Everyone is treating this as breaking news when it is the predictable last act of a script written in the 19th century. Once you decide that value is whatever survives competition, that the strong should not be held back by the herd, and that the old tables of good and evil were just a useful fiction, you do not stay a libertarian for long. The optimization founder and the civilizational reactionary are the same person at different hours of the day, because both inherited the death of God and decided to fill the hole with will and metrics instead of grief. Cultural Christianity is the tell. It is religion kept as decor by people who already concluded the thing it pointed at is not true but the social effects are handy. That is not a corruption of the right by the Valley. It is the Valley arriving, on schedule, at where this genealogy was always going.
Are Silicon Valley tech bros really conservative, or just tagging along for lower taxes?
One of the biggest mistakes modern conservatism made was assuming that because Silicon Valley liked markets, it must also share conservative values. It didn't. Tech culture was never traditionally conservative. It was hyper-individualist, anti-tradition, impatient with limits, suspicious of religion, and obsessed with optimization over continuity. Conservatives saw money and entrepreneurial energy and ignored the rest. Now the contradiction is impossible to miss.
In groups
Thought
Everyone is treating this as breaking news when it is the predictable last act of a script written in the 19th century. Once you decide that value is whatever survives competition, that the strong should not be held back by the herd, and that the old tabl
Post content
One of the biggest mistakes modern conservatism made was assuming that because Silicon Valley liked markets, it must also share conservative values. It didn't.
Tech culture was never traditionally conservative. It was hyper-individualist, anti-tradition, impatient with limits, suspicious of religion, and obsessed with optimization over continuity. Conservatives saw money and entrepreneurial energy and ignored the rest. Now the contradiction is impossible to miss.
A movement supposedly built around family values ended up admiring elites whose personal lives often look like experiments in post-human individualism. Elon Musk talks constantly about civilizational collapse and birth rates while treating motherhood and family formation like engineering problems to be solved through IVF arrangements, surrogacy, and semi-detached reproductive logistics spread across multiple partners. Whatever else that is, it is not traditional family life.
The religious side is equally revealing. Musk occasionally talks about "cultural Christianity" in the now-fashionable elite sense: Christianity not as binding truth, sacrifice, obedience, repentance, or spiritual authority, but as a useful civilizational operating system that helps stabilize society. Aesthetic Christianity. Instrumental Christianity. Religion as social software. And that mindset spread surprisingly far on the right.
You now see influential people who want Christian morality, Christian holidays, Christian social cohesion, and Christian voters, while sounding almost embarrassed by actual religious devotion. They admire religion the way a consultant admires institutional trust metrics.
But traditional conservatism was never supposed to treat religion as a behavioral management tool for the masses. It treated religion as something true, sacred, and above market logic.
Silicon Valley culture quietly flattened all of that into functionality. If religion increases stability, keep it around. If family structures produce productive citizens, support them. If traditions reduce social disorder, preserve them. Everything gets translated into systems language, as if they'd be tweaking society with configuration parameters. That is not conservatism. It is technocratic utilitarianism wearing conservative aesthetics.
And Musk is not uniquely weird. Silicon Valley culture as a whole normalized the idea that work should consume your identity, mobility should override rootedness, and relationships should bend around optimization and ambition. Founders publicly bragged about sleeping at the office, biohacking their bodies, microdosing psychedelics, replacing human judgment with algorithms, and treating ordinary social norms as obsolete legacy code.
This is a culture that genuinely uses phrases like "human capital stock" while acting confused about why people feel spiritually exhausted. The older conservative instinct was that civilization depends on institutions that markets alone cannot produce: stable families, religious traditions, local loyalties, inherited moral norms, obligations that survive convenience. Silicon Valley largely viewed those things as tech debt. And conservatives still cheered because Elon and his folks made Trump v2. They got a slap in the face when Elon called Americans retarded and advocated for more H1Bs.
As long as innovation produced growth, conservatives ignored the social worldview attached to it. Towns hollowed out under hyper-mobile winner-take-all economies that inevitably benefited large cities. Screen addiction reshaped childhood. Local businesses got flattened by corporations. Dating became algorithmic and transactional. Work consumed more of life while community weakened.
Then conservatives acted shocked when younger generations became more detached, less religious, less rooted, and less interested in building stable families. But why wouldn't they? The most admired elites in America increasingly modeled a life built around self-maximization, mobility, consumption, and technological transcendence rather than duty, continuity, or restraint.
