's got an August 2026 publication date. Is
| there even a first draft?
| furyofantares wrote:
| > 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.)
| Levitz wrote:
| 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.
| scarmig wrote:
| 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.
| konart wrote:
| >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.
| fakedang wrote:
| 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.
| konart wrote:
| >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.
| edu wrote:
| 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.
| konart wrote:
| 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.
| croes wrote:
| 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
| konart wrote:
| Again, this is my point: there's no real reason to
| distinguish them from the old types. :)
| mc32 wrote:
| You can argue the same for the capital that goes in. It's
| used for what it's used. By itself it's neutral.
| konart wrote:
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| 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?
| dataflow wrote:
| 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.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Does open source code count as "capital"? It also has a real
| and significant effect.
| amiga386 wrote:
| 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...
| arthurofbabylon wrote:
| It sounds like this book would be a good candidate for your
| reading list.
| konart wrote:
| It would be great if you have tried to express yourself other
| than some weird implications.
| arthurofbabylon wrote:
| 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.)
| konart wrote:
| 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.
| croes wrote:
| 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?
| konart wrote:
| >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.
| jelder wrote:
| The purpose of software is to reduce the cost of change.
|
| Of course "code" belongs here.
| mariusor wrote:
| I take parent's meaning to be that "code" is redundant in the
| repetition not blameless.
| konart wrote:
| Yes, thank you.
| nephihaha wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| GJim wrote:
| > 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| 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.
| GJim wrote:
| > 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.
| _heimdall wrote:
| The topic is Silicon Valley fascism, this isn't the
| crusade to fight USA defaultism.
| arthurofbabylon wrote:
| 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?
| seydor wrote:
| 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
| podgorniy wrote:
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| I don't think those pass the sniff test, but grand narratives
| help to fuel the stocks and invesment bubble
| sach1 wrote:
| 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.
| seydor wrote:
| 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
| noduerme wrote:
| 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.
| delichon wrote:
| > 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.
| noduerme wrote:
| 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.
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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.
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| > Power corrupts
|
| It doesn't, although they would like you to believe so, so you
| avoid obtaining it.
|
| But it definitely attracts those corrupted.
| im3w1l wrote:
| 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.
| delichon wrote:
| You don't believe that there are people who honored a
| principle until temptation became to strong? Only people who
| pursued the temptation?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| False dichotomy; power is not a stockpilable quantity, it
| comes from other people and their willingness to defer to
| you or entertain you. Compromising is not a temptation to
| get power quicker - compromise _is power_ , it's how you
| acquire it. The more you want to lean on the system to help
| you, the more aligned you need to be with it, eventually
| becoming one with it; you sacrifice autonomy at every step
| of the way.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It does, by its very nature. Power is not magic, nor is it
| the Force. It's not a quantity you can stockpile and own -
| power is _leased_ , it's _granted to you by other people_. It
| comes with expectations on how you will wield that power, and
| usually can be taken away just as quickly as it was granted,
| if you exercise it in ways they don 't approve[0].
|
| Power is obtained through meeting people, gaining their
| favor, entering deals, _providing them services_ , eventually
| joining their ranks and advancing to the next level on the
| ordinal scale. Especially in politics, "power corrupts" by
| definition; by the time you gain any, you're so thoroughly
| entangled in mutual deals and friendships with other players
| you're no longer an autonomous entity - and if you're not
| willing to do that, _you will never be given the opportunity
| to advance_.
|
| --
|
| [0] - Yes, there are caveats and strategems one can use to
| hold on to power - usually by playing people against each
| other to coerce ongoing support; every history period and
| every movie with a villain has plenty of examples. It's
| another discussion; my focus here is on what power is, and
| where it comes from.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > 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.
|
| I don't know that I would position the USA in this way.
|
| Different metrics lead to different "winners":
|
| Longevity: Imperial China
|
| Institutional legacy: Rome
|
| Global reach: British Empire
|
| Scientific/cultural transmission: Islamic Caliphates
|
| Modern dominance: United States
|
| Another lens:
|
| * Rome & China = stability, governance, internal cohesion.
|
| * Britain & the US = networks, capital markets, technology
| leverage.
|
| * Caliphates = knowledge platforms, cosmopolitan integration.
| lapcat wrote:
| 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).
| brunohaid wrote:
| Very good question - posted it for awareness / sparking
| hopefully nuanced "are we the baddies here?" reflection in the
| community, and curious folks to preorder.
| adamors wrote:
| I wanted to disagree then checked the release date. It's August
| of 2026. Really early to be discussing this.
| arthurofbabylon wrote:
| The comments section here is a phenomenal expository of biases,
| for the very reason you cite.
| ManlyBread wrote:
| 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.
| lapcat wrote:
| "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
| sillyfluke wrote:
| 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 (or something more substantive like his newsletter
| content). I'm assuming you're talking about the link itself
| as opposed to the content of the book or topic in general.
| pcrh wrote:
| Perhaps a link to the author's website and podcast would be
| more appropriate?
|
| https://www.thenerdreich.com/
| xg15 wrote:
| > _" 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.
| pjc50 wrote:
| 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.
| WickyNilliams wrote:
| 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
| amiga386 wrote:
| 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_LIBRA
| R...
| WickyNilliams wrote:
| Thanks that sounds fascinating. Will take a look
| nephihaha wrote:
| 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.
| drcongo wrote:
| This is the book that introduced the idea of disaster
| capitalism - how to profit from other people's misery.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Formerly known as opportunism.
| nephihaha wrote:
| 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.
