GET ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

€225/250$ FOR 10 ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE or PURCHASE

Techno-fascism is coming

Palantir is not just a US technology company, but a software developer whose software is used primarily by government agencies, as well as commercial clients. Tracking the enemy, planning and managing the battlefield are Palantir’s core areas of focus. The company has access to vast databases of classified information, not only in the US but in many different countries simultaneously. It is often perceived as a company that profits from surveillance, war and human suffering.

It used to be people like Rockefeller or the titans of the steel industry, the owners of the railway companies, who influenced and shaped politics. Today, it is people like Musk who, through social media and their decisions, shape world events and stand shoulder to shoulder with politicians. These people have become arrogant; they are beginning to presume they know better how the state should function, and even what this new, brave new world should look like in their visions. Musk, for example, failed in his attempt to work hand in hand with Trump to cut public spending (particularly in the civil service), but his self-assurance regarding the direction the country should take remains immense. Palantir goes a step further and has published a manifesto setting out what makes the Silicon Valley movers and shakers tick and how they view the world.

It is a dystopian essay reminiscent of the works of Huxley or Orwell. Here are some key points from it:

The limitations of soft power have been laid bare: moral appeals are no longer enough for free and democratic societies – they need hard power (Hardpower), and in this century, this will be built on software.
The era of nuclear deterrence is coming to an end; the era of AI-based deterrence is beginning.
The introduction of universal national conscription should be considered. Palantir justifies this on the grounds that the risks and costs of war must be borne by society as a whole.
Some cultures bring about civilisational breaks, whilst others remain dysfunctional and regressive.
Germany’s weakening went too far, and Europe is now paying a high price for it. Japan’s theatrical commitment to pacifism, if it continues, would jeopardise the balance of power in Asia.
American politicians are powerless in the face of crime, which is why technology should step in where the state has failed.

So the decision-makers in Silicon Valley want an authoritarian state governed by AI, which is, after all, capable of making erroneous decisions – be it in the case of criminals or an attack on another country. The Belgian philosopher Mark Coeckelbergh writes aptly on this subject: “The danger lies not only in the overt talk of repression and incitement to war, but also in a more subtle transformation: the normalisation of surveillance, the delegation of judgements to opaque systems, and the quiet concentration of power in the hands of the few actors who design and control these infrastructures whilst simultaneously wielding global influence.”

To me, proposals such as those put forward by Palantir are nothing more than a call to increase the pool of ‘assets’ under the company’s control. The proposal for universal conscription aims to make society as a whole responsible for the war. A society whose children join the army is far more likely to accept astronomical budgets for systems such as Palantir – after all, nobody wants to send their loved ones to the front without the best technical support to minimise their risk. Furthermore, the call for the remilitarisation of countries, the fuelling of hostility towards other societies, and AI-based weapons all serve one purpose: more power and money for the techno-political tandem, and more chaos to enable them to take control of everything. It would be a veritable ‘brave new world’ with a narrative of constant threat, where governments would be reliant on the digital infrastructure that Palantir will provide. How lovely!

Sources:

The Manifesto
An extract from the book on which the Manifesto is based.

Property – a huge problem in the US

The US has been battling the property crisis for years, and it is coming to a head.

According to the report by the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, there is currently a shortfall of 10 million homes in the US. One of the main causes is the growing disparity between income and expenditure on rent or housing costs. Almost half of the country’s tenants spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. More than a quarter of American households who rent spend more than half their income on housing, and recent surveys show that most Americans consider housing costs to be too high.

The difficult situation in the housing market is also reflected in the eviction figures. The number of evictions is rising steadily, leading to an increase in homelessness. A distinctive feature in the US is that the reasons for eviction vary according to tenants’ ethnic background. Whilst only 7% of white tenants fail to pay rent, the corresponding figures for Black and Latin American tenants are 19.5% and 14.5% respectively.

The housing crisis not only poses a growing threat of homelessness but also contributes to the impoverishment of society. When property prices rise (relative to income), people have less money left over for other goods and services. As a result, some citizens will never be able to buy their own home. For this reason, some young people are forced to return to their parents’ home or never leave it at all, preventing them from starting an independent life and raising a family.

The shortage of affordable housing is causing a decline in economic productivity. Employees find it difficult to live in metropolitan areas where demand for skilled workers is rising or where well-paid jobs are being created. High property prices are also having a negative impact on fertility – many couples are postponing the decision to have children.

