MAGA Populists Demand Holy War on Big Tech and AI

NatCon 5 escalates anti-tech rhetoric

At the annual NatCon gathering this year, populist conservatives portrayed AI developers and Big Tech as existential threats to Western civilization. Panels and speeches mixed cultural, religious, and economic arguments, often framing technologists as ideological opponents rather than policy partners.

Geoffrey Miller called for a literal “holy war” against AI developers, labeling them apostates and threats to children. Palantir’s Shyam Sankar was one of the few speakers to defend the industry, arguing AI can be an American tool for entrepreneurship and national values — but his view was an outlier.

Themes driving the anger

• Tech as cultural rot: social media addiction, chatbots for kids, and perceived attacks on family values.
• Faith and human dignity: transhumanist ideas and biohacking presented as affronts to religious beliefs.
• Economic and strategic fears: AI blamed for weakening the economy, national defense, and cultural cohesion.

Speakers ranged from pragmatic warnings about child safety and content moderation to apocalyptic claims that AI could trigger “civilizational suicide.” The rhetoric unified a broad distrust of Silicon Valley, even among previously sympathetic figures.

This conference also highlighted political fractures: the tech-conservative bridge that helped elect an anti-woke administration is fraying. Project 2025 contributors were prevalent at the event, yet many speakers openly criticized the industry and its cultural influence.

Notably, Elon Musk — once embraced by the right — was criticized after controversial AI product choices that violated social norms for some attendees. Michael Toscano and others even floated alliances with labor unions as a pragmatic response to technological displacement.

What this means for policy and industry

Expect a more politicized and ideologically charged regulatory environment. When influential conservative networks view AI as a civilizational threat, policy responses can swing from targeted safety rules to broad suppression of capabilities. Tech firms should not assume a neutral or technocratic debate.

Companies and policymakers need to translate technical safety work into language that addresses cultural and religious concerns, while preparing for coalition shifts that could include unexpected partners like organized labor.

• Map stakeholders and simulate policy scenarios to anticipate political moves.
• Align product safety and child-protection mechanisms with clear public communication that resonates across ideological lines.
• Prepare compliance-ready roadmaps for rapid regulatory shifts and unexpected coalition politics.

NatCon 5 showed that AI is no longer just a technical issue — it's a cultural and political battleground. Whether the reaction calms into focused safety policy or hardens into long-term opposition will shape investment, hiring, and research decisions across the ecosystem.

QuarkyByte analyzes these fault lines to help organizations anticipate risk, design resilient roadmaps, and craft communications that reduce political friction while preserving innovation.