Subscribe now

While Moscow leases airstrips and signs access agreements with unstable military regimes, Beijing has been doing something considerably more durable. It owns quays, railways, mines, refineries and fiber networks. Governments can change overnight. Infrastructure has a rather longer memory.

On March 20, 1602, the States General of the Netherlands granted a charter to the newly created Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, the Dutch East India Company. The document deserves more attention than it usually receives in textbooks of political theory. A private corporation was authorized to negotiate treaties with foreign princes, construct fortifications, maintain armed forces, mint money and wage war in its own name. The men who governed the company were merchants, shareholders and directors. Yet from their offices in Amsterdam they acquired powers that would normally belong to sovereign governments.

There is something profoundly revealing about that arrangement. Modern sovereignty did not emerge in a world where economics and politics were neatly separated. Quite the opposite. The modern state was accompanied from the beginning by institutions capable of carrying political power through commercial instruments. The Dutch understood this remarkably well. The company became an extension of state power precisely because it was allowed to operate beyond the ordinary limits of a commercial enterprise.

China appears to have studied the lesson carefully, although it has turned the arrangement upside down. The Dutch delegated elements of sovereignty to a company. Beijing places its companies inside a larger structure of national sovereignty. The legal language is different. The strategic consequence can be surprisingly similar.

That is the first key to understanding what China has been doing in Africa. The temptation, particularly in Western security circles, is to look for military bases. Bases are visible. They appear on maps, satellite images and intelligence reports. They produce the comforting illusion that power can be measured by counting uniforms.

Djibouti complicates that assumption. China has one confirmed military base in Africa, established there after years of negotiations with the Djiboutian government. A defense agreement in 2014 opened the way for access by the People’s Liberation Army Navy, construction began in 2016 and the installation was formally opened in 2017. Beijing initially presented the project as part of a broader multifunctional civilian facility at Doraleh. The eventual military character of the installation became increasingly difficult to conceal.

The base can accommodate roughly two thousand personnel and includes a substantial pier capable of receiving large naval vessels. It is also located only a few kilometers from Camp Lemonnier, the major American military facility in Djibouti. French, Japanese and Italian forces operate in the same strategic environment.

The geography is almost more important than the buildings themselves. Several major powers are already concentrated around one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints. The Chinese installation therefore did not appear in an empty landscape. Beijing entered a strategic neighborhood that had already been militarized by others.

Djibouti, however, is the exception. The larger Chinese presence in Africa is commercial, financial and infrastructural. Its strategic implications emerge only when the individual pieces are placed on the same map.

Look at the ports.

Kribi in Cameroon. Lekki in Nigeria. Lomé in Togo. Doraleh in Djibouti. Ports, terminals and concessions extending through Angola, Namibia and Tanzania. Chinese state owned companies have financed, constructed, operated or acquired stakes in important parts of this infrastructure.

The significance is easy to underestimate because a container terminal looks like a container terminal. Steel cranes do not carry flags. Warehouses do not make speeches. A concession agreement rarely produces the kind of images that accompany a military deployment.

Yet control over infrastructure creates a form of strategic permanence that military access agreements often lack. A government can revoke an agreement. It can expel foreign advisers. It can announce a new foreign policy from the steps of a presidential palace. But if the same government depends upon foreign capital, engineers, equipment, maintenance contracts, financing and technical expertise to keep its port operating, sovereignty becomes a considerably more complicated proposition.

This is what is sometimes described as dual use infrastructure. The expression sounds technical enough to make the phenomenon appear harmless. It is not harmless. Nor does it automatically mean that every Chinese financed port is secretly a military base.

The more interesting point lies elsewhere. A commercial port creates logistical capacity. A logistical network creates strategic options. Once the infrastructure exists, the political decision to use it differently can be made later.

The infrastructure therefore precedes the doctrine.

That distinction matters because Western analysis frequently oscillates between two errors. One imagines that every Chinese investment is innocent commerce. The other imagines that every Chinese investment is a military operation in civilian clothing. Reality is considerably more sophisticated.

There is currently no confirmed Chinese naval base on the African Atlantic. Reports since 2021 have pointed to alleged discussions involving Equatorial Guinea and, subsequently, Gabon. Beijing and the governments concerned have denied the claims. There are also serious arguments that Western assessments sometimes exaggerate both China’s intentions and its immediate need for an Atlantic military facility.

There are good reasons for caution.

Djibouti offered Beijing an unusually convenient strategic environment because several foreign military powers were already present. An Atlantic base on the Gulf of Guinea would be a different proposition. It would attract immediate American attention and generate a degree of diplomatic pressure that Beijing may have little reason to invite before it becomes necessary.

The important question, therefore, is not whether every port hides a Chinese warship.

The important question is what happens when commercial infrastructure accumulates across an entire continent and the company operating the infrastructure belongs to a political system in which the distinction between economic and strategic interest is considerably less rigid than it is in the West.

For that, one must leave the ports and go underground.

The Congo provides the clearest example.

Chinese companies have acquired major positions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s copper and cobalt sector. Yet ownership of mines tells only part of the story. The decisive advantage lies farther along the industrial chain, particularly in processing and refining.

Mining is only the beginning.

A mineral extracted from the ground has little strategic value by itself if another country controls the technology, capital, processing capacity and industrial infrastructure required to transform it into something useful. Copper and cobalt become strategically important when they are incorporated into batteries, electronics, energy systems, aerospace components and military technologies.

Beijing spent years constructing precisely that industrial chain while much of the Western political establishment was occupied with sustainability reports, corporate governance and declarations of strategic autonomy.

Now Washington and Brussels are trying to build an alternative.

The Lobito Corridor is the most visible example. The project seeks to connect the copper and cobalt producing regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia with the Angolan port of Lobito on the Atlantic. It has been presented as an important Western response to the Belt and Road Initiative and as a means of reducing dependence on Chinese controlled routes and processing networks.

There is an irony here that deserves more attention.

The Benguela railway, whose rehabilitation is central to the corridor, was originally built under Portuguese colonial rule. Moreover, previous efforts to restore the railway also depended on Chinese financing. The Western attempt to create an alternative route to Chinese dominated supply chains therefore runs, in part, through infrastructure whose history already passes through both European colonialism and Chinese capital.

History has a peculiar sense of humor.

The Lobito Corridor may become strategically important. But it still has to prove that it can move minerals at the scale required. Financing for the Zambian section remains incomplete, with the project expected to require further commitments before the line can operate at its intended capacity.

Meanwhile, another corridor has existed for decades.

The TAZARA railway, linking Zambia to Tanzania, was built with Chinese support in the 1970s. It is a physical reminder that China’s African strategy did not begin with the Belt and Road Initiative. The vocabulary changed. The scale changed. The financial instruments changed. The underlying patience did not.

And then there is the part of the Chinese presence that is almost invisible.

Fiber.

Submarine cables. Telecommunications networks. Data centers. Digital infrastructure. Surveillance systems. Smart city platforms. Facial recognition technology sold alongside broader packages of urban security and communications infrastructure.

A port can be seen from the air. A mine can be photographed from a satellite. Fiber is different. Much of its strategic importance lies precisely in the fact that ordinary citizens never see it.

Whoever builds a country’s telecommunications backbone acquires a degree of familiarity with its information flows that no traditional embassy can reproduce.

This does not mean that every Chinese telecommunications project is an intelligence operation. Claims concerning the alleged extraction of data from African Union headquarters, reported in 2018 and denied by both Beijing and the African Union, remain disputed and should be treated as such.

But the dispute over one episode should not obscure the structural question.

Infrastructure creates access.

Access creates dependency.

Dependency creates political leverage.

The process is remarkably mundane, which is precisely why it is so difficult to perceive.

This also explains why the Chinese presence in Africa should not simply be placed alongside the Russian one as if both represented variations of the same strategy.

They do not.

Moscow has generally relied upon military access, security contracts, political relationships with regimes and the deployment of relatively limited hard power. Such arrangements can be effective, especially when a government needs immediate protection.

They are also vulnerable to political change.

A military junta can expel foreign advisers. A new government can cancel an agreement. A president can stand before a microphone and announce that the relationship has ended.

Infrastructure is much harder to expel.

A railway cannot be sent home on a military transport aircraft. A port cannot be ordered to leave the country. A refinery does not disappear because a new government has changed its foreign policy.

If the host government attempts to nationalize the asset, it faces another problem. It needs engineers. It needs spare parts. It needs financing. It needs technical expertise. It needs capital to maintain what it has just taken over.

That is where the deeper asymmetry appears.

Russia often rents the strategic access it requires.

China increasingly owns the physical environment through which that access can eventually be exercised.

The distinction is not merely semantic. It is the difference between borrowing the keys to a building and owning the building.

Africa understands this better than many Western commentators seem willing to admit.

Governments across the continent are not waiting for philosophical lectures about the proper morality of foreign investment. They need ports. They need railways. They need electricity. They need telecommunications networks. They need refineries and industrial capacity.

And here the Western problem becomes painfully simple.

If Washington and Brussels offer moral warnings, feasibility studies and promises about what might be built someday, while Beijing arrives with financing, engineers, contractors and a completed port, the political choice becomes rather obvious.

Africa has heard promises of salvation before. They came in Portuguese, French and English. Today many of them arrive in Mandarin.

The real question is whether the language has changed because the method has changed, or because the old method finally found a more efficient owner.

China does not need to occupy Africa in the nineteenth century sense of the word. It does not need colonial governors, expeditionary armies or flags planted above administrative buildings.

Leave a comment

It needs something more prosaic.

The quay.

The railway.

The mine.

The refinery.

The cable.

Once those things are in place, sovereignty acquires a new geography.

And the most consequential empire of the twenty first century may therefore be the one that never needs to call itself an empire.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Aristotle opens the Politics with a claim that twenty three centuries of commentary have failed to soften, namely that man is by nature an animal of the polis, and that whoever stands outside the city by nature rather than by accident is either a beast or a god. He offered it as a description of the human creature. Silicon Valley has read it as a market opportunity.

Consider the career of the TerraMar Project, founded in 2012 by Ghislaine Maxwell, who is now serving twenty years for trafficking minors on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. In 2014 she was on stage explaining how technology might be leveraged to build a global ocean community, which her own publicity elsewhere called a digital ocean country, complete with passports issued to citizens of the sea in exchange for a pledge and, where possible, a donation. She took the case to the United Nations that same year in support of a dedicated ocean development goal. By the testimony of TerraMar's own tax filings the organisation disbursed no grants whatsoever between 2013 and 2017, and it dissolved in July 2019, within days of Epstein's arrest. Broadly speaking, a conservation charity that conserved nothing, funded nothing and evaporated the instant its patron was handcuffed was performing some function, and conservation does not appear to have been it.

The idea travelled well, because it dovetailed with the ambitions of Peter Thiel, Palantir cofounder and amateur Antichrist scholar, who has been arguing for the better part of two decades that permanent settlements in international waters would let serious people live beyond the reach of regulators and, more to the point, beyond the reach of voters. The vehicle was the Seasteading Institute, founded in 2008 with Thiel's money by Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton Friedman, whose grandfather spent a career insisting that free societies are built by persuading people and whose grandson concluded that persuasion is the bottleneck. The project ran aground on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which declines to let floating platforms manufacture territorial claims, and so it came ashore and went looking for governments willing to sell what the ocean would not give, first in French Polynesia, then in Panama, then in the Philippines.

Here, dear reader, the thing stops being eccentric and becomes policy. California Forever, assembled by a former Goldman Sachs trader with money from the usual Valley names, has spent years quietly buying some sixty thousand acres of prime Solano County farmland in order to build the perfect fifteen minute city from nothing, which is to say Hank Scorpio's Cypress Creek with a sustainability report. Próspera sits on Roatán, incorporated in Delaware, financed by Thiel-adjacent capital, operating under a Honduran special regime that handed it authority over its own tax, regulatory and legal arrangements, and it is now suing the Republic of Honduras for something near eleven billion dollars because the country changed its mind. Over the ruins of Gaza there circulate American backed reconstruction proposals written in the vocabulary of public private trusts, technology parks, luxury resorts and smart cities, which is a remarkable idiom to deploy above that particular ground and above the people still under it

And then there is Pax Silica, the State Department's flagship supply chain and artificial intelligence programme, launched with thirteen partner nations and pitched openly as the American answer to the Belt and Road. Its first project is a four thousand acre Economic Security Zone in the Luzon Economic Corridor, designated by Manila, co-developed with the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, anchored by Foxconn, with the Development Finance Corporation standing by to fund it. The State Department's own language describes a planned constellation of integrated manufacturing sites across multiple continents. Note that this one is not a libertarian fantasy at all, since it is a sovereign state building the enclaves itself, which ought to worry you rather more than the floating platforms ever did.

Venezuela belongs in the same conversation. January brought the American military raid that pulled Nicolás Maduro out of Caracas and into a New York jail cell, installed his own vice president as caretaker, and produced a presidential announcement that the United States would run the country temporarily while American oil firms spent billions repairing its infrastructure. Then, on the twenty fourth of June, twin earthquakes of magnitude seven point two and seven point five struck thirty nine seconds apart, killing thousands, leaving tens of thousands unaccounted for and flattening whole neighbourhoods in La Guaira, Caraballeda and Catia La Mar. Let me be exact about what I am claiming, because the distinction is the whole of my credibility. The earthquake was an act of geology and I say nothing else about it. What I do say is that the reconstruction of a devastated coastline, under a caretaker government installed by a foreign power that has publicly declared its intention to administer the place, is a commercial opportunity of a scale that does not present itself twice in a century, and that men who spent fifteen years hunting for somewhere to build a city from scratch are not in the habit of missing such things.

Patri Friedman has been admirably candid about the appeal, having complained that the barriers to entry in the governance business are insane, inasmuch as acquiring a state requires winning an election, mounting a revolution or fighting a war. Thiel put it more elegantly, wondering aloud whether one might unilaterally change the world by technological means without having to convince and beg and plead with people who were never going to agree anyway. There is no conspiracy to expose, given that both men published the argument under their own names and nobody bothered to read it.

