Paid Tier

Why I've stopped investing in AI surveillance companies (even though they're profitable)

Aimee Blushing

— 3 min read

Reading time: 6 minutes

"Every time you spend money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want." - Anna Lappé

A couple of weeks ago I was staring at my Yahoo Finance app, watching Palantir climb again.

The numbers were beautiful. I'd bought during the IPO, sold at $25, then traded from $68 to $108. This company had been ridiculously good to me, and here it was climbing again.

But something made me close the app instead of buying.

For the first time, I was wrestling with a question that goes beyond simple returns: What if how you build wealth is just as important as how much wealth you build?

The Sovereignty Investor's Dilemma

My Palantir obsession started for terrible reasons. Mad scientist CEO? Check. Cool AI projects? Check. A name from Lord of the Rings? I was sold.

But the deeper I've gone into Bitcoin, the more I've questioned what Palantir actually does. They build surveillance and decision-making systems at population scale. For governments, this means tracking communications and predicting behaviour. For corporations, it's monitoring employees and analysing customer data.

The same technology that prevents genuine threats can monitor peaceful dissent or control individual behaviour in ways we've never seen before.

The Peter Thiel Paradox

Here's what fascinates me: Peter Thiel advocates for individual sovereignty and contrarian thinking while co-founding technology that might make both significantly more difficult for everyone else.

Through Thiel's lens, Palantir makes perfect sense. It's a genuine monopoly solving hard problems around massive datasets. But there's an uncomfortable paradox: the same system that identifies genuine threats could monitor citizens who simply think differently than their governments prefer.

Historical precedents don't help. IBM's systems helped organise the Holocaust. The Stasi built the most effective surveillance state in history with basic technology. China's social credit system shows what happens when surveillance enables behavioural control at population scale.

Pattern recognition: Institutions adopt surveillance technologies faster than individuals can develop defences against them.

The Sovereignty Investment Framework

After months of wrestling with this, I've developed what I'm calling the "Positive Sovereignty Investment" approach:

Ask yourself: Am I funding my own cage?

Traditional question: "Will this make me money?"
Sovereignty question: "Does this investment enhance individual capabilities or institutional control?"

The Three Investment Categories:

1. Positive Sovereignty Investments

  • Bitcoin (unconfiscatable money)
  • Technologies that enhance individual capabilities
  • Businesses that become more valuable when centralised systems fail

2. Neutral Investments

  • Companies that don't directly impact individual freedom
  • Traditional businesses without surveillance components

3. Control System Investments

  • Surveillance capitalism companies
  • Technologies primarily designed for institutional control
  • Businesses that profit from restricting individual choice

Apply the Taleb Test

Nassim Taleb nailed it: "You are rich if and only if the money you refuse tastes better than the money you accept."

When I applied this test to Palantir, something shifted. The money I was refusing felt better than the money I might accept.

The Practical Application

This framework means potentially missing significant returns from companies like Palantir. I might be completely wrong about surveillance capitalism being a long-term threat to sovereignty.

But I'm more interested in building wealth through systems that might get stronger when centralised control fails, rather than systems that depend on centralised control succeeding.

The opportunity cost isn't just financial. By profiting from surveillance capitalism, I could be making myself financially dependent on the expansion of systems that might ultimately be used against people like me.

The Bottom Line

I'm experimenting with positioning for scenarios where individual sovereignty becomes more valuable over time, rather than scenarios where institutional control becomes more profitable.

This could mean missing substantial gains. But right now, it tastes better.

Can you build true independence by funding systems designed to prevent independence? I don't think so.

So I'm choosing to bet on human freedom rather than institutional control, even when the profits point in the opposite direction.

We'll see how this experiment goes. For now, though, I'm sleeping like a baby.

Vive le You,
Aimee

This newsletter is for people who refuse to play by broken rules. Let's build the Age of Abundance instead.

Thoughts? Things you'd like to see more of? Hit me up at: moneypowergloryofficial@gmail.com

Read more