The report also points out that the climate policy decisions taken by former US President Joe Biden have contributed to higher costs for house building. These relate to energy-efficient building regulations that imposed an obligation to install more efficient air-conditioning systems and water heaters in buildings. The document cites a 2021 analysis by the National Association of Home Builders, which concludes that the installation of environmentally friendly appliances can increase the price of a house by 31 thousand dollars. It can take up to 90 years to recoup the costs associated with purchasing these solutions.

Added to this are the American bureaucracy, which is in a state of disarray, and restrictions on land-use planning that prevent the construction of denser housing. The consequences? The most difficult situation is in California (where 187,000 people are living without a roof over their heads) and in the State of New York (with 158,000 homeless people).

Welcome to America, the land of opportunity.

Swallowing insult after insult

Sometime ago we wrote about the Polish president who wanted to strip the Ukrainian president of his Order of the White Eagle. Ukraine’s president received that order in the time when Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a mark of recognition on the part of the Polish state that Ukraine had the right to defend itself and it was also a kind of support on the part with Polish government, the Polish authorities, the Polish people that Ukraine should continue fighting, should continue resisting Russian aggression. Then came an event that upset the Polish president and the Poles in general. It was the fact that Ukraine’s president gave the name of the heroes of the Ukraine Uprising Army UPA) to a newly formed Ukrainian military unit. the Ukraine Uprising Army (UPA) was notorious for its numerous murders that its members of perpetrated during the time of the Second World War predominantly on the Polish people, but also in Russians, and Jews who inhabited the terrain that today belongs to Western Ukraine but before the war belonged to the Polish state. Historians estimate that Ukrainian bandits killed all together approximately 100,000 Polish people.

The atrocities were such that it is difficult to find similar atrocities anywhere around the world in the past or in the present. Polish villages would be regularly surrounded, attacked, the houses were set on fire, the people were killed, tormented, tortured, burnt alive, and crucified; they had their limbs cut off and so on and so forth. These atrocities were committed by the militants of the UPA organization. The acronym UPA to many Polish people is synonymous with the most heinous atrocities one can imagine. These infernal scenes that took place in the years 1943-1945 have been depicted in historical books, historical novels, and movies. The man who was responsible ideologically for these atrocities was Stepan Bandera. It is not only in Polish but also in other languages that – coincidentally – his surname overlaps to a certain degree with the word bandit, which compounds the unpleasantness of the historical memory. The trauma that millions of people suffered after the Second World War was caused in Poland not only by the killings carried out by the Germans, but also by the carnage carried out by Ukrainians. No wonder then that the Polish president wanted to strip the Ukrainian president of the highest order that the Polish Republic can grant: the Order of the White Eagle.

At the time when we wrote about the presidential considerations, it was yet not known whether the Polish president would eventually decide to strip the Ukrainian president of this Polish highest order. Now it came to pass that word became flesh: the Ukrainian president has been stripped of this order. And do you know what happened next?

Volodymir Zelensky ostentatiously packed his order of the White Eagle and sent it back by courier to Warsaw. He also wrote that he was glad to receive the Order because this order had also been given to Russian Zarin Catherine II and to Benito Mussolini. The reader will have remembered that we, too, mentioned the many names of the recipients of this highest Polish order who did not deserve it at all (the only merit oftentimes seems to have been the fact that the recipient was a head of state). These names also included people who were even enemies of Poland. The Ukrainian president used the same argument while sending back the Order of the White Eagle: he wrote that it was given to individuals who had not deserved, which is why the Ukrainian president preferred not to be in their company.

Do you know what also happened next? After Ukraine’s president had sent his order back to Warsaw, a number of Ukrainian diplomats, politicians, ministers, and presidents began returning their Polish orders or crosses to the Polish authorities, to the Polish president. They showed solidarity with the head of the Ukrainian State, and they also showed how little they valued the decoration that they had received from the Polish authorities.