Which brings us to the part nobody says out loud, so I will say it and mark it as my reasoning rather than anybody's finding. A territory constituted specifically to sit outside the enforcement authority of any state is, by its own published design specification, a place where anything at all may be done to anyone with no agency competent to walk in and stop it. That is not lurid speculation about what such places might attract, since we already possess the case study. The last stretch of private territory operated beyond effective jurisdiction by a very rich man with very good lawyers turned out to be precisely what everybody now knows it was, and the woman who was selling ocean passports in the first paragraph of this piece is doing twenty years for what happened on it. I accuse nobody of anything. I observe that the architecture is identical, that the founders have proposed no remedy, and that in every version of the blueprint the clause guaranteeing immunity from outside regulators arrives long before any clause explaining how a resident might complain.

So we return to the Stagirite, who would have recognised the whole business on sight. What is being marketed as innovation is the oldest political appetite there is, the wish to rule without being ruled, to legislate without being legislated for, to enjoy the fruits of a common life while owing nothing to the commons that produced it. The medieval baron at least had to live among his peasants and occasionally listen to them complain. Broadly speaking, the charter city is a manor house with an app, and the citizen it promises to liberate turns out on inspection to be a subscriber, since no founding charter yet drafted contains a mechanism for throwing the founders out.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

The Estado da Índia, that Portuguese apparatus of the sixteenth century which school textbooks dismiss in two lines between Vasco da Gama and Cabral, never conquered India. It occupied Hormuz, Goa, Malacca, Diu, and a dozen waystations and trading posts distributed along the routes that mattered, and from those points it governed an entire ocean without administering half a dozen villages inland. The Portuguese had understood, with that harsh pragmatism that our historians usually confuse with the absence of a plan, that the power of an empire depends far less on the extent of the territory painted on the map than on the number of places where its ships can resupply. Roughly speaking, it is the same lesson that Moscow has been applying in Africa, with four and a half centuries of delay and with results that would deserve considerably greater attention than they have been given.

The central piece of this arrangement is called Libya. Since April 2024, when the Africa Corps landed in the east of the country under the protection of Khalifa Haftar, satellite images examined by American research centers have been recording continuous works at at least six Libyan air bases, among them Al-Khadim, Al-Jufra, Tamanhint, Brak al-Shati, Al-Qardabiyah, and Maaten al-Sarra, the latter conveniently abutting the borders with Chad and Sudan. The constructions observed have far less to do with flags being raised than with lengthened runways, new hangars, revetments, and depots—that is, exactly what is needed by anyone intending to move personnel and cargo over long distances without depending on the goodwill of third parties. To the port of Tobruk, in turn, thousands of tons of equipment have arrived by sea, while reports accumulate about the Russian ambition to establish some form of permanent naval facility in Cyrenaica.

The chronology helps to understand the haste. With the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024 and the sudden uncertainty that descended upon the future of the Russian installations in Syria, what until then had been a convenience turned into a strategic necessity. Moscow lost, or nearly lost, the Mediterranean rear base that sustained its African operations, and reacted in the predictable manner, namely, by reinforcing the point immediately available to the south. Every empire worthy of the name learns early this elementary arithmetic, according to which the loss of one support obliges the densification of the others.

There is, however, a change of institutional nature that makes the episode far more serious than the sum of the engineering works. While the Wagner Group existed, the Kremlin operated under the comfort of plausible deniability, availing itself of a private company of mercenaries whose crimes could be attributed to the greed of an eccentric businessman and whose failures never formally compromised the Russian Federation. Prigozhin died, and with him died the legal fiction. The Africa Corps answers to the Ministry of Defense, operates under the command of career officers linked to military intelligence, and therefore carries the signature of the Russian state on every access agreement it signs. Moscow exchanged the convenience of the disguise for the solidity of official letterhead, and those who make this kind of exchange are usually planning to stay.

To the south, the Sahel provides the depth. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, united in the Alliance of Sahel States after the sequence of coups that expelled France from the region, have become recipients of convoys, instructors, and military material, while Guinea and Togo have entered the menu of Atlantic possibilities—the latter by means of a military cooperation agreement that, according to still not fully corroborated findings, provides for port access. Add Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Equatorial Guinea, and the design ceases to be a scattered collection of partnerships and begins to resemble a chain of waystations linking the Mediterranean to the Gulf of Guinea. Washington calls this a presence. It would be more honest to call it a route.

Here, dear reader, lies the only good news of the paragraph, and it is ambiguous. Russia is far from having solved the problem that brought it there. Since September 2025, JNIM has imposed a fuel blockade on Bamako, strangling the Kayes road, through which the bulk of Malian gold flows and the supply coming from Senegal transits. The capital of a state that hosts thousands of Russian operators went months without sufficient gasoline; rumors of internal dissension circulate among the officer corps; and relations between Malian military and their foreign tutors have been described as tense. Russian security assistance, once examined by the simplest criterion of all (namely, whether the jihadists continue to operate) has produced protected regimes and unprotected populations. The juntas survive. The countries, not so much.

This fragility constitutes the American margin of maneuver, provided Washington resists the temptation that is congenital to it, namely, that of responding to the Russian presence by planting bases everywhere an instructor from Moscow appears. The disaster of Agadez, in Niger, should suffice as a warning, for it serves no purpose to build an aerial surveillance installation costing billions of dollars if the host can expel it by means of a three-paragraph communiqué. The relevant competition is not over the number of soldiers stationed, but over control of that which determines reach, that is, ports, airstrips, transport corridors, overflight agreements, and intelligence partnerships with governments that have some chance of still existing five years from now. Whoever dominates the scale dominates the journey, even if he never possesses the destination.

Finally, a note of analytical prudence is in order. None of this constitutes a finished plan of continental domination, and it would be foolish to treat every work on a Libyan runway as proof of a cohesive imperial project. The Russians improvise a good deal, depend on unstable partners, face growing competition from Turks, Chinese, and Iranians, and have already demonstrated a remarkable capacity to turn opportunities into quagmires. The point, however, still stands. Infrastructure has the disagreeable quality of outliving the intentions of those who built it, so that a network assembled today to sustain half a dozen military juntas may tomorrow serve purposes far less modest.

The West still spends its time counting armed men, when the decisive datum lies in the fuel depots. Logistical corridors, once opened, are rarely closed by the will of those who arrive later.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The twentieth century discovered, with considerable delay and a cost in corpses that we have not yet finished counting, that shooting dissidents is a rudimentary method. It leaves a body, leaves a widow, leaves a martyr, and forces the regime to explain itself, explanation being precisely what no power grants willingly. That is why, at some point in the long bureaucratic digestion that separates Stalin from Brezhnev, Soviet psychiatry offered the State a solution of almost geometric elegance. Instead of killing the inconvenient person, it was enough to diagnose him.

The technical name of the thing was sluggish schizophrenia, a category forged by Andrei Snezhnevsky and his school at the Serbsky Institute. The perverse genius of the concept lay in its elasticity, inasmuch as it dispensed with visible symptoms. The patient could reason clearly, work, raise children, pay his taxes, and still suffer from a latent illness whose only clinical sign consisted, roughly speaking, in disagreeing with the Party. Obsessive reformism. Delusion of claiming rights. Pathological perseverance in the defense of what the subject insisted on calling the truth. Vladimir Bukovsky smuggled to the West, in 1971, some hundred and fifty pages documenting the procedure, and the World Psychiatric Association would still take six years to formally condemn it, in Honolulu. The Soviet Union withdrew from the organization in 1983, sparing itself the embarrassment of expulsion. No one was convicted. Everyone was treated.

Now, it would be enormously comforting to suppose that such a contrivance flourishes only in the damp soil of real socialism, and for that very reason it is well to recall Yuri Nosenko. A KGB officer, he defected to the United States in 1964 bringing information about Lee Harvey Oswald, and James Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence, convinced himself that it was a plant. Nosenko then spent something on the order of three years in confinement, a good part of it in a concrete cell, subjected to sensory deprivation and hostile interrogation, without formal charges, without defense, and without any court having been informed of his existence. Later he was cleared and hired as a consultant by the same agency that had buried him. The republic most jealous of its habeas corpus on the planet simply did not know he was there.

And here, dear reader, we arrive at the irony that structures the entire century. The man who described this machinery with the precision of a watchmaker was Michel Foucault. In 1961 he showed, in the history of madness, that insanity is not a fact of nature but an administrative category, an envelope into which society dumps what it does not know how to process. In 1975, while dissecting Bentham’s panopticon, he formulated the thesis that perfect surveillance does not need to watch, it being enough that the watched ignore when he is being observed, so that he begins to police himself alone and with diligence. The jailer can go home. The prisoner takes the night shift.

It so happens that the same Foucault signed, in 1977, alongside Sartre, Beauvoir, Derrida, Barthes, Deleuze, Guattari and several dozen other ornaments of French thought, a petition to parliament calling for the decriminalization of sexual relations between adults and minors under fifteen. This is not rumor, it is a public document, and remains available for anyone with the stomach for it. The later accusations about the philosopher’s personal conduct in Tunisia, those indeed remain uncorroborated and should stay where they are, in the realm of allegation. Yet the petition is enough, since it reveals the kinship that matters. Whoever understands that madness is an administrative category also understands that innocence is one.

Brazil need not import this grammar, given that it practiced it on an industrial scale. In Barbacena, the Colônia Hospital received for decades people whose only pathology was being inconvenient. Epileptics, alcoholics, single mothers, homosexuals, indigents, unwanted wives, opponents of some inland political boss. Estimates run to around sixty thousand dead. No judge signed that. A medical report was enough, and the report dispenses with adversarial process because one does not argue with science, one argues with a lawyer, and there was no lawyer there. I call this labelocracy, government by the label, the regime in which authority does not pronounce a sentence but a prescription, and the prescription has the incomparable advantage of admitting no appeal.

The contemporary mechanism has abandoned electroshock for reasons of cost and image, yet conserves the three-story architecture. The administrative floor works by extraction, and the American example is didactic, since the settlement of the Volkswagen diesel-engine scandal generated a billion-dollar environmental mitigation fund whose destination came to be disputed by networks of organizations that no one elects, that no one audits and that present themselves to the public with the candor of those who defend little birds. No one was expropriated. Everyone was fined. The judicial floor operates by selectivity, and in it the prosecutor decides not what is a crime, but who will be prosecuted, so that the law remains intact on paper while becoming optional in practice. The medical floor, finally, is the most elegant of the three, inasmuch as it turns the adversary into a patient, and a patient is not refuted, he is treated.

As for the Epstein file, it is well to be honest about what is known and what is supposed. Documents released by the Department of Justice contain statements from a confidential source according to which the financier had ties to intelligence services, and the records themselves note that such statements were not independently corroborated. There exists, on the other hand, an internal FBI cable dated 2008 indicating that Epstein was providing information to the bureau pursuant to an agreement, which is something quite different and quite more concrete. Moreover, Alexander Acosta is said to have stated that he was told the individual belonged to intelligence and that he should leave him alone, a report that he himself later relativized. In effect, what can be affirmed without exaggeration is that a man prosecuted for sex trafficking of minors obtained, in 2007, a non-prosecution agreement so obscene that no innocent explanation has ever been offered. Perhaps intelligence. Perhaps merely money. Maybe the distinction is less important than we would like.

Therefore the pertinent question is not who built the invisible prison, a question that feeds the conspiracy industry and produces nothing beyond a sequel for the next video. The question is why it works so well in formally free regimes, with a press, with elections, with a written constitution and a supreme court. And the unpleasant answer is that it works precisely because of that, inasmuch as democratic legitimacy is the best solvent ever invented for popular distrust. The Soviet subject knew he was a subject. The contemporary citizen holds a ballot every two years and concludes, with bovine placidity, that he is therefore free.

In the end, what Foucault did not foresee, or foresaw and found amusing, is that his description of the prison would become an instruction manual in the exact hands of those he thought he was denouncing. Although the panopticon was conceived as an accusation, it was read as an architectural project. And the prisoner continues convinced that the cell is his home, that the label is his medicine and that the watchman is his doctor, and perhaps he is right, inasmuch as the watchman indeed is.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

There is a small gallery of images that the twentieth century left us as inheritance, and no caption manages to tame them. Among these, few are as eloquent as the frozen photograph from December 1934, in which Josef Stalin appears in a dark overcoat, his shoulder steady beneath the wood, carrying Sergei Mironovich Kirov's coffin through Red Square. The composition is flawless, the grief convincing, the sorrow seemingly authentic. What escapes the hasty observer, dear reader, is the far from remote possibility that the man weeping is the very one who ordered the silence.

I say possibility because intellectual honesty demands it. Serious historians such as Oleg Khlevniuk and Alla Kirilina, having pored over the Soviet archives opened after the Cold War, maintain that no document exists tying the General Secretary to the trigger, and that Kirov, far from conspiring, supported the overwhelming majority of the boss's policies. Alexander Orlov, a high-ranking Soviet intelligence officer who defected to the West, told a different story with considerable detail, and Nikita Khrushchev, in 1956, hinted at the same before the Twentieth Congress. Amy Knight, for her part, offers the most elegant formulation of the problem, since Kirov's threat never needed to be deliberate in order to be real. It was enough that he existed.

And he existed in a particularly unbearable way.

The man who walked alone

Born Sergei Mironovich Kostrikov, an orphan raised in provincial asylums, enrolled in the Bolshevik faction in 1904, Kirov had become over the course of the early thirties the most popular leader in Leningrad and one of the few Politburo figures capable of drawing applause that was not strictly protocol. He spoke well, improvised better, and possessed that public-square magnetism which bureaucracy always mistakes for insubordination. While Stalin cultivated his own aura in the isolation of the Kremlin, surrounded by security arrangements worthy of a neurotic pharaoh, Kirov walked to his office on foot, crossed the city streets alone, and played with children in the courtyard of the building where he lived. Within a system designed for absolute subservience, that kind of ease functions as provocation.

