Ivan Roško

Sociology and modern history. PhD candidate researching Croatian nationalism.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @Shallabal10 Ti si stvarno majstor deflekcije.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @Shallabal10 Jeje, vidi se po stavovima :)

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @Shallabal10 https://t.co/hzABfH7CcW

[john milbank @johnmilbank3]

Pope Leo is at one with socialism in the view that private property rights can never be allowed to override fundamental human needs, human dignity and the common good. But that implies a total reversal of prevailing norms.

[Steven Levine @Left_Hegelian]

This is the ultimate sign of the times: an evaluation of the Frankfurt school from one secondary source (admittedly a good one) and a Wikipedia entry! How far we have fallen.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@Lore_Chronicler Nije to ni tako loša stvar...

[Arash Azizi آرش عزیزی @arash_tehran]

The biggest lie about Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 is that they were 'anti-communist' movements. They were mostly led by pro-democratic communists.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @VlahoBogisic

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@MiseticLaw Saveznici u WW2 su bili kolonijalno carstvo, segregirana demokracija i manijak s gulazima.
Nakon ww2 u zapadnoj Europi ste do 60ih imali aboridžine u Zoo, a do 70ih diktature na Mediteranu.

Slavi se pobjeda nad Hitlerom i njegovim slugama, bez obzira na naciju. Sasvim dovoljno.

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

If governments were actually doing their job, this Palantir document 👇 wouldn't be a manifesto they proudly boast about, but a clear sign of the urgent need to purge its software from the public institutions it has infiltrated.

What are they saying, essentially?

They basically promote a clash of civilization worldview in which there exists a "they" - the supposed enemies of Western civilization, whose cultures the document codes as inferior - and a "we" who must stop indulging in decadent restraint and invest massively in AI weapons and defense software (which conveniently makes Palantir's product catalog the civilizational cure).

Look at point 4 for instance. They write that "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."

It all rests on a pretty massive assumption: that coexistence is impossible. Why would "free and democratic societies" (by which they obviously mean Western-style liberal-democracies) need to "prevail"? Why can't they simply coexist with other civilizations or political systems out there?

Nowhere in the document do they defend this assumption: it's simply asserted as the starting condition of the argument.

But it's the entire ballgame: if civilizations and political systems can coexist - as they largely have, imperfectly but recognizably, throughout history - then the entire case they make in the document evaporates.

In fact one can argue that, studying history, the big problem was not that civilizations couldn't coexist: it was that, from time to time, one of them decided that others were inferior, threatening, or standing in the way of its rightful expansion - and acted accordingly.

So many catastrophes and so much human suffering in history trace back not to the fact of plural civilizations, but to one of them deciding it could no longer tolerate the others.

The problem, in other words, has almost always been exactly the worldview Palantir is now selling. Their manifesto isn't warning against the cause of some of the worst periods in history: it's arguing for reviving them!

Or take point 15: they explicitly call for the re-armament of Germany and Japan, and an end to "Japanese pacifism". Basically undoing one of the foundational settlements of the post-WW2 order.

I mean, think about the insanity of this for a second: a private company - unelected, answerable only to its shareholders - is casually proposing to overturn the security architecture of two continents. A settlement that took a world war, and tens of millions of dead to establish.

Why do they propose this? There is obviously a commercial motivation: a remilitarized Germany and Japan are massive new defense-software markets.

But the more troubling answer is that point 15 fits into the ideological project the rest of the manifesto lays out - a civilizational contest requires a consolidated Western bloc, and pacifist members are a liability in such a contest.

So taking a step back we now have what's the most influential defense-software company in the world, with its code deeply embedded in all the machinery of Western states - intelligence agencies, militaries, police forces, welfare systems, border controls - openly outing itself as an ideological project.

They're effectively saying "our tools aren't meant to serve your foreign policy. They're meant to enforce ours."

Because, worryingly, that's what they CAN do. Palantir software is all about basically telling states: "these are your threats, these are the people and groups to watch, these are the patterns that matter, these are the targets that warrant action."

For instance the DGSI - the French intelligence services - use Palantir (see: https://t.co/3YJk88k4QY): do you honestly think the software is warning them about, say, the NSA tapping the phones of French government officials? About the weaponization of US extraterritorial law against French companies? Did it warn them about the AUKUS ambush that cost France a sixty-billion-euro submarine contract? Obviously not.

And that's exactly what the manifesto is saying. They've positioned themselves as advocates of Western civilizational unity, so their software can't undermine it. The ideological position and the product roadmap have to align, or the whole project falls apart.