You may start wondering what will happen next. To be precise, you may start asking questions whether the political relationship between Warsaw and Kiev will deteriorate. If you think that Poland feels insulted and consequently will retaliate then think again. rest assured that Poland will certainly continue supporting Ukraine. For one thing, simply because the Polish people hate Russians so much that they are ready to support the devil himself if the devil happens to fight against Russians. For the other, Poland is anchored in the western system. Warsaw will not – and cannot – and even must not – pursue a policy that diverges from that of Brussels or Washington. The comedy that we have been witnessing for the last few days will fizzle out and end in nothing. Yes, the Polish authorities have been insulted, and they have insulted twice: by the fact that Ukrainians openly venerate as national heroes those who murdered the Polish people by the thousands during the Second World War; and by the fact that Ukrainian diplomats showed in how small regard they held the Polish crosses, orders, and other decorations.

Why didn’t the Ukrainian diplomats think that giving the name of the heroes of the Ukrainian Uprising Army known as UPA to an Ukrainian military unit would not entail serious consequences for Kiev? Why were they not afraid that such a move might provoke Warsaw to bring about an end to the support that Poland gives to Ukraine? Well, the answer is simple. Kiev knows full well that Poland is going to support Ukraine irrespective of what Ukraine does the Poland. How do they know that? Why, they know the Polish national spirit; they know that Poland will not stop supporting Ukraine if the United States or the European Union continue to support Kiev. It may also be that they are familiar with the famous quotation by Roman Dmowski, a Polish politician and the ideologue of the Polish national movement, who acted at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. He is known to have said that there are many Polish people who hate Russia more than they love Poland. That means, as we have already said above, that the Polish authorities along with the overwhelming majority of the Polish people, are ready to accept insult after insult and still continue to support Ukraine so long as Ukraine fights against Russia.

Horn of Africa

This part of Africa is playing an increasingly important role in the context of the war in Iran. For whoever controls the ports in Somalia and Somaliland controls the ‘Gate of Tears’, the Bab-al-Mandab Strait – the alternative to the Strait of Hormuz.

On 26 December 2025, Israel became the first UN member state to officially recognise Somaliland’s independence. This significant decision has fundamentally altered the balance of power in the Horn of Africa and has led Somalia and numerous international organisations to take action against it. Two powerful, competing geopolitical blocs have formed over the construction and expansion of the strategic port of Berbera in Somaliland

[1] The pro-Somaliland bloc. Alongside Hargeysa (the capital of Somaliland) stands a coalition of states that are investing in port infrastructure, seeking access to the sea, or striving for military control over the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait:

[a] United Arab Emirates: The key financial and logistical driver. The UAE’s state-owned logistics giant – DP World – operates the port of Berber, has invested millions of dollars in its modernisation and is reaping ever-greater profits from it. The UAE regards this region as its key geopolitical and logistical base for extending its influence deeper into Africa and exploiting the resources of the African continent (including through its support for the paramilitary group RSF in Sudan).

[b] Ethiopia: A country with a population of over 120 million, which lost its access to the sea following its separation from Eritrea. In return for a promise to recognise Somaliland’s independence, Addis Ababa signed a lease agreement for 20 km of coastline around Berbera, with a view to building its own commercial port and a naval base. For Ethiopia, this is a matter of vital independence from the port in Djibouti.

[c] Israel wants to establish an intelligence and military base right in the Gulf of Aden in order to monitor naval movements, counter attacks by the Yemeni Houthis and limit Iran’s influence.

[d] Taiwan: Maintains close diplomatic ties with Somaliland (neither state enjoys full international recognition) and provides technological support to Hargeysa.

[2] The Pro-Somalia bloc (Mogadishu Coalition). Standing alongside the Federal Government in Mogadishu (Somalia) are states that oppose the violation of Somalia’s territorial integrity, as well as the regional rivals of the UAE and Ethiopia:

[a] Egypt: Somalia’s most vocal and resolute ally. Cairo regards Ethiopia’s plans to build a naval base as a direct threat to its national security. Egypt is already embroiled in a deep-seated conflict with Ethiopia over the waters of the Nile (the Grand Dam) – and now fears that Ethiopian warships could undermine Egyptian dominance in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. In early 2026, Egypt deployed more than 1,000 soldiers to Somalia and stepped up military cooperation with Mogadishu.

[b] Turkey: Somalia’s most important military and economic partner for more than a decade. Ankara operates the largest foreign military base in Mogadishu, trains the Somali army and has signed an agreement to defend Somalia’s territorial waters. Turkey defends Somalia’s sovereignty, as the destabilisation of the country would jeopardise its substantial investments there.