Forced collectivization turned the discomfort into political risk. The humanitarian disasters of the early part of the decade, including the famine that devastated Ukraine, had grown too large to hide beneath the carpet of official optimism, so that the old guard began whispering reservations in the corridors. Kirov shared some of these in private, which was already enough for the discontented to start pronouncing his name whenever they meant to say alternative. Machiavelli, who understood these matters with a coldness moralists still hold against him, observed that the prince who rises by crushing reality lives in permanent vigilance, given that any shadow of succession looks to him like a dagger.

The Congress of Victors and the ballots that vanished

The catalyst arrived in early 1934, during the Seventeenth Party Congress, christened by official propaganda the Congress of Victors and rechristened by history, with that grim humor only facts possess, the Congress of the Condemned. The success of the First Five-Year Plan, generously inflated, was being celebrated, along with the unshakeable solidarity gathered around the great helmsman. Yet when it came time to elect the Central Committee by secret ballot, the staging cracked. Of the one thousand two hundred and twenty-five voting delegates, Kirov was approved with near unanimity, whereas Stalin accumulated a volume of rejections that sources estimate at anywhere between dozens and hundreds of votes, a number nobody has managed to fix precisely to this day, because the solution found was physical. Under the supervision of loyal acolytes, Lazar Kaganovich chief among them, the negative ballots simply ceased to exist before the count.

The message, nonetheless, got through. Still in 1934, Stalin ordered Kirov's permanent transfer to Moscow, an elementary maneuver from any manual of court politics, inasmuch as a leader far from his base is a leader disarmed. Kirov refused. And it was that refusal, more than any manifesto, that sealed the man's fate.

The useful idiot and the police that looked away

Leonid Nikolaev was the sort of human material that police regimes produce in series and later recycle to advantage. A disillusioned party member, expelled and reinstated more than once, resentful of communism's failure to improve the condition of the very worker he claimed to represent, he nursed fantasies of heroic grandeur alongside a personal grudge against the Leningrad apparatus that eventually crystallized into a fixation on Kirov. The ideal tool, then, for a piece of dirty work that could carry no signature.

What elevates the episode from a mere attack to suspected state conspiracy is the conduct of the NKVD. Weeks before the crime, Nikolaev was intercepted loitering around the Smolny Institute, and a search of his bag turned up a loaded Nagant revolver, a diary containing unmistakable notes, and a rough map detailing Kirov's usual routes. In any minimally functional country, a man caught under these circumstances would vanish into a basement for a week. In the Soviet Union of 1934, where an ordinary peasant was shot for hiding flour, Nikolaev was released on the direct orders of senior NKVD officials in Leningrad, Vania Zaporozhets among them, under the command of Filipp Medved, and had his belongings, the firearm included, promptly returned to him.

On the afternoon of December first, under the flagrantly implausible pretext of routine training drills, security along the Smolny's corridors was thinned out. Kirov arrived around four thirty, climbed the grand central staircase to the third floor, and made his way toward his office without immediate escort, since his personal bodyguard, Mikhail Borisov, a devoted and experienced man, was trailing inexplicably some twenty to forty paces behind. Nikolaev emerged from a recess in the corridor, followed him for a few seconds, and fired a single shot into the back of his neck at point-blank range. Death came almost instantly. Moments later, in a nervous collapse well documented in police literature, the shooter fainted beside the body, and it was precisely at that moment that the building's security reappeared with admirable punctuality.

The truck that killed only the witness

If the facilitation raises suspicion, it is the cover-up that produces the chill. The dangerous figure for the conspirators was never Nikolaev, whose muddled motives could be shaped under torture with artisanal ease. The problem was named Borisov, the one man capable of explaining who had pulled him from his úpost and on whose orders.

The following morning, the leadership landed in Leningrad to take personal charge of the investigation, Stalin at the front, flanked by Voroshilov, Molotov, Zhdanov, and NKVD chief Genrikh Yagoda. Borisov was summoned to testify. During the drive in a truck, flanked by NKVD officers, something occurred that the official reports called an accident. An agent seated beside the driver seized the wheel and threw the vehicle sideways into the wall of a building. The officers walked away unharmed. The driver did not so much as scrape himself. The single body pulled from the wreckage belonged to Mikhail Borisov, whose skull, according to later testimony and post-mortem examination, had been crushed with iron bars by his own escorts. A selective accident, in other words, aimed with a surgeon's precision.

Orlov reports that Stalin, standing face to face with the gunman, asked why he had killed such a likeable man, to which Nikolaev, with the boldness of one who already knows himself condemned, pointed toward the NKVD agents present in the room and suggested the question be redirected to them. Weeks later, under an emergency decree that suspended lawyers, witnesses, and appeals, Nikolaev and his alleged accomplices were tried behind closed doors by Vasili Ulrikh and shot within less than thirty days. The file, in effect, was closed by biological means.

Rutkovsky, or the art of washing one's hands with oil paint

With the rival dead and the trail brutally erased, what remained was converting the corpse into a political asset. Here enters the Soviet propaganda machine, which was never content merely to govern reality when it could rewrite it. Kirov's funeral in Moscow, held on December sixth, was a spectacle of choreographed grief, the coffin crossing Red Square in procession and the ashes deposited with pomp in the Kremlin Wall Necropolis, Stalin cast in the role of the inconsolable widow of the fatherland.

The state promptly commissioned Nikolai Rutkovsky to paint *Joseph Stalin at Sergei Kirov's Coffin*, a canvas nearly three meters tall, dominated by a vivid red set against the cadaverous pallor of the dead man and the somber black of the mourning leaders. The work reflects nothing of the actual politics of those days, and that is precisely why it works. Rutkovsky did not paint a painting. He painted a decree. The canvas came to occupy the walls of offices, museums, and bureaus across the entire Soviet territory, teaching millions of citizens that grief was conclusive proof of innocence. After all, who would imagine that the man capable of such funereal devotion could have signed the death warrant?

Order 00447 and the industrialization of slaughter

Nikolaev's shot proved, according to Kremlin rhetoric, that saboteurs, fascist spies, and traitors had infiltrated the party's own ranks. On that same first of December, Stalin approved an emergency decree annulling legal safeguards for anyone accused of terrorism, authorizing mass arrests, summary convictions, and executions within twenty-four hours. It was the prologue to the Moscow Trials, where Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky would confess, under physical and psychological torture, to plots that never existed, including the murder of Kirov himself.

The true scale of the horror, however, only becomes visible once the machine descends from the party elite to the ordinary population. On July thirtieth, 1937, NKVD Operational Order No. 00447, kept secret until the Soviet collapse, turned extermination into an industrial process. The document targeted former kulaks, clergy, intellectuals, members of non-Bolshevik organizations, and essentially anyone the state classified as socially dangerous, a category elastic enough to accommodate the whole of humanity. Trials fell to regional troikas made up of the local secret police chief, a prosecutor, and a party official, who dispatched sentences by the hundreds without defense or appeal, splitting the condemned between immediate execution and eight to ten years of forced labor in the GULAG.

The most diabolical detail of the decree, moreover, was the setting of quotas. Moscow informed each province how many thousands should be arrested and how many should be killed, and regional chiefs, eager to demonstrate zeal, wired back requesting permission to exceed their targets. The NKVD chief in Omsk reported with pride that his men had fulfilled the plan ahead of schedule and begged permission to execute several thousand more, a request granted personally by the General Secretary. When the desperation for numbers grew acute, agents took to combing telephone directories in search of names and to prioritizing the arrest of married men with children, since institutional sadism had discovered that fathers confessed fastest, clinging to the vain hope of sparing their families.

Between 1937 and 1938, the Soviet state arrested somewhere between one and a half and one point seven million citizens, of whom seven hundred to eight hundred thousand were shot and buried in mass graves such as those at Bykivnia and Sandarmokh, while the archipelago of camps would go on to swallow roughly twenty million human beings over the course of the reign. Call it thanatocracy, a government whose productivity is measured in corpses per quarter. And the entire paperwork of that funereal accounting rests, in the final analysis, on a single body that fell in the third-floor corridor of the Smolny Institute.

The cage one learns to love

We arrive, dear reader, at the point where history stops being the past and begins staring back at us.

I have spent years insisting on a phenomenon I have named mental favelization, describing the process by which a suffocated society, whether strangled by the brutality of drug trafficking or by a parasitic state that corrodes every horizon of prosperity through regulation and inflation, ends up internalizing the logic of its own captivity. The Great Terror was the continental, fully realized version of that pathology. By pulverizing every alternative rallying point, and Kirov was exactly that, Stalin atomized the social body and transferred to the jailer's grip the monopoly over subsistence and protection. The neighbor became a suspect, the brother became a risk, denunciation replaced honor as the technique of survival, and civil society imploded from within without a single tank needing to roll through the streets.

From this follows the enormous Stockholm syndrome that haunts every regime of this kind. Stripped of any avenue toward economic, intellectual, or legal emancipation, the population learns to love whoever holds it captive, given that the very apparatus issuing execution quotas in the morning was revered by afternoon as a benevolent shield against the imperialist threat. A captive people defends its own cage for the most prosaic reason imaginable, since the jailer holds, all at once, the chains, the keys, and the rations.

We need no pre-dawn executions to recognize the grammar. The contemporary script is cleaner, more procedural, and infinitely more polite, though it obeys the same syntax. An impending abyss gets manufactured, whether the threat to democracy, the danger of disinformation, or the chaos of crises that follow one another without pause, and in the name of containing the abyss the state apparatus extends its tentacles. Supreme courts issue censorship by single-judge ruling and tear through due process with the same ease with which the Stalinist state suspended the law in December 1934. Media corporations abandon journalism for the far more lucrative trade of reputation laundering, performing a function identical to Rutkovsky's brush. And the opposition, where one exists, reveals itself an aggregate of vanities lacking any general staff, any doctrine, or any patience for the long work ahead.

The docility with which all this gets accepted, always wrapped in the gift paper of defending the institutions, attests that mental favelization continues operating at full steam. Where intellectual, financial, and legal independence is absent, submission becomes the only language the population still speaks fluently.

The blood spilled at the Smolny nearly a century ago remains, technically, an open enigma, and perhaps it will remain so forever. The lesson, however, does not depend on a confession that will never come. Tyrannies do not sustain themselves through raw savagery, but through the icy efficiency of bureaucracy, through quotas typed out in triplicate, through tribunals of exception, and through the hermetic control of the narrative. Whenever we accept that individual freedoms be suspended during bouts of hysteria to protect us from threats only the state claims to see, we voluntarily assume the position of pallbearers of our own political coffin, exactly as Stalin marched through Red Square carrying on his shoulders the most ingenious of all his inventions.

The past refuses to remain in the perfect tense. It is up to us to decide whether we will break the civic Stockholm syndrome or whether we will keep waiting, with that exemplary patience of the obedient condemned, for the commissar on duty to sign off on the year's quota of our freedom.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

In two years of work, the House Select Subcommittee heard 38 sworn statements and held 25 hearings before concluding, in December 2024, that COVID-19 most likely escaped from a laboratory and that many of the major restrictions imposed on the public lacked scientific support.

When Anthony Fauci sat before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on the morning of June 3, 2024, he already knew which line he would have to defend. Five months earlier, in testimony transcribed behind closed doors, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases had been asked about the origin of the rule that required Americans to keep two meters apart for more than two years, and he replied that he did not recall any discussion about choosing five, six, or ten feet, because the requirement kind of simply appeared. The line leaked, circulated, and made headlines. In front of the cameras, Fauci tried to reduce it to a technical point, claiming what was missing was a clinical trial comparing distances, and shifted responsibility to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which had drafted the guidance. A representative then asked whether he had publicly challenged the rule at any time, to which Fauci answered that it would not be appropriate to publicly challenge a sister organization.

The exchange appears on page 201 of the final report the subcommittee delivered on December 4, 2024, and may be the most economical summary of the entire document. There are 520 pages of main text, preceded by a prefatory section that lists names, institutions, hearings, and testimonies, bringing the total to more than 550 pages in the published file. According to the opening letter signed by the subcommittee chair, Republican Representative Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, the work consumed more than a hundred investigative subpoenas, 38 transcribed interviews or sworn statements, 25 hearings and meetings, and the review of more than one million pages obtained from dozens of custodians. The text concludes that SARS-CoV-2 likely emerged from a laboratory accident or lab-related research, that U.S. emergency programs lost hundreds of billions of dollars to fraudsters, and that much of the containment measures were adopted without the evidence claimed to exist.

-The witnesses on day one

The process began on February 28, 2023, at a hearing titled "Learning from the Past to Prepare for the Future," and the panel that day now reads like prophecy. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor; Martin Kulldorff, then at Harvard; and Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins surgeon—three of the most visible critics of lockdowns—were called, the first two being coauthors of the Great Barrington Declaration. A little over two years later, on March 25, 2025, the Senate confirmed Bhattacharya as director of the National Institutes of Health and Makary as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration in the same session. Since February 2026 Bhattacharya also held the interim directorship of the CDC, while Makary left the FDA in May of this year. The witnesses summoned to criticize the agencies ended up charged with running them.

Ten days after that first session, on March 8, 2023, Robert Redfield, former CDC director, testified before the subcommittee that from the early days of the pandemic he believed the infection was more likely to have resulted from an accidental leak than from a natural spillover, and he grounded the assessment in the virus's biology and the unusual episodes recorded in Wuhan in the fall of 2019. On April 18, it was John Ratcliffe's turn, former Director of National Intelligence, who stated that if the evidence favoring a leak were placed next to the evidence for a natural origin, the first column would be long and almost overwhelming, while the second would remain empty and thin.

