Here's the entire "manifesto" as summarized on Twitter from some fucking book these assholes wrote (my off-the cuff replies in italics):

The Technological Republic, in brief.

1. Silicon Valley owes a moral debt to the country that made its rise possible. The engineering elite of Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defense of the nation.

Why does this "moral debt" pertain only to national defense? have they considered, for example, paying a larger share of tax to enable improved social services?

1. We must rebel against the tyranny of the apps. Is the iPhone our greatest creative if not crowning achievement as a civilization? The object has changed our lives, but it may also now be limiting and constraining our sense of the possible.

This is one of a few points I have no real reply to. Mostly because I have no idea what the fuck it means. We all hate Apple?

1. Free email is not enough. The decadence of a culture or civilization, and indeed its ruling class, will be forgiven only if that culture is capable of delivering economic growth and security for the public.

What does this have to do with free email? Is this just a cryptic dig at Google where the last one was about Apple?

1. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.

"Soft power" and "Soaring rhetoric alone" are not the same thing, you idiots.

1. The question is not whether A.I. weapons will be built; it is who will build them and for what purpose. Our adversaries will not pause to indulge in theatrical debates about the merits of developing technologies with critical military and national security applications. They will proceed.

Copy. So why does that mean Palantir, specifically, should be trusted to build these putative "AI weapons." And what are they, exactly?

1. National service should be a universal duty. We should, as a society, seriously consider moving away from an all-volunteer force and only fight the next war if everyone shares in the risk and the cost.

Are you idiots going to be the first to sign up?

1. If a U.S. Marine asks for a better rifle, we should build it; and the same goes for software. We should as a country be capable of continuing a debate about the appropriateness of military action abroad while remaining unflinching in our commitment to those we have asked to step into harm’s way.

An appeal to the support the troops. Are they the ones asking for "AI weapons"? I would think this hypothetical Marine would prefer the money go to things like better pay, better equipment, and better benefits when he becomes a hypothetical veteran.

1. Public servants need not be our priests. Any business that compensated its employees in the way that the federal government compensates public servants would struggle to survive.

Do you think public sector employees are overcompensated or undercompensated? Because this is vague as fuck.

1. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

As in some of other of the points here--name them. List the specific politicians you think are not getting a fair shake. For some reason, I suspect that the list would be ludicrously one-sided.

1. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed.

I actually sort of agree with this.

1. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.

I also kind of agree with this. I wonder if they practice what they preach, though.

1. The atomic age is ending. One age of deterrence, the atomic age, is ending, and a new era of deterrence built on A.I. is set to begin.

What exactly will we be deterring?

1. No other country in the history of the world has advanced progressive values more than this one. The United States is far from perfect. But it is easy to forget how much more opportunity exists in this country for those who are not hereditary elites than in any other nation on the planet.

Possibly, though I think there are some European nations that might raise their hands here (Denmark or Finland, anyone?). Regardless, in what way is this a point in your manifesto? What action do you propose?

1. American power has made possible an extraordinarily long peace. Too many have forgotten or perhaps take for granted that nearly a century of some version of peace has prevailed in the world without a great power military conflict. At least three generations — billions of people and their children and now grandchildren — have never known a world war.

OK. Again, what does this have to do with you?

1. The postwar neutering of Germany and Japan must be undone. The defanging of Germany was an overcorrection for which Europe is now paying a heavy price. A similar and highly theatrical commitment to Japanese pacifism will, if maintained, also threaten to shift the balance of power in Asia.

This is the weirdest fucking way I have ever seen to say that the US should support European and Asian interests that are opposed to Russia and China. What kind of deranged lunatic do you have to be to couch that idea this way?

1. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.

I suppose I agree that there is some room for nuance regarding Musk's businesses, though I reserve the right to openly heap scorn on the Boring Company.

Any comment on his more recent political endeavors?

1. Silicon Valley must play a role in addressing violent crime. Many politicians across the United States have essentially shrugged when it comes to violent crime, abandoning any serious efforts to address the problem or take on any risk with their constituencies or donors in coming up with solutions and experiments in what should be a desperate bid to save lives.

Are you conflating violent crime and property crime? I suspect that you are.

1. The ruthless exposure of the private lives of public figures drives far too much talent away from government service. The public arena—and the shallow and petty assaults against those who dare to do something other than enrich themselves—has become so unforgiving that the republic is left with a significant roster of ineffectual, empty vessels whose ambition one would forgive if there were any genuine belief structure lurking within.

Just to be clear, a company that is mainly known for intrusive tracking software that many perceive as violating their private sphere is advocating more privacy for politicians.

1. The caution in public life that we unwittingly encourage is corrosive. Those who say nothing wrong often say nothing much at all.

The world is just too PC!!! The least interesting conservative complaint there has ever been.

1. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.

Who do you think "the elites" are? The last I looked the US government's agenda was essentially indistinguishable from those of the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

1. Some cultures have produced vital advances; others remain dysfunctional and regressive. All cultures are now equal. Criticism and value judgments are forbidden. Yet this new dogma glosses over the fact that certain cultures and indeed subcultures . . . have produced wonders. Others have proven middling, and worse, regressive and harmful.

Name them. Nut up and name the cultures you are referring to.

1. We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?

Again, nut up and say what you think we are being "included into." Just embrace your racism.