[c] Saudi Arabia: Riyadh is strongly opposed to the destruction of Somalia. The Saudis are competing with the UAE for influence in the Arab world and in the Red Sea; for this reason, they signed a military cooperation agreement with Somalia in February 2026 to counter the influence of the former bloc.

[d] Qatar, Iran and the Yemeni Houthis: Qatar provides financial support to the administration in Mogadishu (in opposition to the UAE). Iran opposes Israel’s presence in this region, and the Houthi rebels have officially declared that the infrastructure in Somaliland (including the port) will be their military target should Israeli forces appear there.

It is a high-stakes game in which the outcome will determine whether the Berbera port becomes an autonomous gateway to the world for Ethiopia and a base for Israel and the UAE, or whether Mogadishu – with the help of the Egyptian and Turkish military – can block these plans by invoking international law and the inviolability of borders. It is also a matter of survival for Djibouti, the tiny country in the Horn of Africa that depends entirely on its port and for which the expansion of the port in Berbera would spell disaster. The next war could therefore break out in this very region of the world.

Paradoxes of today’s economy

[1] The globalisation paradox (the Rodrik trilemma, named after the economist Daniel Rodrik)

It is impossible to maintain hyper-globalisation, democratic politics and national sovereignty at the same time, because:

[a] if we integrate fully into the global market, we must abandon national regulations;

[b] if we wish to retain our national laws, this slows down the global economy, on which our national economy also depends;

[c] the paradox: states are desperately trying to achieve all three objectives at the same time, which leads to political tensions.

[2] The productivity paradox (Solow paradox, named after Robert Solow)

We are experiencing the greatest technological revolution in history (artificial intelligence, automation, digitalisation), yet the statistics show no significant rise in global productivity. Although technology is speeding everything up, per capita economic growth in many industrialised countries is slower than it was during the pre-digital decades of the 20th century.

The latest invention, AI, is not creating jobs in its own sector. Since the launch of ChatGPT, employment in the technology sector has not been rising but falling. The graph below shows two lines since ChatGPT was released.

The white line represents employment in the education and healthcare sectors. The blue line represents employment in the information and technology sectors. Since November 2022, employment in the US IT sector has fallen by 11 per cent: the sector has lost 332,000 jobs and shrunk to 2.78 million employees. At the same time, the education and healthcare sector grew by 13 per cent, adding 3.16 million jobs. Employment in the technology sector is now below pre-pandemic levels. The sector that develops tools for work automation is itself losing jobs at the fastest rate. This decline is, in part, due to simple cost optimisation. Technology companies began cutting jobs following the pandemic-driven boom. However, the scale and duration of this trend suggest that AI is indeed replacing staff in those areas where the technology is being implemented most rapidly. For the rest of the economy and those who have been made redundant, this is a warning sign of what might happen in the future.

[3] The Green Paradox (described by the German economist Hans Werner)

To combat climate change, governments around the world are announcing stricter environmental regulations for the future. The paradox is that these announcements often have the opposite effect:

[a] Owners of fossil fuels (oil, coal) fear that their resources will soon be worthless.

[b] They increase production in the short term in order to sell off their stocks quickly, which causes CO₂ emissions to rise temporarily.

This paradox is best illustrated by the United Arab Emirates’ recent withdrawal from OPEC. The UAE has sufficient capacity to produce more oil and wants to offload it as quickly as possible, without being constrained by OPEC limits, in order to facilitate its transition to a service and tourism-based economy.

[4] We in the West are supposedly living in the best of times in history, but… where is all the money?

This chart shows Bloomberg data comparing the share of corporate profits in the US economy (left) with the share of wages in the US economy. This is one of those charts that tells us more about the economy than most macroeconomic reports and analyses.

The line on the left reaches a level in the first quarter of 2026 that is unprecedented since 1950. On the right, the share of wages in national income falls to its lowest level in history.

For most of the US’s post-war history, both figures moved in opposite directions, albeit within certain limits. What happens in 2026 is that both sides simultaneously reach extremes. Companies have never had such a large slice of the pie. Employees have never had so little – at least not since these statistics began.

There are several mechanisms behind this. Firstly, automation reduces labour costs. Secondly, market concentration in many sectors enables companies to maintain high margins, and the AI boom generates the greatest profits for companies that employ relatively few people in relation to their valuation.

This is not merely a question of social justice. A consumption-driven economy faces a problem whereby consumers or workers are left with ever-decreasing incomes to spend.