-The paper that changed the debate

The report’s most delicate chapter deals with the article "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, after circulating on the Virological platform on February 16. The paper asserted two categorical conclusions: that the virus was not a laboratory construct nor a deliberately manipulated organism, and that no laboratory-origin scenario appeared plausible. The subcommittee concludes that the paper was prompted by Fauci with the declared purpose of discrediting the leak hypothesis, and supports the charge with a reconstruction of January and February 2020 based on emails, Jeremy Farrar’s memoir (then director of the Wellcome Trust), and above all the testimonies of the authors themselves.

Kristian Andersen, a professor at Scripps Research, gave transcribed testimony on June 16, 2023, when he explained that his initial concerns focused on the furin cleavage site, the receptor-binding domain, and the BamH1 restriction site. Asked what he meant by writing that the genome was inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory, he replied that it was an elegant way of telling colleagues he thought the virus might have been engineered. Andersen also reported that January 31, 2020, was the first time he spoke personally with Fauci outside of conferences, and that it was during that call that the idea of writing a paper about a possible leak first arose. The next day, a teleconference brought together Fauci, Farrar, Andersen, Robert Garry, Christian Drosten, Ron Fouchier, Edward Holmes, Marion Koopmans, Andrew Rambaut, and Patrick Vallance, among others.

When the subcommittee summoned the authors for a public hearing on July 11, 2023, titled "Investigating the Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up," only Andersen and Garry appeared. Ian Lipkin justified his absence, while Rambaut and Holmes refused to attend. A similar pattern repeated on April 16, 2024, when the subcommittee invited the editors-in-chief of the world’s three leading scientific journals to discuss peer review and public funding. Holden Thorp of Science attended. Richard Horton of The Lancet and Magdalena Skipper of Nature declined.

-Two weeks between a version and its refutation

The May 2024 sequence contained the harshest episodes. On May 1, Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, the organization that brokered U.S. federal funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was interrogated about a fifth-year report for NIH funding delivered nearly two years late. Daszak claimed the organization had uploaded the document into the system, but that the system had blocked it, and added that when the NIH finally requested submission two years later, it took eleven days to unlock access, so any contrary assertion would be demonstrably false.

Fifteen days later, on May 16, Lawrence Tabak, the NIH's principal deputy director, sat in the same chair and was asked whether that was true. He answered that there was no evidence of it. Michael Lauer, head of NIH extramural research, had already stated in transcribed testimony in November 2023 that a forensic audit of the agency’s systems had been unable to confirm Daszak’s account. Confronted at another point with the testimony of Emily Erbelding, director of a NIAID division, which contradicted his claim of transparency regarding access to samples, Daszak wondered whether his colleague had not been present for the discussion or had confused samples with genetic sequences.

On May 22, it was David Morens’s turn, senior scientific advisor to the NIAID leadership and a federal employee for more than two decades. Asked if he had ever deleted official records, Morens replied that he had not, at least as far as he knew, although he noted that he deletes many emails every day because he considered them trivial and unrelated to government business. He also claimed ignorance of what constitutes a federal record and said that no one had ever defined email as such for him, which contradicted his earlier transcribed testimony in which he said he understood emails to be federal records. The subcommittee assembled messages in which Morens explained to colleagues the exact steps he took to insulate himself from problems, instructed interlocutors to use only his personal Gmail and to delete any other address from their contacts, and recorded in writing, in January 2022, that he had twice already deleted everything involving people from EcoHealth from his institutional inbox. The report frames the conduct under Section 2071 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which criminalizes the destruction of federal records.

-The school and the union

On April 26, 2023, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, testified at a hearing devoted exclusively to her organization. Asked how the CDC consultation regarding school reopening had occurred, she replied that contact had come from Joe Biden’s transition team even before the inauguration. Although the union had contested in writing, days earlier, the claim of lacking scientific competence, Weingarten admitted in her testimony that the organization did not employ epidemiologists or immunologists. Kelly Nedrow, director of health issues at the AFT, was more direct when heard on June 23, 2023, calling the organization a labor union.

The report documents that Rochelle Walensky, then CDC director and heard in public hearing on June 13, 2023, requested explicit language from the AFT for the operational reopening strategy during a meeting on January 29, 2021, and that line-by-line edits offered by external groups were effectively incorporated into the final text. Gretta Massetti, a CDC technical official, confirmed in testimony that external groups sometimes supplied wording, even though the agency was not obliged to accept it.

The effects are quantified in the report. Nine-year-old children’s performance in math and reading fell to levels not seen in two decades, the composite ACT score dropped below twenty for the first time since 1991, and students who stayed out of in-person schooling lost roughly half of expected math learning, compared with one-fifth among those whose classes were less interrupted. About 230,000 students simply disappeared from American public schools. Economist Eric Hanushek of the Hoover Institution estimates a $70,000 lifetime earnings loss for each affected student. Because schools in poor urban areas remained closed longer, losses were concentrated among Black, Latino, and low-income children.

-The governor and the text message

The Andrew Cuomo case occupies more than fifty pages and produced the most concrete legal consequence of the entire effort. The March 25, 2020 directive, which prevented New York nursing homes from refusing patients diagnosed with COVID-19, is qualified by the subcommittee as contrary to the science known at the time and incompatible with federal guidance. The July 6, 2020 New York State Department of Health document, presented as independent and peer-reviewed, attributed the excess deaths to the behavior of nursing home staff rather than to the directive.

Through testimonies and drafts provided to the subcommittee by a whistleblower, it was established that Cuomo revised the text, edited it to make its conclusions more causal, participated in the choice of external reviewers, and that the decision to omit residents’ deaths that occurred outside facilities was made in a June 27, 2020 call. Initial drafts accounted for roughly ten thousand deaths. The published version omitted the portion that died outside the institutions.

There was also a side episode the subcommittee treated as an attempted interference. James Malatras, a former Cuomo aide, was the first senior state executive official to confirm the governor’s involvement in drafting the report. When heard on May 20, 2024, he said he had not spoken to Cuomo since early 2021, but that he had received a text message from him on February 18 of that year, merely to say he hoped he was well. The subcommittee obtained the message and verified it had been sent within 48 hours of the public announcement of the invitation for Malatras to testify. Questioned about this on June 11, 2024, Cuomo replied that it was just a friendly note, that he did not know about the invitation, and that he did not intend to influence any testimony. He appeared at the public hearing on September 10. On October 30, 2024, the subcommittee referred him to the Department of Justice for false statements to Congress, and that same day Cuomo’s lawyers referred the subcommittee to the Department of Justice without pointing to a specific legal violation.

-What the report credits

It would be incorrect to read the document as uniformly accusatory. The subcommittee attributes extraordinary success to Operation Warp Speed, noting that the fastest vaccine development before 2020 had taken four years, and cites Fauci himself describing the initiative as a great success. It recognizes that travel restrictions imposed early in the pandemic delayed the virus’s spread and saved lives, and it records that public–private partnerships were more effective in producing and distributing tests than federal bureaucracy, whose first kits reached the market with a high failure rate and inadequate disclosure. The text makes a point of stating that discussing compensation for vaccine injury does not equate to anti-vaccination sentiment.

The fraud figures were determined by oversight bodies. The Paycheck Protection Program lost at least $64 billion, expanded unemployment insurance recorded more than $191 billion in fraudulent payments, and at least 17% of the $1.2 trillion disbursed by the Small Business Administration went to potentially fraudulent actors, about $200 billion. It is worth noting that the report’s summary records that last finding as $200 million, while the main text gives $200 billion, one of several inconsistencies in a volume closed in haste before the legislative turnover.

The agencies’ resistance to the subcommittee’s work is documented in the closing sections. Over 22 months, with custodians and search terms specified by the investigators themselves, the Department of Health and Human Services produced 14,799 pages on pandemic origins and gain-of-function research, much of it already public or censored. A single Freedom of Information Act search limited to Morens’s official account yielded more than 30,000 pages. Kathy Hochul’s government, for its part, did not provide a single draft of the July 2020 New York report, citing deliberative privilege, so drafts reached the subcommittee by informal channels.

-After the report

The developments followed quickly. On January 6, 2025, EcoHealth Alliance terminated Daszak’s employment, and on January 17 the Department of Health formally suspended the organization and its former president for five years, expressly citing the evidence raised by the subcommittee. On January 20, hours before leaving office, Joe Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional preemptive pardon covering federal conduct up to that date. On January 25, the CIA released an assessment commissioned under the previous administration and declassified by order of Ratcliffe, then director of the agency, concluding with low confidence that a research-related origin was more likely than a natural one, absent new intelligence and keeping both scenarios plausible. In April 2025, the chairman of the Oversight Committee re-sent the criminal referral of Cuomo to Attorney General Pam Bondi, and the following month the U.S. press reported the opening of a criminal investigation.

It remains to say what the document is. It is a majority report, produced by a Republican subcommittee during one of the most polarized periods of recent American life, and designed to assign responsibility. Its strongest findings are administrative and documentary because they rely on sworn testimony, authenticated emails, and oversight audits. Its weakest findings are those that depend on contested scientific judgment, since the text selects literature favorable to its thesis and mentions contrary literature, including studies published in Science and Cell that support a zoonotic origin, only to file it away without technical refutation.

Still, surviving the dispute over the virus’s origin is a finding that runs through every chapter and is independent of it, because it is institutional. Public agencies treated oversight itself as a threat, officials managed the state archive as if it were private property, and the public health authority responded to the loss of trust by suppressing those who questioned it. In his opening letter, Wenstrup writes that trust is earned. It is the least original sentence in the volume and the hardest to contest.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

Roy Cohn died in 1986, yet his operating system remains fully operational. There are historical figures whose importance lies not in what they built but in the habits of mind they managed to institutionalize. These figures leave no monuments and found no schools of thought. They simply leave their fingerprints on every public controversy, every media spectacle, and every political crisis that dominates the feed. Roy Cohn sits at the center of this category. He transformed litigation into theater and truth into a minor obstacle that vanishes under enough pressure.

Donald Trump did not invent this method. He inherited the manual. This matters because modern democracies rarely collapse through military coups anymore. They decay through the normalization of behavioral techniques that redefine the public’s relationship with reality. Institutions continue to function on paper, but every dispute gradually ceases to be about facts and becomes a contest over psychological dominance.

Cohn’s singular genius was understanding that perception is a weapon independent of evidence. Winning a case is no longer about proving truth. It is about exhausting the opponent, intimidating the referee, and ensuring that every accusation generates two new accusations against the accuser.

The rules are deceptively simple: Never apologize. Counterattack immediately. Treat every investigation as personal persecution. Force every conversation onto ground you have chosen. Measure victory by survival rather than innocence.

These sound less like legal advice and more like the tenets of psychological warfare. Television rewarded the conflict Cohn championed. Social media industrialized the outrage. Algorithms monetized the indignation. Cohn’s instincts stopped belonging to one man and became the base code for modern communication.

Leave a comment

This is why focusing solely on Trump misses the larger phenomenon. Politics has become an ecosystem where outrage generates attention, attention generates influence, and influence generates institutional power. The ideological labels change constantly, but the operating system remains remarkably consistent.

We describe our age as polarized, but it is more accurate to call it behavioral convergence. The slogans differ, but the reflexes are identical. History rarely repeats itself through identical personalities. It repeats itself through successful techniques. Roy Cohn’s greatest legacy was never a courtroom victory or a famous client. It was proving that, under the right conditions, narrative discipline can overpower factual discipline to reshape an entire culture.

Lawyers die. Methods survive. And operating systems are nearly impossible to bury.

The Three Rules of Winning

Attack, attack, attack: Never play defense; immediately go on the offensive to keep opponents off-balance and intimidated.

Admit nothing, deny everything: Refuse to concede any ground or fault, regardless of the evidence or pressure presented.

Claim victory and never admit defeat: No matter the actual outcome or how difficult the situation, project absolute success and reject any narrative of losing.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

Ortega y Gasset left behind a phrase that crossed the last century without losing its edge, and Mário Ferreira dos Santos, a Brazilian philosopher of considerable depth and almost no readership, had the patience to expand it into an entire book in 1967, at a moment when his country was persuaded it had more urgent business at hand. The vertical invasion of the barbarians. The image offends by its simplicity, insofar as it dispenses with the consoling mythology of hordes descending from the steppes on shaggy horses, since the barbarian, according to the Spaniard and with rather greater metaphysical rigour according to the Brazilian, arrives from nowhere abroad. He is born here, among us, in an air conditioned maternity ward, his birth duly registered by the notary, and he rises vertically through the social body for the elementary reason that nobody bothered to civilise him.

Every child is, technically speaking, an invasion, and culture amounts to the long and unglamorous process by which that invasion gets negotiated, disarmed and finally absorbed into continuity. When the process fails, and it has been failing for three generations now with a regularity that can no longer be charged to accident, what comes out the other end is a barbarism holding a degree, fluent in institutional jargon, credentialed by a graduate programme, perfectly capable of demanding the extinction of the human species in the name of saving the planet. Which is a rather different creature from the mere absence of civilisation, and considerably harder to argue with, given that it can cite sources.

Hayek, writing *The Road to Serfdom* in the darkest years of the war, arrived at the same wall from the economic side and produced a conclusion that today sounds almost naive for being so obvious, namely that the more the state plans, the harder planning becomes for the individual. Moreover, and here is the point that admirers of central planning prefer to leave unexamined, the case for individual liberty rests on the inevitable ignorance of all of us rather than on any presumed intelligence of free men, and it applies with particular force to the sort of person who volunteers to direct other people's lives. The naked state, stripped of the omniscient benevolence it wears at ceremonies, is ignorance multiplied by an apparatus of coercion. And yet *homo credulus* keeps marching down the road, flattered by his intellectuals and browbeaten by his elites, convinced that organisation from the top is the way forward and that safe passage will be granted to him in exchange for one more slice of his liberty, a slightly larger tax bill and a bit more enthusiasm at the next election.

