I don't think a lecture that you attended once in one country is a great example of a cultural revolution in another country; it's especially not a good example

I don't think a lecture that you attended once in one country is a great example of a cultural revolution in another country; it's especially not a good example of anything Democrats are advocating for in the US. In general, your posts contain a lot of free association between events and ideas that are linked from your psychological point of view, but which don't necessarily have a great deal of logical connection. "Democratic insiders" have not "declared war on tech". The interview is full of this sort of hyperbole, but there's no need to repeat it uncritically here. If we leave aside the fantasy "war on tech" and try to find whatever sense we can in Andreessen's responses, it essentially amounts to the following: he voted for Trump because he likes what Trump stands for and thinks Trump will be better for his bottom line. In other words, he voted based on perceived self interest, just like lots of voters do every time there's an election. As Andreessen appears to have no very fixed political or moral convictions beyond those expected of his class, it is rather difficult to understand him as he wishes to be understood, i.e. as an instinctive Democrat "driven" to vote for the other side by a shadowy conspiracy against his livelihood. I've now looked up the Google ad you referred to. It actually involves a nonbinary person who uses he/they pronouns (so not really a man dressed as a woman). As you yourself acknowledged previously, such ads merely reflect a broader cultural shift in the acceptance of trans and nonbinary people. Tech can perfectly well survive such changes, just as it survived gay marriage and countless other cultural shifts. Nonbinary people appearing in commercials wasn't a big election issue. The election certainly wasn't a referendum on this (or on the broader associated cultural changes). The economy was the top issue for most voters.