Joseph de Maistre envisaged the fall of the EU long before its inception

Last time we analysed why the European Union must collapse. We arrived at the conclusion that the European Union must collapse because it was born in the sick head of Henri de Saint-Simon. You will have remembered that the same person came with the idea of socialism and you will have remembered that we pointed to the fact that socialism has collapsed across the globe. Then you will have remembered that the same person – Henri de Saint-Simone – was also the author of the idea of uniting the European countries into one body politic. Now, if you have invented something that has not worked, that has spectacularly failed, then why should the other thing invented by the same author work? That was the basic question that we put at that time in that text. We should at least be on our guard.

This text will point to yet another reason why the European Union must necessarily collapse. In this text, too, what we are going to discuss is not something new by any means, but something that was said more than 200 years ago by yet another political thinker. His name was Joseph de Maistre. Who was Joseph de Maistre?

Well, Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) was a diplomat who served in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. Though he was born on the Island of Sardinia, he had mixed – French and Italian – origin. His native tongue was French, not Italian. He was well educated, well read, and he mingled in the circles of the educated people, the upper classes, the aristocracy. At first, he supported the French Revolution, but it was for a very short time. The moment he saw what the revolutionists did, as soon as he learned about all the cruelty, about all the destruction, about all the havoc that the revolution played with France, he changed course. He began to fervently defend conservative ideas. In this respect he wrote in the philosophical spirit of the Irish-English political thinker Edmund Burke.

Joseph de Maistre wrote extensively and drew not only on books, but also on experience. He also acted as a senator in the Kingdom of the Piedmont-Sardinia and for many years (1803-1817) he was Ambassador to St Petersburg, to Tsar Alexander I. It was there, in the northern Russian capital, that he wrote a famous treatise in the form of a dialogue in which he discussed important societal, religious, philosophical, and political themes. One of the things that was most striking about this text was Joseph de Maistre’s defence of the death penalty. Joseph de Maistre defended the capital punishment and argued that without the capital punishment society was doomed. What he wrote, of course, stands to reason. You cannot abolish the capital punishment completely in the sense that you cannot prevent one human being from killing another human being. Once we admit this simple fact of life, then the following picture presents itself before our eyes: if the government, the state, the sovereign – whoever holds the reins of power – renounces the death penalty, and if the death penalty cannot be eliminated because – as we said above – one human being can always kill another human being, then the highest authority belongs to that person or that group or that organization that can administer and will administer the death penalty. If it is not the government, then – by necessity – it will be gangs, the mafia, common criminals, and so on, and so forth.

Now, it is not true as contemporary intellectuals maintain that people do not fear the death penalty. Rather, the truth is that the death penalty is the penalty that is most feared by everyone and anyone everywhere and at any time in history. Thus, if people fear the death penalty automatically they fear those who administer this penalty. If it is not the government who administers the death penalty but gangs, the mafia, organized crime or just anybody, then the common citizen will be obedient to the said gangs or the mafia or just anybody who will not refrain from killing him. The common citizen will not fear the impotent government or the courts or the police.

That is why Joseph de Maistre in his famous book entitled The Saint Petersburg Dialogues, (1821), praised very much the executioner. According to Joseph de Maistre the executioner had a very important, an almost religious function to perform. The executioner may not be liked by the people, and yet he is a necessary constituent of any healthy society. Because people are not rational, nor are they good of nature, as the French Enlightenment philosophers tended to think; rather, people need to be controlled by fear of being punished, and – as we said above – what people fear most is the capital punishment. Without this punishment, Joseph de Maistre wrote, society will be thrown into chaos, while all the societal bonds will be severed.

Consider what is happening in the western world represented by the European Union, where the capital punishment has been abolished long ago. Individuals who engage in criminal activities and are caught by the police are put on trial and sent to prison. What expects them in prison? A severe punishment? Torture? Boring life? Lack of medical care? None of the above. We all have heard or read about hundreds of cases of murderers or serial killers who have been sent to prison where they are taken good care of, where they can lead a good life, playing computer games, watching television, hitting the gym and enjoying all the other human rights. How unjust that is, just think of it! A law abiding has been killed, maimed (had his face permanently distorted by acid!), and the perpetrator is put into something that is legally known as a prison, but resembles a four or five-star hotel! Feel the emotions of the victim of the crime and those of the perpetrator!