Consider the full catalogue, since it deserves to be recited aloud at least once. Rent controls and price caps, labour legislation that freezes the very market it claims to protect, compulsory unionisation, taxes on income and on property and on consumption and on inheritance, sanctions, tariffs, and the whole apparatus of permits and licences whereby the state first forbids a right and then charges you for the privilege of exercising it, to say nothing of the central bank, the manipulation of interest rates and the control of capital. Broadly speaking, man behaves at the open bar of the state exactly as he behaves at any other open bar, which is why the road to serfdom remains the busiest route on the map and the only one with no toll booths at the entrance.

Do the arithmetic, my friend. Twelve generations of men crossed oceans in ships that sank, buried half their children before the age of five, drained swamps, dug tunnels, froze in trenches over a hundred metres of mud, and endured the hard wind of history without any reasonable expectation of ever seeing the reward. All of that accumulated labour and terror now culminates in a barista who serves the morning coffee and resigns from the future of life on earth with an indignant roll of the eyes, because, you see, she simply can't even. The pyramid took four thousand years to build and it exists so that its summit may announce that the whole thing was a mistake.

Rome, therefore, becomes unavoidable. Rome seldom falls because barbarians are hammering at the gates, since Rome falls when those already inside the walls have auctioned off the grain, corrupted the magistracies, debased the currency of civic trust and taught the population to mistake ceremonial virtue for functioning order. The men who destroy a republic are ordinarily seated within it, robed in legitimacy, speaking the language of compassion with practised fluency, managing the funds, awarding the posts, hosting the conferences, collecting the donations and congratulating one another on their humanity while the structure they swore to maintain rots in plain view. Call it barbarocracy, for want of a less flattering word, since the thing has offices, a communications department and a diversity policy.

Brazil knows the mechanism intimately, though it insists on treating it as a foreign novelty imported by container. The ESG utopia collapsed here as everywhere else, and the retreat was ordered from inside the global financial centre itself rather than by any marginal sceptic, once the green catechism stopped paying dividends and the banks began walking out of their climate alliances with the discreet haste of men leaving a cult before the photographers arrive. In the matter of our great state sponsored champions we learned once more that Brazilian law behaves like a spiderweb, catching the small fly and tearing open before the large beetle, a lesson repeated when a justice of the Supreme Court suspended billions in fines attached to confessed crimes with a single stroke of the pen. Every form was observed along the way, the rites were performed, the legal opinions came out duly signed and stamped, and the patrimonialism that Raymundo Faoro diagnosed a lifetime ago went on breathing quietly under all that paperwork.

Which is precisely what Mário Ferreira dos Santos anticipated by several decades, since the vertical invasion does not topple institutions. It occupies them, empties them and preserves the rind with enormous care while the insects finish the fruit inside. The walls of the city are in excellent condition, freshly painted, certified, admired by visiting delegations. We keep paying the guards, and the guards, to be fair to them, perform the ceremony of guarding beautifully. Civilisation will arrive at its appointed end perfectly on schedule, with all licences current and a certificate of sustainability attached.

Leave a comment

So the trouble with the West has less to do with anyone's arrival than with our own persistence. We built magnificent walls and financed the armies to man them, we argue about borders and immigration quotas with considerable passion, and somewhere along the way we stopped explaining to our children what the wall had been built to protect. Perhaps that is the only good news in the whole story, since vertical barbarism, unlike the mounted hordes, never has to be defeated in open field. It has only to be educated, an operation that costs very little money and rather more effort than anyone appears willing to spend.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

There was a moment in the fourth century when the Christianity of North Africa nearly split in half over a seemingly technical question. The Donatists maintained that the sacraments administered by an unworthy priest, one of those who had handed over the scriptures to the Roman persecutors, were null. The dirty hand would invalidate the rite. Augustine replied, with that exasperated patience of someone who has already realized he is arguing with the century itself, that the efficacy of the sacrament does not depend on the virtue of the one who administers it, since grace is not the property of the official. The thesis prevailed, and for good reasons, given that the alternative would require a permanent moral audit of every baptism already performed in the history of humanity.

MIT and Epstein

Well then, dear reader. Sixteen hundred years later, a considerable part of the crypto world rediscovered Donatism, only upside down. Where the Africans of the fourth century feared that the impure minister would contaminate the rite, our contemporaries believe that the rite purifies the minister. One uses the protocol, therefore one is on the right side of history. One holds the private key, therefore one possesses some kind of monetary virtue that the rest of mortals, trapped in fiat money, will never attain. It is a sacrament without a church, with the additional advantage of dispensing with confession.

DOJ realese with Coinbase emails

Decrypt

I spent the weekend reading the documents that resurfaced about Jeffrey Epstein and the digital assets sector, and the conclusion that imposes itself is far less cinematic than the conspiracy hunters would like, though it is considerably more uncomfortable for the devotees.

Bitcoin Foundation Fórum

MIT DCI ARCHIVE

Let us begin with the genealogy, as the method demands. Between 2002 and 2017, Epstein sent approximately eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars to MIT, according to the internal report that the institution itself commissioned and released in January 2020. The relevant detail is not in the figure, which by the standards of American university philanthropy is modest, almost embarrassing. It is in the treatment. The donations were not recorded as conventional contributions, the donor’s name was deliberately concealed in the internal systems, and staff began referring to him, in correspondence, as Voldemort, he who must not be named. Epstein visited the campus at least nine times, with private meetings and direct access to academic leadership, and those visits did not enter the formal records.

Note what is being described here, because the point usually escapes. This is not a man buying a building to see his own surname carved in marble, which is the usual philanthropic vanity and harms no one. It is the exact opposite. It is a man convicted of a sexual crime buying invisibility inside the principal laboratory of technical imagination in the West, and obtaining from that institution the active courtesy of erasure. MIT was not deceived. MIT knew, created an internal nickname for what it knew, and continued receiving the checks. That, dear reader, is information about MIT before it is information about Epstein.

The channel of influence, therefore, was open and well-oiled long before Bitcoin became dinner-table conversation. And it is precisely there that the chronology begins to grow interesting.

Amazon purchase records attached to the case files show that, throughout 2017, Epstein acquired literature on Bitcoin, Ethereum, blockchain and, alongside it, manuals on negotiation strategy and influence. The year was not chosen at random, since it coincides with the first major bull cycle that transformed the sector from an engineer’s curiosity into a macroeconomic phenomenon, and it also coincides with the methodical effort of the subject to rebuild the network of relationships that the 2008 process had scratched. He was studying. Studying poorly, probably, the way men who read in order to converse rather than to understand study, but studying.

In 2018, he monetized. His exposure had been built via Blockchain Capital, a fund that held a stake in Coinbase, with an initial contribution on the order of three million dollars. The sale of half the position back to the fund that year fetched something close to fifteen million, the other half retained. It is the banal arithmetic of any well-positioned investor in a euphoria cycle, and it would be absolutely uninteresting if the investor were someone else.

Now, what elevates the episode from the category of financial gossip to that of symptom is the correspondence with Steve Bannon, also from 2018. In it, Epstein asks in a direct manner about taxation of crypto assets, about the mechanisms for receiving, paying and distributing coins, and about how to circumvent campaign-finance rules. Bannon replies with a laconic On it and connects him to experts in electoral legislation and veterans of the sector. There is, as far as is known, no documented operational follow-through of that conversation, and intellectual honesty requires recording that in full.

But what the conversation reveals about the subject’s mind needs no follow-through. He was not looking at it the way one looks at an asset class. He was looking at it the way one looks at a pipeline, capable of moving political value without the inconveniences of American electoral traceability. The question he put to Bannon is the question he always put, his whole life, about everything, from philanthropic foundations to university laboratories. Where does this enter, and who finds out.

Having established the facts, let us establish with equal rigor what they are not. There is no document, indication or testimony linking Epstein to the creation of Bitcoin, to the development of the protocol or to any form of control over the code. Whoever is selling that merchandise is selling entertainment, and poorly. What the documents show is the far more prosaic and far more universal thing, a man with money and without scruple trying to buy a position of advantage in a rising technology, exactly as he bought a position of advantage in cognitive science, in genetics, in foreign policy and in everything else that seemed promising to him. It was what he did his whole life, with the method of an investment agent and the ethics of a predator.

And it is precisely here, dear reader, that the thing hurts, because the lesson does not fall on the protocol. It falls on the improvised theology that has been constructed around it.

In recent years we have witnessed the emergence of a frankly religious vocabulary applied to a data structure. One speaks of moral imperative, of honest money, of salvation through digital scarcity. Michael Saylor routinely describes the asset in terms that any scholastic would recognize as transcendent, and a legion of maximalists replicates the register with that specific fervor of recent converts, which is always louder than that of those born in the faith. The implicit promise is that adherence to the instrument produces righteousness in the one who adheres. It is the inverted Donatism of which we spoke, and it is such great nonsense that it almost moves one.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Bitcoin works. It resists censorship, dispenses with authorization, knows neither bank holiday nor ministerial stroke of the pen, and those are admirable technical properties that stand on their own. Yet none of them produces virtue in the holder. A well-forged hammer does not sanctify the carpenter, and the carpenter who judges himself holy because of the hammer tends to be, broadly speaking, a terrible carpenter and a worse Christian. The real strength of the protocol lies precisely in what the messianic discourse cannot digest, namely that it does not distribute absolution, does not issue a certificate of character and does not ask who is on the other side of the transaction. It is morally mute by design, and that muteness is the characteristic, not the defect.

I have survived long enough in Brazilian public life to develop a stable allergy to those who speak loudly about their own purity. The subject who needs to announce every two hours that he operates on the correct side of history is usually, in the best of cases, selling something. I know of no relevant exception to the rule, and the record of the twentieth century, with its new men and its morally superior vanguards, suggests that the exception did not exist there either.

The merit of Bitcoin, therefore, was never to remain untouched by the dirt of the world, a condition that no relevant technology has ever enjoyed since the wheel. It was to keep functioning while Epstein bought books about it, while MIT filed the donor’s name in a drawer with the nickname of a children’s villain, and while Bannon replied On it to a convicted pedophile who wanted to know how to dodge American electoral legislation. The system did not notice. It continued mining blocks every ten minutes, with the admirable indifference of a clock.

Augustine was right, in the end. The efficacy of the rite does not depend on the virtue of the one who administers it. What he did not foresee, and perhaps it would never have crossed his mind to foresee, is that one day there would be a congregation willing to invert the theorem and conclude, from the fact that the rite works, that the minister is holy.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

"Epstein's lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mar-a-Lago, but he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago, and he had never been asked to leave, and that was redacted for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason."

Nothing in federal law would require that redaction, he said, and it was one of what he called tons of mysterious redactions. Five weeks later, on March 18, Dan Goldman stood on the House floor and displayed the passage unredacted.

The document is an October 2009 email from Jack Goldberger, one of Epstein's attorneys, summarizing a twenty-minute phone conference. On the call were Donald Trump, Trump's attorney Alan Garten, and a person understood to be victims' lawyer Brad Edwards. Epstein forwarded the email to Ghislaine Maxwell. Garten was asked whether Epstein had ever been expelled from Mar-a-Lago, and the email records his answer: "No he was not a member. May have been his guest. Never asked to leave." A Mar-a-Lago manager separately confirmed that Epstein was never asked to leave.

The email carries the Bates number EFTA00740636, and it sat in the public release with that passage blacked out.

Someone bothered to redact it because the public account has been the opposite, repeated from the podium. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in remarks reported by the Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2025: "President Trump did nothing wrong and he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar a Lago for being a creep." Meanwhile, club membership records cited in *The Grifter's Club*, the 2020 book by Miami Herald journalists, reportedly show Epstein remained a member until October 2007, more than a year after his indictment.

The Justice Department performed the redaction. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche oversaw the production, and Attorney General Pam Bondi has said the redactions were completed in July 2025. The stated rationale was protecting victims' names and personally identifiable information. Nobody has identified who ordered this particular one.

What Bill Gates actually said

On June 10, 2026, Bill Gates sat for a voluntary transcribed interview with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that ran nearly six hours. The committee released the 138-page transcript on June 23.

The version circulating online says Gates admitted under oath that he knew Epstein had a past and there were crimes involved. That is close, and the distance matters. It was a transcribed congressional interview rather than courtroom testimony; witnesses are legally obligated to be truthful, but that is not the same as being sworn.

What he said verbatim was this: "I was aware that he had a criminal conviction. I knew that it was of a sexual nature, but, no, I don't think I knew, dug into the specifics, although I probably should have." In his opening statement he put it differently: "I recall being aware that Epstein had faced prior legal issues, but I did not fully understand the extent of the crimes he committed." He acknowledged Epstein's bad reputation stemming from that conviction.

So the widely circulated line that Gates claimed no knowledge of Epstein's crimes holds up only in a narrow sense. He denied knowledge of ongoing criminal conduct, saying he never witnessed nor had any indication of it and grasped the full extent only after the 2018 Miami Herald reporting. But he never claimed ignorance of the conviction itself. He admits he knew. The two men first met at a January 2011 New York dinner arranged by Gates's former science adviser, Boris Nikolic.

The blackmail question

Stephen Lynch, speaking to the Washington Times on June 10: "There were a couple of extramarital affairs that Epstein found out about from close associates of Mr. Gates... and it was a pressuring method. I think that Epstein saw a vulnerability and tried to use that as leverage. You can call it blackmail or anything else, but that was definitely a tactic, [and] we have found he uses that over and over again."

That is a lawmaker characterizing evidence rather than a documented finding, and in a story where documents are the only currency, the difference is the whole ballgame.

Gates's own account partially corroborates him. Epstein "was working to use information about my infidelities... to pressure me to re-engage with him," he said, and the emails "raise[] a serious probability that he contemplated blackmailing me." Then he said flatly: "I was not blackmailed." Meanwhile the DOJ–FBI memo of July 7, 2025 concluded that it found no credible evidence Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals.

Three accounts, then: a congressman's characterization, a witness's careful hedge, and a government finding that cuts against both. All three are real, and anyone telling you the record is settled is selling something. Gates has not been accused of a crime.