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| Go read some books first.
| drcongo wrote:
| As Marx so famously wrote, all the wealth earned by the people
| should be concentrated into the hands of a few chosen elites.
| misja111 wrote:
| 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.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > 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.
| WickyNilliams wrote:
| 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...
| misja111 wrote:
| 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.
| WickyNilliams wrote:
| Fair. Though Thiel has outsized influence in that sphere,
| so it is significant even if not universal
| frm88 wrote:
| 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-...
| misja111 wrote:
| 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?
| tastyface wrote:
| "What do you think would have happened to someone like Seth
| Meyer under Franco or Hitler?"
|
| In what year? 1933? 1937? 1945?
|
| People conflate Nazi Germany with murderous, full-borne
| authoritarianism, but it took a decade to actually get
| there. They were just as much fascists at the start as at
| the end -- it's just that their ideology had room to fully
| metastasize.
| misja111 wrote:
| Not true. Long before Hitler rose to power, the militant
| section of his movement, the SA, was already physically
| attacking political opponents. That started in the early
| 20's.
|
| When he finally became head of the government, in 1933,
| that violence immediately became much more official: the
| SA was officially deputized as 'Hilfspolizei' and attacks
| on e.g. communists became legalized. In that same year
| the first concentration camps were established.
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| 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.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Crazy to live in a time less moral than the robber baron age.
| That said, our society made a joke of children making our shoes
| in miserable conditions, so we have been conditioning ourselves
| to be ok with this on our own and for a long time.
| jmclnx wrote:
| 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.
| tim333 wrote:
| 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.
| grigio wrote:
| It seems nicer than the Woke Reich
| bigyabai wrote:
| It's been 10 years, and I have still yet to hear any two people
| define "woke" the same.
| Jordan-117 wrote:
| Say what you want about "woke" (assuming you can define it),
| but its worst excesses were curbed by democratic elections.
|
| What's the endgame of a movement that seeks to discredit,
| overturn, and functionally control elections?
| pandaman wrote:
| Do you mean that the things like annulling the elections when
| the "wrong" candidate won [1] or barring the opposition
| candidates from running [2],[3] are not the worst excesses?
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Romanian_presidential_e
| le...
|
| 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn
|
| 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen
| tastyface wrote:
| Enjoy your subjugation!
| lil-lugger wrote:
| My cousin suddenly has been very captured and obsessed by an area
| of opinion I didn't have a name for, fixed money supply, all
| inflation inherently bad, Elon Musk is badly treated, longer
| government terms (which sounds reasonable initially until you
| actually think about just having LESS democracy), no minimum
| wage. After some research it's definitely coming from influencers
| linked to the SV techno feudalists - it's just such a strong
| change. But you realise real power is only useful if people can
| come along with you - if you can build support with the public...
| cloverich wrote:
| Sounds loosely libertarian, but the longer terms one is new.
| Its long appealed to technical folks because of its simplicity
| and ability to address a wide swath of policy issues.
|
| It took me a long time to break myself out of it. I think key
| was getting into the deep details of passing actual policies
| that would have enough popular support to be sustainable, to
| realize its ultimately just naive/simplistic thinking, thats
| another impractical ideology under the hood, dressed up as
| something more meaningful.
| expedition32 wrote:
| Nerds who were bullied at school and weren't picked in gym class
| style themselves the new SS.
| keernan wrote:
| I'm no historian, but has there ever been a society in world
| history that wasn't dominated by a 'privileged few'?
|
| Weren't the 'rules' of the United States of America written by
| wealthy white males who excluded women, non-whites, and the non-
| wealthy (eg non-land owning) from participating in the new
| nation?
|
| As much as the worldwide turn to fascism worries me, I don't see
| the lives of most people in the world changing very drastically
| from any other time in history. Maybe the openness by which the
| privileged exercise their power is a bit higher on the historical
| scale, but the lives of the non-privileged, world wide, really
| don't change much over history. Sure, the invention of fire,
| electricity, etc benefitted all of mankind, but the distinctions
| of 'how life is lived' between the privileged and the non-
| privileged has always been dramatic.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-27 23:01 UTC)