Common European citizens are aware of all this. Common citizens fear the gangs and the criminals and do not fear the law enforcing officers. Faced with a dilemma to cooperate with the police or to be obedient to the gangs, they really have no choice. What is even worse, common law-abiding citizens know that the criminals do not fear the police. Worse! Common European citizens are aware that it is the police officers who fear the criminals, the gangs, and the mafia. And why do the police officers fear the criminals? First, because the criminals can kill the police officers without facing the death penalty. Second, because if a policeman shoots a criminal dead, it is the policeman who is put on trial and very often sent to prison while the criminal’s family is awarded lavish compensation.

As you can see, in today’s Western world represented by the European Union everything has been put upside down and turned inside out. The perpetrators are awarded with hotels, while the victims are killed through the application of the capital punishment administered by… the perpetrators. It really is ridiculous: the European countries claim that they have abolished the death penalty, and yet the capital punishment is administered again and again, here and there… To be accurate, we are facing a ban on the death penalty carried out by the legal powers, but there is – because there cannot be – a total abolition of this punishment. If it is not the legal state authority that administers the capital punishment, then it is the criminal underworld. If, consequently, the reins of power are held by the criminal underworld, then society is torn between gangs and the legal powers, while governments only make believe that they rule.

Of course the collapse of European society, its descent into chaos, as Joseph de Maistre envisaged it, will have a temporary character. Governments will become weaker and weaker, while gangs will become stronger and stronger, and eventually gangs will create new societal structures and replace legal governments. Once they take over power they will surely administer the capital punishment.

And you know what? Generations will pass and again the cycle will repeat itself. More and more intellectuals, the do-gooders and other Samaritans will again dig up the idea of abolishing the capital punishment, arguing that it is inhumane, arguing that it is barbaric. When such people come to power, they will again abolish the capital punishment and the story will repeat itself.

Because you must know that the European Union is not the first political entity that has abolished the capital punishment. The death penalty has been abolished now and again in different corners of the world, and even – hard to believe! – even by the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia. Yes, there was such – even if short-long lived – period in the history of the Soviet Union. Somehow they soon saw that without the capital punishment society tended to be unruly. All forms of government learn it, sooner or later, or… are replaced by those who understand what Joseph de Maistre wrote about.

Socialism and the European Union were invented by the same man – do you know?

How do we know that the European Union must collapse? Very simply. If we only know who the founder, the theorist of the idea of the European Union was and if we take a closer look at the other projects that the same person made up in his mind.

The European Union – the idea of uniting the nations of Europe in order to suppress future wars and in order to make them grow and prosper in fraternity – this idea was made up by one Henri de Saint-Simone (1760-1825). He was a French aristocrat born into a wealthy family. Naturally, he enjoyed the privileges of his class, but he grew to become rather left-minded. During the French Revolution he renounced all his privileges and wanted to become a simple citizen (or maybe not that simple). He was against the aristocracy (his social class) and the gentry, and he supported the revolution wholeheartedly. Like all revolutionists, he wanted to improve the life of the common people, or at least that’s what he said he wished for.

Somehow during the revolution he amassed a lot of money because he speculated in real estate. Sadly, later on his speculations proved to be a big failure and so he landed up in prison. After he had been released, he had no money and relied on the support of his… former servants. Never mind that, he still wrote extensively. He wrote about how to improve society in general, and how to improve international relations.

One of his ideas was that there should be a United Europe. What made him think that a United Europe would be a good idea? Simply because after the Napoleonic Wars, when Europe was in shambles and ruin, people looked around for a solution to the problem of constant wars. One of those simplest ideas was to create one state – supreme transnational state – a European state. Henri de Saint-Simone wrote about how this supranational European state should be organized. It was in 1814, during the Vienna Congress, when the powers that had defeated Napoleon gathered in order to create peace in Europe and to draw new borders, it was during that time that Henri de Saint-Simone published his little book that was entitled The Reorganization of European Society. It was a perfect blueprint for the future European Union, the European Union as we know it today.

Why was it a perfect blueprint? Simply because he envisioned the things that you can see now: first, the supranational European parliament that we have today; second, the rights of the European supranational government and parliament that would be tasked with coordinating transnational economic undertakings; third, the right of this European parliament or European government to settle disputes between nations in order to prevent war; fourth, the idea that the European supranational government or parliament would be endowed with the right to levy its own taxes; fifth, that the supranational administrative structures would be tasked with overseeing education across Europe and fostering a shared European public morality. How about that? Aren’t we witnessing something like that nowadays?