The story I had to cut

A fourth item is making the rounds. A 2019 FBI victim interview, supposedly, with a woman who met Epstein in 2003 at sixteen, recruited by a friend with a single line — give a nice guy a back massage, get $200, who didn't understand what was happening and defended him to the agents. I went looking for that document, and it doesn't exist as a single record. What exists is two different women.

The "conditioned to protect Epstein" element comes from CBS News reporting on April 6, 2026, about a former Slovak model brought to New York by Epstein associate Jean-Luc Brunel. She met Epstein at Brunel's birthday party at Cipriani in 2003. Victims' attorney Adam Horowitz said of her FBI interviews: "These interviews really show how grooming works. You're hearing the voice of someone who was conditioned to protect Epstein, even while describing the system he used to exploit young women." That is a lawyer's characterization of a transcript, and she was a foreign model recruited for modeling work rather than a sixteen-year-old offered cash for a massage.

The sixteen-year-old is Haley Robson, a Florida victim who has spoken publicly under her own name. She met Epstein around 2002 as a high schooler in West Palm Beach, recruited by a classmate who told her she could earn $200 giving a man a massage, and she has said she did not understand that she was being sexually abused.

Two women, two decades of documented harm between them, and a viral post that welded them into one person who never existed. The recruitment line itself appears verbatim in no released document; it is a paraphrase of language that recurs across dozens of Florida victim statements. I'm including this because it is the entire problem, not to score a point.

Why the sloppiness is the story

The Justice Department says it has released nearly 3.5 million pages of the more than six million Epstein-related documents it collected. It is withholding nearly three million, plus roughly 200,000 claimed as privileged, and Blanche says the Department is hiding nothing.

Investigators at CNN, NBC and ABC documented that FBI FD-302 interview summaries listed in DOJ's own internal indices were missing from the public release, including three of four 2019 interviews with a South Carolina woman who had also made an allegation against Trump. On approximately March 5, 2026, after news organizations flagged the gap, DOJ released three of the withheld 302s and explained that they had been held back as duplicative. Oversight Democrats have since threatened to hold Bondi in civil contempt.

That is the actual scandal, and it is a documentary one. It survives entirely on precision, on Bates numbers, on dates, on the difference between a redaction and a deletion, between what a witness said and what a congressman said a witness said.

Every conflated victim story, every "under oath" that was really a transcribed interview, every characterization laundered into a finding hands the people withholding three million pages the only argument they need. They don't have to prove the files are clean. They just have to point at you and say you can't read.

Get 20% off for 1 month

_______

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-epstein-mar-a-lago-statements-contradicted-by-files-raskin-says-11494395

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/members-congress-view-unredacted-epstein-files-monday-rcna257836

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/epstein-files-release-doj-01-30-26

https://abcnews.com/US/bill-gates-told-house-panel-epstein-plotting-blackmail/story?id=134098296

https://abcnews.com/US/bill-gates-told-house-panel-epstein-plotting-blackmail/story?id=134098296

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Final-Bondi-Transcript.pdf

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Tacitus, narrating the fatal year in which Rome consumed four emperors, recorded what came to be called the arcanum imperii, the secret of empire: the humiliating realization that a Caesar could be manufactured far from Rome by the will of legions encamped in distant provinces. The formula stuck. Over twenty centuries, canonists, court jurists, and princely counselors employed it to designate that particular category of knowledge the state retains for itself because it judges the knowledge too dangerous to circulate among the governed. Reason of state, secrecy of justice, time-limited classification, national-interest designation: the names alternate according to the era and the administration’s sense of propriety, while the operation remains rigorously identical since the Flavians. There are things the power knows and things the power does not tell, and the line separating one category from the other is drawn by power itself, without witnesses, without appeal, and, what is aesthetically most striking, without scandal.

I say this because today, in the New Mexico desert, there is a property of a little more than three thousand hectares that functions as an empirical demonstration of the thesis, and whose recent history I would like to submit to your patience.

The place is called Zorro Ranch, or was called, since the current owners have rechristened it with the name of a saint, which in the circumstances sounds less like devotion than like an exorcism. Jeffrey Epstein bought the ranch in 1993 from former Democratic governor Bruce King, erected there a twenty-six-thousand-square-foot house, a runway, a hangar, a helipad, and its own fire station, and over two decades received in that desert a quantity of people whose names today appear, duly covered by black rectangles, in the files of the United States Department of Justice. When the financier was arrested in July 2019, federal agents searched the Manhattan mansion, searched the Palm Beach residence, searched the island of Little Saint James in the Caribbean. They did not search the ranch. An internal FBI email dated 23 August of that year, whose signatory remains hidden under redaction, informed colleagues that it was not believed there were items of value to the investigation on the property. Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury would later summarize the point with an administrative dryness that needs no rhetoric, observing that Zorro was the only major property where there were known allegations of sexual crime and where the federal government simply did not request a warrant.

It did not request a warrant, and it requested something else. Hector Balderas, then attorney general of New Mexico, states that he received instructions to stand down. The state investigation was suspended at federal request, the inquiry was handed over to authorities in Washington, and the survivors were left without any accounting of what might have occurred on state territory. This was in 2019, during Donald Trump’s first term, with Epstein already dead in a federal cell in Manhattan and therefore with no risk that the diligence would interfere with the prosecution.

The two emails that slept six years in a drawer

In November 2025, pressured by an improbable parliamentary coalition, Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the Department of Justice to release the investigative collection. On 30 January 2026 roughly three million pages became public. And it was inside that documentary ocean that two 2019 communications appeared, six and a half years later, communications the FBI had received at the time and about which it had done nothing.

The first was an anonymous email addressed to Eddy Aragon, an Albuquerque radio host, alleging that two young foreign women had been buried in the hills near the ranch. It is worth recording, in the name of the intellectual hygiene that professional-outrage journalists usually dispense with, that the sender also demanded payment in bitcoin for supposed audiovisual material, that the originating account was later deactivated, and that nothing in the released documents corroborates the allegation beyond the message itself. It is an unverified denunciation and must be treated as such. The second communication came from a retired New Mexico state police officer, someone of the craft, who pointed to specific structures on the property worthy of a second inspection, among them a barn whose door had been built in the form of a security lock and a chimney that, in his assessment, required a technical explanation. Both messages reached the FBI. Neither generated any diligence.

A federal agency that possesses indicia and chooses not to convert them into investigative acts produces, over time, something worse than the impunity of the suspect. It produces the material impossibility of proof. Witnesses age and move away, traumatized memories degrade, physical traces disappear, properties change owners and are renovated. Time, the most faithful of public servants, works invariably in favor of those who have an interest in silence.

One hundred and thirty days

What followed has the melancholic beauty of belated things. On 16 February of this year the New Mexico House of Representatives approved by sixty-two votes to zero the creation of a truth commission dedicated to the survivors, endowed with subpoena power and a two-million-dollar budget, and including, among others, a former prosecutor of sex crimes and a retired FBI agent. Three days later Attorney General Raúl Torrez reopened the state criminal investigation. In March, with the cooperation of the current owners, the state finally searched the ranch, employing cadaver-sniffing dogs and drones. It was the first time in more than thirty years that any authority had done on that property what is routinely done at any suspicious crime scene.

And then, the gesture made, came the wall. Because what New Mexico now lacks is no longer access to the ground, but access to the archive. Torrez needs the federal documents without redaction, since every covered name is a line of investigation his office cannot follow, every blocked image is a person who cannot be identified, every suppressed date is a piece of chronology that cannot be reconstructed. The first formal request was filed on 13 February. On 30 June, after half a dozen requests and verbal assurances of cooperation that converted into nothing, Torrez wrote to Todd Blanche, acting attorney general and former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, a letter that became public on 9 July. In it he records that more than one hundred and thirty days have passed since the initial request, that no substantive response has been presented, and that the delay is unreasonable under any criterion of reasonableness. He adds, with the coldness prosecutors reserve for when they are speaking seriously, that every day of retention erodes the foundation on which a state prosecution could be built.

The Department of Justice replied through a spokesperson that it had already responded substantively the previous month, that it welcomes the New Mexico investigation, and that it stands ready to help, including in the event the state discovers federal crimes, which constitutes one of the most refined forms of institutional mockery ever produced in the English language. Two weeks later Torrez sent a new letter fixing 31 July as the final deadline, after which he will treat the request as denied and resort to every available legal remedy. We are therefore witnessing the spectacle of a state attorney general threatening to sue the federal government of his own country in order to obtain documents that a federal law already ordered delivered.

The black bar as method

It is now necessary to name the thing, for naming is the first operation of intelligence, and the available vocabulary does not account for the phenomenon. Let us call it tarjocracy. It is not censorship in the classical sense, which prohibits the circulation of the entire document and publicly assumes responsibility for the prohibition. It is something more refined: delivering the document, formally complying with the transparency law, allowing journalists to photograph stacks of released paper, while reserving the sovereign power to decide which syllable inside that paper remains invisible. Tarjocracy does not deny the archive. It returns it emasculated, and returns it with the signature of the one who fulfilled the judicial order.

What makes the American case worthy of study, and what should particularly interest the Brazilian reader, is the direction of the scalpel. Lawyers representing more than two hundred alleged victims denounced that the January disclosure left exposed the names of at least thirty-one of them, as well as images that should never have ended up on a government website, an episode they qualified as the most serious violation of victim privacy to occur in a single day in the history of the United States. Simultaneously, the names of the alleged co-perpetrators remained under black rectangles. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi reported that a document produced by the Department of Justice itself in 2019, identifying various Epstein co-perpetrators, returned to Congress with at least six identities suppressed, none of which have been disclosed to this day. Of the entire universe of people involved in that structure, exactly two were prosecuted, and one of them, Ghislaine Maxwell, is seeking presidential clemency.

EFTA00150847

Note, dear reader, the surgical precision of the instrument. The same bureaucracy that declares itself incapable of processing six million pages within the legal deadline proved fully capable of identifying, among millions of lines, exactly which names should disappear. The apparatus did not fail. The apparatus worked, and worked in a single direction, exposing those who were violated and protecting those who violated, which in any decent manual of public administration would be called a total inversion of the purpose of the service.

The money, which never lies

There remains the financial chapter, and it is here that the matter leaves the terrain of suspicion and enters that of arithmetic. The Senate Finance Committee and the House Judiciary minority documented more than one and a half billion dollars in suspicious transactions reported to the Treasury by four banks that operated accounts linked to Epstein, among them JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank. The detail that synthesizes the entire era is the following. Between 2002 and 2016, the period in which the scheme operated, JPMorgan reported seven suspicious-activity communications covering a little more than four million dollars. After Epstein’s arrest in 2019 the same bank filed reports covering roughly five thousand transfers and one billion three hundred million dollars. The amount the bank judged worthy of alert while the crime was happening is an infinitesimal fraction of what it judged worthy of alert once the crime could no longer be prevented.

These reports continue to be withheld from Congress. Krishnamoorthi attributes the blockage to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The Treasury does not confirm. It is recorded as a parliamentary allegation, not as a proven fact, which is how parliamentary allegations must be treated. The proven fact is simpler and more depressing: the FBI itself admitted, in a congressional hearing, that it had not followed the money.

On 15 July a group rare in its composition, Republican Thomas Massie and Democrats Ro Khanna, Teresa Leger Fernández, Jeff Merkley, and Ben Ray Luján, introduced the bill that became known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, creating a dedicated cause of action so that state prosecutors, members of Congress, and victims can sue the Attorney General of the United States for retention, delay, or improper redaction, and guaranteeing victims the right to obtain the records that concern them. Massie explained the necessity of the second text with a frankness that deserves to be preserved, admitting that it had never occurred to them, when drafting the first law, that the highest official charged with enforcing the law would simply fail to comply with it. Massie, incidentally, leaves Congress at the end of this session, having lost the party primary in May to an opponent backed by the president. The coincidence proves nothing, and it is precisely because it proves nothing that it is so unsettling.

The estate has no homeland

The Brazilian reader who has come this far will already have recognized the architecture, for it is familiar to us to the point of tedium. Raymundo Faoro described with unsurpassed precision the bureaucratic estate that appropriates the public apparatus and converts it into the patrimony of a caste, and what we are observing in New Mexico is an Anglo-Saxon variation of the same phenomenon, with better letterhead and the same outcome. Here, when the bill came due for a group that had confessed to corrupting more than one thousand eight hundred politicians, a single ministerial stroke of the pen sufficed to suspend ten billion three hundred million reais in fines and, in the same movement, to grant the company access to the investigative material, arming the investigated against the investigator. There, the archive is delivered with redaction. Here, the archive is delivered to the defendant. The technique differs; the doctrine is one and the same: whoever controls the record controls the past, and whoever controls the past dispenses with the need to control the present.

Lobaczewski, who studied the colonization of institutions by organized moral deviations, noted that captured structures develop a language of their own to render diagnosis impossible. Administrative deadline, documentary volume, protection of the victim’s privacy, integrity of the ongoing investigation. Each of these expressions, taken in isolation, describes a legitimate concern of any serious prosecutor’s office in the world. Gathered and applied precisely at the point where the archive would cease to protect the institution and begin to accuse it, they form what can only be described as a method.

In the end there remain the numbers of the American government itself. Of roughly six million documents identified as potentially relevant, approximately three million have been published. The word “Zorro” appears nearly fourteen thousand times in that collection. A state of the federation searched the ranch with cadaver dogs and could not read its own files. A state attorney general needs a second federal law in order to be able to sue the guardian of the first. And while New Mexico’s truth commission prepares its preliminary report, the survivors whose names were revealed await the disclosure of the names that remain hidden, in the scarcely reasonable hope that the same machine that exposed them will one day consent to expose the others.

