In late August, President Donald Trump announced what he called the “biggest oil deal in world history.” Since then, the full text of the accord — which grants the U.S. sweeping access to Venezuela’s oil reserves — has been one of the most sought-after secrets in Washington, DC. ProPublica has reviewed a copy of the […]
The post The secret terms of Trump’s Venezuelan oil deal appeared first on Asia Times.
Elon Musk has contributed more than $276 million since July to Republican political causes ahead of the United States midterm elections on 3 November. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said decisions over Ukraine’s access to SpaceX satellite communications rest with the company rather than the White House. Both developments demonstrate how private technological and financial resources can influence decisions traditionally associated with government.
For journalist Gil Durán, author of The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy, published by Avid Reader Press in August 2026, the issue extends beyond campaign donations. In a recent interview, he argued that a group of Silicon Valley investors is using its financial influence and control of technology to challenge the authority of elected governments.
“We’re at a decisive stage of that race,” Durán said when asked about the contest between technology and democracy described by venture capitalist Peter Thiel. His argument is that wealth alone no longer satisfies some of the industry’s most influential figures; they also want a direct role in determining how societies are governed.
Durán places Thiel at the centre of this movement. In a 2009 essay, The Education of a Libertarian, the PayPal co-founder wrote that he no longer believed freedom and democracy were compatible. He argued that technological innovation could allow individuals to escape the constraints of conventional politics.
Thiel subsequently clarified that he was not advocating disenfranchisement. His stated position was that majority rule often frustrated individual liberty. Durán, however, interprets the essay and Thiel’s subsequent political investments as evidence of a sustained interest in diminishing democratic constraints on private power.
The book also examines The Sovereign Individual, a 1997 work by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg that anticipated how digital currencies and technological change might weaken the power of nation states. Durán sees its influence in later arguments for privately organised alternatives to traditional government.
One example is The Network State, developed by entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan. It proposes that online communities could acquire territory and eventually obtain diplomatic recognition. Advocates describe a voluntary model of political organisation; Durán regards the prospect of corporate-financed jurisdictions as a challenge to public accountability.
The relationship between Thiel and Vice-President JD Vance illustrates how venture capital can translate into political influence. Thiel supported Vance’s early investment career and contributed $15 million to a super PAC backing his successful 2022 Senate bid. Durán attributes much of Vance’s political ascent to that support, although voters, party endorsements and Vance’s own campaigning also shaped the result.
Musk’s latest contributions offer a more immediate example. His donations since July include $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund and more than $76 million to America PAC. Such spending is lawful under the rules governing independent political committees, which cannot coordinate their expenditure with candidates.
Durán contends that similar pressures affect Democrats, arguing that wealthy donors can exercise influence across party lines. His criticism therefore concerns the political system’s dependence on private funding as much as any particular administration.
The consequences extend beyond elections. Ukraine’s dependence on satellite communications has exposed how a privately owned service can become essential to military operations. Restrictions affecting Starlink-related services have prompted competing accounts from US officials and SpaceX over responsibility for the decision. Rubio’s latest remarks point towards commercial control, while earlier reporting attributed the decision to Washington.
Artificial intelligence raises comparable questions of ownership and oversight. Durán argues that investors promoting transformative AI may also seek regulatory conditions that protect their substantial financial commitments. His prediction of a possible investment bubble remains a judgement, not an established outcome.
In Europe, the debate has immediate regulatory consequences. The EU’s Digital Services Act requires major online platforms to assess risks to elections and civic debate, while enforcement of important provisions of the AI Act began in August 2026. These measures address the influence of companies whose platforms and systems operate across borders.
Durán’s interpretation of Silicon Valley as a coherent anti-democratic movement remains contested. The entrepreneurs he discusses have differing interests, and their political influence does not itself establish a common plan to dismantle democratic government.
Their influence is nevertheless measurable in campaign finances, government contracts and control over infrastructure essential to national security. None of these forms of power requires holding elected office.
Cuando Hulk Hogan demandó al medio sensacionalista Gawker en 2016 por la publicación sin su consentimiento de un vídeo de contenido sexual, nadie daba un duro por él. Pero Hogan ganó el juicio y consiguió una indemnización de 140 millones de dólares que acabó con la publicación online. Peter Thiel, uno de los personajes más siniestros de Silicon Valley, decantó la batalla judicial: financió en secreto a los abogados de Hogan. Quería vengarse de Gawker porque lo había ridiculizado durante años y desvelado su homosexualidad.
“The growth sucks.” That’s how Alex Karp, the CEO and co-founder of Palantir Technologies, described the company’s performance in Europe. He said this on August 3 to shareholders, while his colleagues defended an “incredible” quarter in the United States.
Follow The Money and its media partners presented Palantir with the findings of this investigation, along with 14 detailed questions. Palantir has not responded to any of them. Instead, the firm forwarded a statement from a spokesperson: “A serious debate is needed on how Europe safeguards its technological sovereignty. Technological sovereignty must ultimately be measured by who controls the data, the decisions and the mission: not just by the nationality of the software provider.” According to Palantir, control over data (and what is done with it) belongs to the customer.
The statement adds: “Since 2011, Palantir has been working with democratically-elected European governments and institutions to increase hospital capacity, accelerate cancer diagnoses, safely resettle refugees, combat organized crime, protect victims of domestic violence, and respond more quickly to floods and other emergencies.” It also notes that more than 20% of Palantir’s employees work in Europe and that the company helps European businesses compete and grow in various sectors, such as aerospace, manufacturing and life sciences. Palantir further states that it supports European governments in protecting their national security, including in Ukraine.
In a previous response to this same media consortium, Palantir denied accusations of its involvement in human rights violations.
Victimhood, its exploitation and its political use to justify cruelty have been among the topics most extensively researched by Sarah Schulman. A decade has passed since the writer, LGBTQ+ activist and AIDS historian published Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair, which is now being released in Spanish. “Sadly, it turns out the book was prophetic,” the 68-year-old author explains to EL PAÍS via video conference. “It came out before Trump was elected, and he’s proven all the arguments presented to be true. All of his rhetoric revolves around him being a victim. We see the same thing with Netanyahu. This idea of the perpetrator presenting themselves as the victim is now the global norm, unfortunately.”
© Capitán Swing
This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.
Login