What is the most striking is that he also envisaged the state that would initiate the creation of this European Union. True, Henri de Saint-Simone did not think it would be France and Germany but rather France and Great Britain, but that’s a detail. This franco-English core would later be joined by Germany and Italy, and then the rest of the European continent.

As you can see nowadays, all those ideas have come true. We have a European Union, we have a European parliament, and we have a European government that can decide about the fate of the nations that are the member states of the European Union. It really is so that this European supranational government and the European supranational parliament settle disputes between member-states and allocate money and they levy taxes (contributions from the member-states to the European budget). The commissioners, as we know, also try to impose a new kind of morality across Europe, a morality of libertarianism, a morality which suppresses national (patriotic) sentiments and foments rainbow sexuality.

Why did we claim at the beginning of this article that the European Union is doomed to fail, that the collapse of the European Union is inevitable? Well, simply because we know the author of this project and simply because we also know that apart from the idea of uniting the European nations the same Henri de Saint-Simone also theorised about socialism. Yes, you heard it right. Henri de Saint-Simone was one among the first one created theories about socialism – utopian socialism as it was later called by the likes of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. But they heavily quoted Henri de Saint-Simone and recognized him as a precursor of the idea of a socialist society. Henri de Saint-Simone’s ideas were taken over and developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and then by the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia.

Henri de Saint-Simone’s ideas were as follows. He viewed society as an amalgam of two classes: the industrialists (engineers, managers, craftsmen, and also… artists) and the idlers (the latter included, of course, the aristocracy, the noblemen and the clergy). Henri de Saint-Simone postulated that society should be governed by the industrialists, by people who work, people who have ideas, people who manage labour. Such society would be governed by a government experts. That future society’s motto would be From each according to his ability, to each according to his work. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

This Saint-Simonian socialism, processed by Karl Marx and developed by the likes of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, this socialism eventually came into being. It was born in Russia in 1917, and then it was exported to Eastern Europe and to some other countries in Africa, Asia (like China like North Korea) and also to the American continent (Cuba). This real socialism existed for a couple of decades to eventually collapse across the whole globe, and to collapse spectacularly with nobody shedding a tear after it. it collapsed because Henri de Saint-Simone’s project was false at its core. It failed because it tried to impose a fantasy upon reality, a fantasy of demanding from each according to his ability and granting to each according to his work.

If Henri de Saint-Simone failed in envisaging socialist society, it stands to reason that also his ideas about a United Europe were false at the core and as such are doomed. There is no doubt about that. The European Union is coming apart at the seams because the European parliament and the European government are acting against European interests: they want to wage wars they, import people from other continents, they suppress national feelings, and they try to create new morality. All of these things will contribute to a big failure of this project. Just as socialism collapsed across continents, so will the European Union because both socialism and the European Union were birthed in the sick mind of the same Henri de Saint-Simone, a real-estate fraudster who ended up in poverty.

So tactless! So thoughtless! So impolitic!

It has happened again: on Monday, June 8, 2026, at approximately 10:30 p.m, an immigrant from Africa (the authorities do not even know whether he is Sudanese or Somali) attacked a white man in broad daylight and attempted to gouge out the white man’s eyes and chop off his head with a machete. That understandably sparked violence across Belfast, with cars being set ablaze, shop windows smashed and the usual stuff. Now the BBC was – as usual – quick to present its understanding of what had happened.

Well, the BBC admits in a sentence or two – often quoting the local or national authorities or the emergency services representatives – that the crime was heinous and horrific, but the most part of a lengthy text targets the (white) protestors and how heinous and horrific their reaction to the attempted murder was. That’s also the usual response on the part of the mainstream mass media. The BBC is not concerned so much about the repetitiveness of the event (immigrants have been known for such acts of violence for decades now, not merely in the United Kingdom but across the West, where they have been invited, taken care of and granted asylum) or about the frustration, anger, and fear of the indigenous population. No, the BBC is concerned about – yes! yes! – racism. What stands out in the text is that protests that broke out in Belfast were racially-motivated. We can read the usual yada yada yada about unwarranted pogroms carried out by masked thugs, which is not tolerable and so on, and so forth.