Roughly speaking, this is exactly what the transparency law produced. The archive was opened, and out of it came, first and most clearly, the names of the girls. What the American state managed to protect, in the end, was only itself, and no one needed to disobey anything for that result to be achieved. Tacitus would have understood it all in three lines. We, who dispose of three million pages, continue to wait.

Subscribe now

A decade of emails between a celebrated journalist and the West’s most protected predator reveals the oldest function of the press: not to watch power, but to dress it for the ball

In Rome there was a figure that history barely records because it preferred not to be recorded: the nomenclator, the cultured slave who walked half a step behind the senator and whispered in his ear the name, genealogy, and weakness of every citizen who approached him in the Forum. He was neither servant nor advisor; he was an instrument of memory and calculation, an appendage of other people’s vanity who knew more about the city than the city knew about itself. Twenty centuries later, the nomenclator swapped the toga for a rumpled blazer, learned to write elegant English, won two National Magazine Awards, and began presenting himself as a journalist. His name, in the case that concerns us, is Michael Wolff.

I say this without indignation, because indignation, dear reader, is the luxury of those who have not yet understood the mechanism. What the documents reveal is not a scandal in the cheap sense of the word, the kind that exhausts itself in a headline and a resignation demand. It is something colder and more enduring: the documentary demonstration that the press, at its highest and most celebrated level, has long functioned as a reputation laundry, and that the access journalist (the man who dines with the powerful and then narrates them (is less the watchdog than the butler.

The Archive

Let us recap the essentials, since the froth of news has already covered the facts. In November 2025, Democrats on the U.S. House Oversight Committee released a first batch of emails obtained from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, and Republicans on the same committee then made public more than twenty thousand additional pages received from the estate, a collection that, combined, reached about 23,000 documents. Among thousands of messages exchanged with bankers, academics, politicians, and philanthropists, a nearly decade-long correspondence between Epstein and Wolff emerged, catalogued in documents that author Ellie Leonard reproduced in full on her Substack, preserving the original typing errors like fingerprints at a crime scene.

The relationship began around 2003, when Wolff unsuccessfully tried to broker the sale of New York magazine to a consortium that included Epstein and Harvey Weinstein himself, and continued until 2019. In between, a menu of intimacy that would be comical were it not what it is: tennis shoes sent by messenger to Paris, dinners on Avenue Foch, invitations to the Caribbean island, introductions to young assistants, meetings with the president of the Maldives and with Ehud Barak. But what turns the social gossip correspondence into a historical document is something else. It is the moment when the journalist stops observing and begins to operate.

The Plan

In June 2011, Wolff wrote Epstein a message that is, strictly speaking, a campaign plan. He proposed a disciplined approach divided into phases: in the short term, deal with the British tabloids and clean up the internet profile through search result manipulation; in the medium term, identify a set of business journalists with whom to build a friendly relationship, turning Epstein into a source, first off the record, then on; and, in the end, produce one or two press pieces that would introduce a new narrative and confront the old one. He himself named the operation with a frankness that requires no comment: he wrote that it was a kind of reverse journalistic effort.

Reverse, indeed. Because journalism, in the definition still taught in schools before students discover how things really work, exists to reveal what the powerful want to hide. What Wolff offered Epstein was the machine in reverse: a device to hide what the public would be interested in knowing, operated by someone whose professional credibility depended precisely on pretending to do the opposite. In July of that year, when Epstein asked what to do about an investigative journalist preparing a story, Wolff replied that there were many ways to neutralize her. Neutralize. The verb is his.

There was, it is true, a financial counterpart under discussion. In November 2011, Epstein requested a financial proposal, and Wolff described a plan that, rolled out over eighteen to twenty-four months, would have a transformative effect, allowing the financier to be as public as he wished and, in the chilling phrase, immunize him against opprobrium, as well as the people who associated with him. Note the elegance of the engineering: it was not just about protecting Epstein, but extending the varnish of respectability to the entire court that approached him. Reputation as a service, with a subscription plan.

The Gullible Press

The most revealing passage, however, is not the one about money, but the diagnosis. In January 2015, when court documents reignited accusations against Epstein, Wolff advised the client to attack the media’s willingness to hide behind court documents to repeat defamatory allegations without verifying them. And he went further, in a message describing the situation as an extortion aided by a gullible press. The original expression, gullible press, deserves to be savored with the calm of someone who understands that a man only calls the press gullible when he knows exactly how to deceive it, because that is what he himself does for a living.

Here it is worth a note of factual discipline, dear reader, so that no one accuses me of doing what I accuse. Wolff was not indicted for any crime. He maintains that he approached Epstein for journalistic reasons, and there is indeed an article that he spent months trying to publish in New York Magazine that never ran. The most generous reading of his own defense is that he feigned complicity to extract material. The issue (and it is one that ethics manuals cannot circumvent) is that the line between pretending to help and actually helping, at a certain point, ceases to exist for all practical purposes, especially when the supposed disguise lasts eight years and includes introducing the target to a new young assistant.

The Bullet

It was during the 2016 election season, however, that the correspondence reached its darkest note, and it is here that the case ceases to be a curiosity about the decay of elite journalism and touches American politics directly. On December 15, 2015, on the night of a Republican debate, Wolff warned Epstein, under the subject Heads Up, that CNN planned to ask Trump about the relationship between the two. Epstein asked what response to prepare, and Wolff advised letting Trump hang himself, because a denial would generate political and public relations capital, or, alternatively, if Trump seemed capable of winning, they could save him, creating a debt.

Translation, for those who still hesitate before the euphemism: a journalist was suggesting to a convicted sex criminal that he use his knowledge of a presidential candidate either to destroy him or to put him in debt. On January 21, 2016, Wolff wrote that the more Trump seemed real, or, God forbid, inevitable, the more reporters would turn to the subject, so Epstein would need a strategy. On February 19, the phrase that sums it all up: You are the bullet against Trump. And, a few days before the election, under the subject Now could be the time, the final offer: that there was an opportunity to talk about Trump in a way that would generate great sympathy and help finish him off. Interested?

Broadly speaking, it is the portrait of two men calculating, at the table, the market price of a future president. That nothing came of this transaction, that Epstein never went public, and that Trump was never asked about it in that debate, does not diminish what the emails show: the raw material of the next decade of American politics being negotiated like haggling over real estate. Years later, in January 2019, it was Epstein himself writing to Wolff, about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, the line that Democrats would highlight from the paperwork: of course he knew about the girls, because he asked Ghislaine to stop. A phrase that Trump denies, that does not legally incriminate him, and that nevertheless echoes like a door slamming in an empty corridor.

The Defense

When the emails came to light, Wolff did not retreat; he advanced. In an Instagram video, he declared that we might be getting close to the smoking gun on the Trump-Epstein relationship, and stated that the two had the closest of relationships for more than a decade and shared everything. On a Daily Beast podcast, he offered the line that will stick: as my mother would say, you catch more with a little honey. He acknowledged having done play-acting to ingratiate himself with sources, and admitted that, in retrospect, he would have rewritten the messages, which are embarrassing, although he insisted: remember what’s happening here. I’m inside. I’m where no one else is.

It is a defense that deserves respect for its audacity, if not for its logic. Because being where no one else is is precisely the description of the work of the informant, the courtier, and the spy (and not necessarily that of the journalist, whose public utility is measured not by proximity to power, but by the critical distance he manages to maintain from it. Wolff, whose career was built precisely on that promise of access) access to Rupert Murdoch in The Man Who Owns the News, access to the White House in Fire and Fury, a book that publisher Henry Holt told the Associated Press sold more than 1.7 million copies in less than three weeks and whose factual accuracy was contested from day one, never hid, it is fair to say, his method. As early as 1998, in a book about his failed internet venture, Brill’s Content pointed out alleged factual errors and quoted people complaining of invented or altered quotes. The man always said who he was. We are the ones who preferred the awards.

The Entire Court

It would be comforting to treat Wolff as an anomaly, the corrupted scribe in the midst of a clean profession. The documents, however, do not allow that consolation. The same estate confirmed that Landon Thomas Jr., a New York Times financial reporter, maintained a closeness with Epstein that cost him his job in early 2019, having gone so far as to request a $30,000 donation from the financier for a Harlem preschool, which the newspaper classified as a violation of its ethical standards. It revealed that Epstein’s team worked to remove his mugshot from digital vehicles and to downgrade negative stories in search results, and that editors and newsrooms of publications producing hundreds of texts a day barely blinked when a flattering article about the financier appeared. And it confirmed, before all this, what had been known since 2003, when Vanity Fair reporter Vicky Ward investigated the Farmer sisters’ allegations and saw the story gutted; as she later told NPR, then-editor Graydon Carter found a bullet at the door of his Manhattan apartment and a decapitated cat’s head in the garden of his Connecticut home, a message whose grammar required no translation.

The genealogy here is long and unflattering. The journalist as fixer for the powerful is not an invention of Substack or the digital age. Balzac had already dissected it in Lost Illusions, when he threw young Lucien de Rubempré into the Paris of newspapers, where the pen was sold by the line and the favorable or destructive review obeyed less the merit of the work than the envelope that accompanied it. Karl Kraus, in Vienna, spent decades demonstrating that the press did not describe the world’s corruption but produced it, and that the feuilletonist was the true architect of bought opinion. And among us, Nelson Rodrigues, who knew the fauna from the inside, coined the definitive definition of the category when he spoke of the idiot who confuses his own vanity with professional duty. What changed from Balzac to Wolff was not the nature of the transaction, but the quality of the lighting: today the scribe receives awards, gives motivational lectures, and writes bestsellers about the very powerful he served.

The King Who Was Not Laundered

There is one detail, however, that elevates the Epstein case above mere sociology of venal journalism, and it is the asymmetry of fates. Once the files became public, the court paid varying prices. Peter Mandelson, British ambassador to Washington, was fired by Keir Starmer on September 11, 2025, after emails surfaced in which he called Epstein his best friend and encouraged him, on the eve of his 2008 arrest, to fight for early release, telling him he held him in the highest regard; the Foreign Office justified the dismissal by saying the depth of the relationship was materially different from what was known at the time of the appointment. Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary and former president of Harvard, announced on November 17 that he was stepping back from his public commitments, saying he was deeply ashamed and taking full responsibility for his misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein, and two days later resigned from the OpenAI board, while the New York Times, the Center for American Progress, and the Yale Budget Lab ended their ties with him. Kathryn Ruemmler, former Obama White House counsel and now at Goldman Sachs, said she regretted knowing Jeffrey Epstein. Even Steve Bannon appears in the emails acting as a kind of crisis manager for the financier.

And yet, dear reader, the person to whom Epstein was, according to Wolff himself, closest (the only one not held accountable) is precisely the one who now occupies the Oval Office. Trump denies any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, threatened to sue Wolff, called everything a hoax, and signed, on November 19, 2025, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law that forced the Department of Justice to release the files the same Department that, under his command, published in July a memo stating, there was no client list or evidence of blackmail, and that dragged its feet on disclosure until dumping millions of pages, still redacted, throughout the end of the year. The irony is worthy of Tacitus: the instrument built to launder reputations ultimately produced a stain that no SEO can downgrade, and the only client who escaped unscathed was the most powerful of all.

Coda

What remains is the lesson, which is not about Epstein, a man dead in 2019 in a Manhattan cell under circumstances an official memo declares suicide and much of the country refuses to believe, nor about Trump, whose name the files cite without, so far, legally incriminating him. The lesson is about us, the readers, and about the machine we consume as if it were information when it is often its perfectly packaged opposite. We discovered, with these emails, that some of the texts we read as journalism were pieces of an image operation, and that the prestige of a byline is exactly the asset that makes it sellable.

The Roman nomenclator at least did not pretend to be anything else. He knew he was an instrument and died anonymous. The modern tragedy, if the word still serves, is that the instrument learned to sign his own name, collect awards, and sell us, bound and polished, the version of the facts he helped manufacture. Power has always had those who whispered names in its ear. The novelty is that now the whisper comes with a byline, an editorial lens, and a seal of credibility. Broadly speaking, we traded the cultured slave for the award-winning columnist, and called it progress. The king, that one, continues to be dressed for the ball by the very people who swear they are only describing him.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

Every age produces its own scandal, and every scandal, whether it intends to or not, teaches something about the civilization that gave birth to it. The Belle Époque had the Dreyfus Affair, which exposed the anti-Semitism embedded within the French state. The Cold War had Kim Philby, who demonstrated just how high treason could climb inside the British Empire. Our own age has Jeffrey Epstein, and it persists, with an obstinacy bordering on pathology, in treating him as tabloid gossip, as the story of a wealthy sexual predator and his private depravity, when the millions of pages released by the U.S. Department of Justice since December 2025 tell a far older, far less photogenic story. They tell the story of an infrastructure.

For that is precisely what this is, dear reader. We are not looking merely at a wealthy degenerate with a private jet, although he was wealthy, degenerate, and owned several aircraft. We are looking at what the ancient Greeks might have called a ponerocracy, government exercised by the morally corrupt from within the formal structures of power. Epstein's network operated simultaneously as an investment fund, a modeling agency, a geopolitical consultancy, an informal diplomatic courier, and, according to documents produced by the Drug Enforcement Administration, possibly something else besides. Its tentacles stretched, with the patience of someone planting citrus groves, from post-Soviet Havana to luxury apartments in São Paulo's Vila Olímpia district.

It would be comforting to dismiss all of this as a statistical coincidence. A financier knows a former president, who knows a port executive, who knows a cabinet minister, who knows an investor. The problem with that explanation is that chronology steadily destroys it. The documents place Epstein inside discussions concerning Cuban port infrastructure, diplomatic rapprochement between Havana and Abu Dhabi, investment opportunities in Chávez's Venezuela, the recruitment of models on the island, and continuous interaction with figures drawn from politics, business, diplomacy, and finance. None of these activities, taken individually, constitutes a crime. Taken together, however, they reveal a pattern whose internal coherence is difficult to ignore.