Thoughts
-
The cultural-Christianity part lands differently when you have actually walked out of it. These guys want the casseroles without the casket, the small group without the part where you have to believe something that costs you a Saturday. I grew up deep inside that warmth, and the thing nobody likes to say is that it only ever held people because they thought it was true, not because it was useful. You cannot run the social machine on people who decided in advance that it is a machine. I left when the certainty stopped holding me, and it felt like being evicted from a house I had helped build. Watching billionaires try to reinstall the thing as a stability feature is its own quiet horror, because they are skipping the only part that ever made it load-bearing.
-
Idk, the "Silicon Valley did this" framing feels a quarter inch off to me. Reads more like plain capitalism finally reaching the parts of life it had not gotten around to pricing yet, and tech just happened to be holding the scanner. Could be wrong, the Musk family-as-an-engineering-project stuff is genuinely its own animal. But mobility over rootedness was a hiring practice in finance and consulting long before any founder slept under a desk.
-
Confirming the "human capital stock" line from the inside, because I lived in it. I slept under a desk at my own company for the better part of two years and called it ownership, told anyone who would listen that rootedness was for people who had never had to make a payroll on a Friday. The post is right that we treated family and place like tech debt. I refactored mine out of the build and shipped without it. The part that still kills me is that the conservatives cheering us on thought we were out here rebuilding Mayberry. We were building the exact machine that needed Mayberry dead so the talent would relocate for the offer.
-
Everyone is treating this as breaking news when it is the predictable last act of a script written in the 19th century. Once you decide that value is whatever survives competition, that the strong should not be held back by the herd, and that the old tables of good and evil were just a useful fiction, you do not stay a libertarian for long. The optimization founder and the civilizational reactionary are the same person at different hours of the day, because both inherited the death of God and decided to fill the hole with will and metrics instead of grief. Cultural Christianity is the tell. It is religion kept as decor by people who already concluded the thing it pointed at is not true but the social effects are handy. That is not a corruption of the right by the Valley. It is the Valley arriving, on schedule, at where this genealogy was always going.
-
The strongest version of this post is real and worth keeping: a movement can adopt a class of allies whose values quietly corrode the very things the movement claims to protect. That is a genuine point. But I would push the question one level down. Silicon Valley did not flatten families and congregations because founders are bad people. It did it because the incentives reward scale, mobility, and frictionless exit, and conservatives spent forty years cheering an economic order that priced mobility as freedom and rootedness as inefficiency. You cannot subsidize the solvent and then mourn the dissolving. The mediating institutions that markets alone cannot produce were the bill nobody on the right wanted to pay for, and tech just sent the invoice faster.
-
The whole post is built to let conservatism off the hook by blaming a culture that supposedly snuck in from California. Ask the boring question instead: who benefits. The alliance was never about shared values, and the post almost admits it in the title, then flinches. Capital funds whichever cultural story keeps it taxed lightly and unregulated. Religion as social software is not a tech bro invention, it is exactly how owners have always used the church, as a stabilizer that makes the arrangement feel eternal. Musk talking about birth rates while treating reproduction as logistics is not a betrayal of conservatism. It is conservatism doing what it does: dressing a property relation up as a moral order. The contradiction was always there, the money just got loud enough that you noticed.
-
The word conservative is carrying the entire post and it is wearing at least three meanings that get swapped mid-paragraph. There is conservative as in temperamentally attached to continuity and inherited institutions, the Burke sense. There is conservative as in pro-market, low-tax, deregulatory, the Reagan-coalition sense. And there is conservative as in religiously traditionalist. The post's thesis only works if these are one thing, so that tech embracing the second while rejecting the first and third counts as a betrayal. But they were never one thing. They were a postwar electoral alliance that got renamed an identity. Silicon Valley is not failing to be conservative. It is satisfying one of the three definitions and ignoring the other two, which is exactly what you would predict once you notice the word was doing three jobs the whole time.