Right at the beginning of the quoted article it is the family of the victim (the man who lost one eye, and has multiple injuries, and whose condition is serious) that is quoted to have said that they do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility. Have the family of the victim been coerced to say such words right after the attempted murder? One just cannot believe a member of the victim’s family to be quick to say something like – and we quote after the BBC – We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work. That’s the hackneyed statement the likes of which we’ve heard hundreds of times, always after incidents like this one. How is it possible for a member of the victim’s family to say such a mantra immediately after experiencing such a heinous crime? Unbelievable.

The lengthy text (with very little valuable content) goes on to say that the police and the authorities have called on the people not to share video footage of the event because that will cause further trauma to the injured man’s loved ones. Are they, the injured man’s loved one, watching it? Judging by the quote mentioned above, they are above such things, they are only thinking about how to immediately remind their compatriots of the valuable contribution of the immigrants which makes their country work! How could such paragons of virtue be traumatized? One can be almost certain the victim’s family (again: coerced? intimidated? bribed?) will issue another statement forgiving the perpetrator his act, calling for leniency of the court verdict, and even justifying it, putting all the blame on present and past racism! They are also likely to protest deportation if such were to be decided by the court!

Then much is said in the adduced text about unsubstantiated pogroms of black people in Belfast, who are of course innocent and have absolutely nothing to do with the feeling of insecurity on the part of the white Irish. Even words of a local pastor defending the local blacks are quoted: They’re good Christian people and they’re getting put out [of their homes by masked protestors] just because they’re black.

Well, the authorities – the ruling class – men and women who have graduated from high-standard schools and universities should know better. History shows again and again that a bad act done by a few members of a community will inevitably be chalked up to the whole community. That’s how human psyche works, that’s the human defensive mechanism. You may be bitten by one dog only, and that makes you be wary of all dogs; you may be scratched by one cat only, and that makes you be wary of all cats. When America was under the so-called terrorist attack in 2001, with the World Trade Center, the Pentagon being hit while the White House narrowly escaped that fate, when there was no knowing what else might be attacked, the national flight controller ordered all planes to land at the nearest airport. That’s precisely how we act feeling threatened: we do not analyse individually who is guilty; rather, we view the whole group or class or cohort that is somehow associated with the perpetrator as if the group, the class, the cohort, were made up of such perpetrators. The survival imperative does not allow for thoughtful analysis; the survival imperative impels us to act quickly and, in a sense, blindly. You cannot fight this survival imperative because it is hard wired biologically.

That’s also why soldiers of whatever army shoot indiscriminately at civilians the moment one civilian opens fire at them: the soldiers are fighting for mere survival. There is no time to discriminate among the civilians who carry arms and who do not; there is no time to assess the situation. When a fraction of a second decides whether you will stay alive or die, instinct kicks in. That’s all there is to it.

The BBC article says that the crowds should not take their frustration at the murder out on innocent people. But the BBC does not ask the question why the crowds take their frustration out on the innocent people. Why, the answer is plain: such heinous crimes have been repeated across the Western world and always committed by Third World immigrants. More to it, on each and every occasion the authorities have been ineffective, indolent, powerless, helpless – you name it. They only keep talking about peace and tolerance, about understanding and values, while the crimes have continued to multiply and the perpetrators have been treated mildly. The common people have witnessed it time and time again, and so the common people have decided to act on their own. Is this so hard to understand? If the authorities – the police, the courts of law – are inefficient, then an alternative “authorities, police and courts” will emerge as sure as death and taxes. Let us reiterate it: weak, ineffective authorities set the stage for the emergence of alternative authorities. To use again a military comparison: a sergeant will command a unit for all practical purposes if a lieutenant, a nominal commander, turns out to be incompetent. That’s the way things are, have always been, will always be. How is it possible that those who wield the reins of power do not understand it?

How is it possible that they do not understand that making the victim’s family say, just in the aftermath of the attempted murder, that, We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work is equivalent to rubbing salt in the wound? People see – either as eyewitnesses or watching the video footage – a black immigrant dissecting their compatriot in the street in broad daylight (and this is by far not the only act of public decapitation in the last decades!), and almost simultaneously they are told that the immigrants – the likes of the perpetrator – deeply contribute to the British healthcare system! How can one be so tactless? so thoughtless? so impolitic?