This makes their software not only deeply dangerous for the world as a whole but also, almost by definition, for any country using it. When it comes to your security as a state, it is primordial you base yourself on truth as opposed to ideology. The entire point of an intelligence agency is to tell its government what is true, not what your so-called "allies'" defense contractors would like you to see.

A state that outsources its threat assessment to a company with an explicit ideological agenda is not gathering intelligence, it is essentially subscribing to propaganda.

The conclusion couldn't be more obvious. Every government still running Palantir software in its intelligence, security, or public-service infrastructure needs to start ripping it out, now! Lest they want to be embarked on the delusional and deeply destructive clash-of-civilizations crusade Palantir has now openly committed itself to.

[Christophe Boutry @Ced_haurus]

Palantir vient de publier son manifeste. Lisez-le.

Pas pour ce qu'il dit sur la tech. Pour ce qu'il dit sur le politique. Sur l'idéologie de Karp et Thiel. Sur la guerre. Sur vous.

Quand une entreprise privée se donne pour mission de définir qui doit être surveillé, ciblé, prédit, neutralisé, et qu'elle publie simultanément un texte expliquant pourquoi contester cela serait de la faiblesse civilisationnelle, on n'est plus dans la stratégie d'entreprise. On est dans la privatisation du souverain. Le droit de décider de l'ennemi, qui fut toujours le geste politique fondateur des États, est en train d'être racheté par une entreprise cotée au Nasdaq.

Ce manifeste repose sur un seul tour de passe-passe, répété sous vingt formes différentes : rendre l'inévitable ce qui est en réalité un choix. Les armes à IA ? Elles seront construites de toute façon, alors autant que ce soit nous.

La surveillance algorithmique ? La réalité géopolitique l'exige.

Le réarmement de l'Occident, la hiérarchie des cultures, la disqualification du pluralisme comme naïveté dangereuse ? Simple lucidité face au monde tel qu'il est.

C'est le geste idéologique par excellence : ne pas interdire la question, mais la rendre indécente.

Ce que Palantir appelle réalisme est en fait une décision philosophique radicale : le conflit est la vérité permanente du monde, la délibération démocratique est une fragilité que l'adversaire exploitera, et une élite technologique privée est mieux placée qu'un peuple pour tirer les conséquences de cette vérité.
C'est du schmittisme en hoodie. C'est littéralement la structure de leur pensée.

Le danger n'est pas qu'ils soient fous. Le danger est qu'ils soient riches, cohérents, et déjà à l'intérieur des États. Palantir ne frappe pas à la porte des gouvernements pour vendre un outil. Elle arrive avec une cosmologie complète : voici comment fonctionne le monde, voici vos ennemis, voici pourquoi vous ne pouvez pas vous permettre de débattre, et voici notre contrat.

Palantir est l'ennemie des peuples et de la démocratie. Ce qu'ils construisent, c'est un pouvoir technocratique que personne n'a élu et que personne ne pourra destituer.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @BrankoRadonic Nije napravljeno dovoljno. Građe ima, ali za ogroman broj ljudi nije posve jasno kako su skončali. Rat je odnio ukupno oko milijun žrtava.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @BrankoRadonic Kakav ti je ovo argument - 'istraživano je jer ima tona GRAĐE'.
Pa građa je građa a ne gotovo istraživanje ili publikacija.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@DejanBdx Ahaaa, više je komentar na objavu.

Slažem se 100%.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

Kakve hrpe gluposti...

[Stephen R. C. Hicks @SRCHicks]

Michel Foucault visited Iran in 1978 and praised its budding theocratic revolution as a site of resistance against the liberal-capitalist West he hoped to subvert.
One reason why the usual suspects are still supporting the Iranian regime.
I have a lecture on Foucault's post-modernism and Khomeini's pre-modernism in my Philosophy of Politics course. Trailer and Syllabus here:
https://t.co/4z1AaSnKXy

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @BrankoRadonic @Palla_Rubra https://t.co/rP7bSrsVao

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan @BrankoRadonic @Palla_Rubra U našem kontekstu studija ne. Ali Branimir Janković (urednik https://t.co/KaadXbOSfR) je pisao informativne o tome članke na portalu.

U španjolskom ima dosta studija koje su takvog okvira, ali tamo je taj kontekst nezamagljen s okupacijom i WW2.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@AndabakIvan This is not the win you think it is hahahah.

[Ivan Roško @ivan_rosko]

@BrankoRadonic Pa, i to je nacionalizam, mada nismo navikli na to tako gledati.