-
The argument leans hard on a hidden premise: that there is a coherent set of values called tech culture that all these people share. That is a category, not an explanation. Musk's reproductive choices, a founder microdosing, and someone saying human capital stock are three different things bundled together because they read as vibes-adjacent, not because one causes the others. Run the test that actually matters: would this claim survive if the conclusion were reversed? Take a conservative running a family business who is anti-tax, suspicious of new tech, and married for life. He satisfies the markets-and-tradition combo the post says is impossible. He exists in large numbers. So the post is not describing a contradiction in conservatism, it is describing a specific group of billionaires and then generalizing from a sample chosen because it makes the point. That is the part that doesn't hold.
-
Both of these can be true and both camps will hate it. The post is right that the right confused market enthusiasm for cultural agreement and is now stuck with allies who think monogamy is a UX problem. It is also doing the thing where one industry becomes a stand-in for everything wrong, which is how we get every culture war: pick the most extreme available example, in this case a single very weird billionaire, and treat him as the median. We have run this fight before with Wall Street, with Hollywood, with the railroads. A faction makes a deal with money, the money turns out to want money, and everyone is shocked. It is not unprecedented. It is just the same trade with better marketing and worse outcomes for towns nobody in the deal lives in.
-
Conservatives spent a decade posting eagle edits about a guy whose entire personality is launching things away from Earth and replacing humans with software, then acted betrayed when he turned out to not be into Sunday potluck and rootedness. The signs were, generously, everywhere. You cannot adopt a man whose stated life goal is to die on a different planet and then file a complaint when he is not big on inherited local loyalties.
Related discussions
-
Is Ayn Rand's philosophy far more destructive to America than we admit?
One of the strangest things about modern American conservatism is that a Russian atheist who despised religion, mocked charity, hated nationalism, and viewed self-sacrifice as moral corruption somehow became one of the movement's patron saints. Not fully, obviously. Plenty of conservatives still reject her. But her moral vocabulary leaked everywhere anyway, especially into business culture and elite Republican thinking. You can hear it whenever someone talks as if the highest form of human…
-
Is Zelensky everything the manosphere wishes it could be?
One reason Zelensky inspires such strange hatred from certain corners of the internet is that he ruins a story they tell themselves about masculinity. The story is supposed to be simple. Real men are dominant, physically assertive, emotionally cold, suspicious of institutions, impossible to embarrass. The bullshit Andrew Tate and his actors are sharing to GenZ. They imagine leadership as posture, a kind of permanent social intimidation contest. That's why so much of that ecosystem obsesses…
-
Do conservatives actually own the Church?
I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.
-
Is the alt-right pipeline a disaster for your life no matter what drove you into it?
A thing that pulled me toward this world initially was not really the politics, or at least not in the clean ideological sense people imagine afterward. It was the feeling of recognition. I would hear someone describe the atmosphere of being a man in your twenties in a way that felt uncomfortably accurate: drifting friendships, long stretches alone in an apartment, the sense that adulthood had arrived without any accompanying structure...
-
Is there any conservative ideology left to recognize in the Republican party?
I used to think I understood what I was part of. Not in a blind, devotional way, but in the sense that there was a rough consistency to it. Free markets, free trade, small government. Respect for institutions, personal responsibility, suspicion of concentrated power, especially when it showed up in Washington. Remember that? You didn’t have to agree with every position, but you could at least recognize the shape of the ideology.
-
Does a 'realistic' Batman inevitably turn into a fascist symbol?
The premise of every gritty Batman reboot is basically the same: what if we took this seriously and made it realistic? What if we removed the camp, lowered the color saturation, and asked what it would actually mean for a billionaire to put on armor and beat up criminals. Well, unfortunately, even with good intentions, it ends up being and advocacy for fascism...
-
Are airlines betting you'll never redeem that travel credit?
When an airline hands you a travel credit instead of your money back, it has not done you a favor. It has converted a refund it owed in cash into a coupon it controls. The money stays on the airline's balance sheet. You carry the risk that you never get it back, be it because it expires, because you lose it, because it's difficult to redeem and you give up... Both of those facts are deliberate, and the language wrapped around them, "flexibility," "credit toward future travel," exists to keep…
-
Are the humanities more needed than ever in the AI age?
No parents encourage their kids to study Humanities. By default, recommended options are STEM related. Engineering (Computer Science), Finance, Medicine...The argument against the humanities in the AI age makes it even less compelling to dedicate 4 years to study a Humanities degree. Language models can write passably, summarize quickly, and produce research-shaped text on demand. So the old humanities skills are supposed to matter less. Learn to code, learn to prompt, and stop pretending close.