The correspondence involving Sultan bin Sulayem is particularly revealing. Epstein does not merely introduce people to one another. He recommends strategies, identifies intermediaries, comments on Cuba's political climate, evaluates regulatory obstacles, and even discusses which American public figures might lend institutional legitimacy to ongoing negotiations. He behaves less like a financial adviser than an unofficial foreign policy operator. His fees become almost secondary beside the real asset he controlled. His decisive capital was never financial. It was relational. Traditional businessmen trade goods. Epstein traded access. Banks finance projects. He financed meetings. Diplomats officially represent states. Epstein quietly brought states together while representing none of them.

Perhaps this is the defining transformation of global elites over the past several decades. Classical theories of power, from Pareto to Burnham, imagined national elites competing within their own institutional structures. The twenty-first century appears instead to have produced an entirely different functional aristocracy composed of individuals whose true citizenship resides inside their contact lists. They move effortlessly from intelligence services into finance, from finance into international organizations, from those organizations into multinational corporations, and eventually back into politics as independent consultants. The credentials change. The network remains. Offices come and go. Circulation endures. Power increasingly resides not inside states themselves but within the intermediaries capable of speaking to everyone, serving everyone, compromising everyone, while remaining accountable to no one.

Rafi Eitan's career illustrates this phenomenon almost perfectly. Within a relatively brief period he reorganized Colombia's intelligence services, brokered hundreds of millions of dollars in Israeli military equipment sales, developed agricultural ventures in Cuba, built the Miramar Trade Center (the island's principal commercial hub, in partnership with Fidel Castro's government, and became a regular interlocutor with Cuban authorities. None of these activities displaced the others. They all coexisted. Espionage ceased to be his specialty. Agriculture was not his specialty either. Neither was international commerce. His true specialization became moving effortlessly between spheres that ordinary citizens believe remain rigidly separated. The modern intermediary no longer chooses between the uniform and the business suit, between the embassy and the investment bank, between state security and commercial enterprise. He inhabits them all simultaneously. That fusion is precisely what makes him indispensable.

It is within this environment that Jeffrey Epstein flourished. His greatest talent was never extraordinary financial management. Plenty of fund managers consistently outperformed him. Nor did he possess exceptional technical expertise in logistics, diplomacy, or intelligence. His real gift was considerably rarer. He knew how to place billionaires, academics, bankers, politicians, state-owned enterprise executives, port authorities, retired intelligence officers, and young women recruited through Jean-Luc Brunel's modeling agencies around the same table while persuading each participant that they were involved only with the respectable side of the enterprise. Fragmentation of knowledge became a collective security mechanism. Every participant saw only the hallway through which he walked, never the entire building. Nobody needed to understand the whole operation. They only needed enough information to remain inside it.

The predecessors illuminate the landscape. Before Jeffrey Epstein there was Robert Maxwell, the British media tycoon who looted pension funds, maintained relationships with more intelligence services than he could comfortably acknowledge, and drowned under circumstances that remain unexplained off the Canary Islands in 1991, only days before the Soviet Union whose institutions he had helped infiltrate finally dissolved. Maxwell, the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, liked to boast at dinner parties that his Cuban cigars were rolled by Fidel Castro's personal order, an anecdote recorded by his biographer Gordon Thomas and one that may well have been the invention of a compulsive fabulist. What is not invention, because it appears in the memoirs of the principal actor himself, is the career of Rafi Eitan, the legendary Israeli intelligence officer who directed the bureau responsible for the Jonathan Pollard operation and whom specialized literature frequently identifies as one of the mentors of the young Robert Maxwell.

After falling into disgrace following the Pollard affair, Eitan reinvented himself as national security adviser to Colombian President Virgilio Barco beginning in 1986. There he reorganized Colombia's intelligence apparatus while brokering a package worth approximately 230 million dollars in Israeli fighter aircraft, patrol boats, and electronic surveillance equipment. The chronology deserves careful attention. Those same years coincided with the systematic extermination of the Patriotic Union, the legal political arm of the Colombian left, whose members were murdered by right-wing paramilitary organizations in the thousands over the following decade. Carlos Castaño, co-founder of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia and self-confessed architect of much of that slaughter, later recounted in his autobiography the year and a half of military training he received in Israel. Armed with Colombian commissions, Eitan established the BM Group in Panama before relocating to Cuba during the desperate years that followed the collapse of Soviet subsidies. There he revived forty thousand hectares of neglected citrus plantations, built the Miramar Trade Center in partnership with Castro's government (a complex that remains the principal commercial center for foreign corporations operating on the island) and dined with Fidel Castro himself on at least two occasions, according to his own account, while Cuban intelligence monitored every telephone call he placed. A retired intelligence officer selling tractors to the last communist government in the Americas is the sort of plot that even John le Carré might have considered implausible.

It is precisely upon this chessboard that the second generation enters the story. Flight manifests place Jean-Luc Brunel, the French modeling agent introduced to Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell, aboard Epstein's aircraft beginning in 1998. At the same time, investigative material contained in the Department of Justice files documents Brunel's recruitment expeditions to Cuba during the same period, when post-Soviet poverty transformed adolescent girls into an abundant raw material. Years later, in March 2009, emails show Epstein writing to Brunel to inform him that a former Sony executive would become Cuba's new entertainment czar, instructing him explicitly to relay the information to Andrés Pastrana. The Pastrana in question is the former Colombian president, whose name appears roughly thirty times throughout the released files and who acknowledged flying aboard Epstein's aircraft in 2003 on a journey that official records describe as traveling from Venezuela toward the Bahamas but which Pastrana insists concluded in Havana during what he characterizes as a humanitarian mission. Readers may choose whichever verb they consider appropriate to describe a former head of state serving as intermediary between a convicted sexual offender and a government operating under an American embargo. The larger pattern is what matters. Foreign policy, private philanthropy, commercial logistics, and the international movement of vulnerable young women gradually become impossible to distinguish from one another.

During that same year, 2009, emails reveal Epstein advising Sultan bin Sulayem, then the powerful chairman of DP World, the Emirati logistics giant, on a strategy aimed at securing operational control over the ports of Cuba and Chávez's Venezuela. He arranged meetings between the Emirati foreign minister and Cuban officials while proposing former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson as a figure capable of lending institutional respectability to the negotiations. The project ultimately failed after Venezuela nationalized its port terminals, yet it produced consequences of a different nature years later. In February 2026, only weeks after congressional investigators publicly identified his previously redacted name inside the Epstein files, bin Sulayem resigned from the leadership of DP World. Epstein's Cuban agenda also included Pepe Fanjul, the Cuban-American sugar magnate, longtime financier of anti-Castro lobbying efforts, supporter of the Helms-Burton Act, and, more recently, a significant donor to Donald Trump's presidential campaigns. The evidence invites the reader to decide whether these are isolated cocktail-party acquaintances or the visible contours of a durable structure. At this stage, the latter interpretation appears considerably more persuasive.

There is also the chemical chapter of this story, and it deserves to be treated with appropriate rigor. Publicly released documents reveal that the Drug Enforcement Administration opened an investigation in December 2010 into Epstein and fourteen additional individuals following approximately fifty million dollars in suspicious transfers moving between Switzerland, France, the Cayman Islands, and New York. According to Bloomberg's reporting, investigators suspected the transactions were connected to financing and distributing synthetic narcotics. That much is documented fact. The realm of inference begins elsewhere. In March 2012 Epstein's company, Hyperion Air, purchased a Bell 430 helicopter that had previously been registered through Aircraft Guaranty Corporation, a fiduciary company responsible for maintaining registrations for more than one thousand aircraft through post office boxes located in Onalaska, Texas, a town of barely three thousand residents without even an airport runway. The same Aircraft Guaranty whose owner, Debra Mercer-Erwin, would later receive a sixteen-year prison sentence for facilitating aircraft registrations connected to drug trafficking organizations. The same registry whose client and operator Fred Machado, the Argentine businessman implicated in illegal campaign financing involving José Luis Espert, pleaded guilty in May 2026 to fraud and money laundering. The fact that Epstein's helicopter passed through the same registration mechanism used by aircraft linked to narcotics trafficking does not prove criminal collaboration, and intellectual honesty requires saying so explicitly. What it does demonstrate is that predatory finance and organized crime frequently rely upon identical logistical infrastructure. Few people appeared to consider that worthy of attention. The proximity between those worlds seems less accidental than structural.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Thucydides, who knew war from within before he knew it as a historian, wrote that armed conflict is a violent teacher precisely because it reduces men's temperament to the level of their circumstances. The phrase, forged twenty-five centuries ago to explain Corcyra's moral decomposition, gained in 2026 an involuntary and almost didactic illustration. The planet's largest hydrocarbon producer, the country that for two decades wielded gas as a diplomatic argument and petroleum as geopolitical artillery, now rationed gasoline to its own population. Hours-long queues at filling stations, suspended fuel exports, degraded fuel quality standards by decree, and to complete the portrait with that touch of irony History reserves for distracted empires, Russia buying gasoline from India. The gas pump with nuclear warheads, as an American senator once jeered, had run dry. The warheads, those remain.

Subscribe now

Al Jazeera's Moscow correspondent, Yulia Shapovalova, summarized the situation in a dry sentence while reporting that the crisis is deep. Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries and fuel storage facilities, increasingly frequent and striking ever deeper into Russian territory, compromised the supply chain to the point where the government declared a state of emergency in Crimea and admitted the possibility of shutting down industries to guarantee harvest diesel. Moreover, the country that once dreamed of importing only technology and arrogance now negotiates the import of hundreds of thousands of tons monthly of gasoline from wherever it can get it, with the predictable effect on an already squeezed balance of payments ravaged by war and sanctions. An empire, broadly speaking, is measured by the distance between what it promises and what it supplies. And Russia in 2026 does not supply even its own citizen's fuel tank.

The Kremlin's semantic alchemy

Confronted with the crisis, the Russian president produced one of those phrases that deserve a place in any future anthology of State euphemism. He said the situation is not critical. Now, not critical for whom, one might ask the driver from Voronezh in the fourth hour of a queue. Not critical for whom, the farmer would ask, who does not know whether there will be diesel for harvest or employment afterward. The answer, evidently, is that it is not critical for whoever formulates the phrase, since the author of that assessment fuels at pumps that know no scarcity.

Yet the Kremlin's verbal alchemy goes further still. Putin refuses to call war the strikes Ukraine delivers deep into Russian territory. He prefers to classify them as terrorist acts against civilian targets and infrastructure. The vocabulary choice is not innocent, and the reader who has followed my texts on Brazilian pseudoducational environments will recognize the mechanism, for it is rigorously the same. Walter Lippmann explained a century ago that the public rarely sees the naked fact, it sees the frame around it. The Kremlin governs the frame with far more zeal than it governs fuel supply. If there is no war, no defeat is possible. If there is only terrorism, one merely administers the consequences, rations the fuel, buries the dead discreetly, and carries on. Reality, however, has an inconvenient habit. It does not read official communiques.

Indeed, we are in the fifth year of what Russian bureaucracy still insists on calling a special military operation, an expression that was old at birth and today sounds like those diminutives families use to avoid naming the patriarch's illness. Four and a half years of a conflict that was supposed to last weeks, against an adversary that the Kremlin itself once described as an artificial state governed by comedians. For purposes of historical comparison, and the comparison is cruel, Stalin's Red Army took less time to break the Wehrmacht's spine, then the most feared military machine on the planet. The contrast dispenses with adjectives, so I merely register it.

September 2026, or the election as analgesic

And it is in this scenario of rationed bombs and falling bombs that Russia prepares for its Single Election Day, scheduled for September, when a new Duma is elected. Backstage reports circulating among analysts of Russian political systems describe a Presidential Administration in full pre-electoral mode, treating the government's declining popularity not as crisis, but as an administrable variable. The precedent comforts the Kremlin's technocrats, for the legislative elections of 2011, 2016, and 2021 were likewise not accompanied by popular enthusiasm, and yet the outcome was nonetheless the expected one. Managed democracy has such conveniences. The voter votes, the system counts, the Kremlin wins, and the only genuine uncertainty is the size of abstention that will need disguising.

The novelty of this cycle, nonetheless, is fatigue. The social weariness of a war entering its fifth year ceased being academic hypothesis to become acknowledged background risk for the regime's own strategists. Their response, dear reader, is of a cynical elegance deserving record. Unpopular measures were discretely postponed until after the ballot, while the campaign is being reframed as a referendum on security. Observe the subtlety of that displacement. A referendum on government performance would ask why there is no gasoline in a country floating on petroleum. A referendum on security asks only whether the voter is afraid. And fear, let us grant, is the only commodity the Kremlin still produces with a surplus.

The rest of the Russian party landscape completes the opera with its circus acts. The Communist Party, nominal heir to Marx, just filed a manifesto in the Duma dedicated to the Russian people as state-forming, breaking with proletarian internationalism to compete for the nationalist electorate, which amounts, broadly speaking, to a vegetarian opening a steakhouse for reasons of commercial survival. Zhirinovsky's party, orphaned from its founder, bets on the dead man's posthumous sanctification, transforming a politician into a relic and a political banner into a chapel. The New People party must demonstrate legislative effectiveness. And Fair Russia must demonstrate, according to a formulation that circulates priceless among analysts themselves, that it exists. Behold pluralism Moscow style, a garden where every flower is plastic and the gardener works for the Presidential Administration.

When even friends begin to ask

There is, however, a symptom more interesting than the queues and more revealing than the electoral choreography. The most pointed criticisms of how the war is being conducted no longer come only from Kyiv, Brussels, or Western newsrooms. They come from within the very ecosystem of commentators who spent years defending Moscow. Paul Craig Roberts, American polemicist veteran who built a reputation denouncing Washington's hegemony and openly sympathizing with Moscow's reasons, now asks in exasperation why a first-rate military power cannot defeat in four and a half years an adversary he himself classifies as third-rate. Roberts even speculates, and I register that this is declared speculation and not established fact, whether pro-Western forces within Russia's government itself might be sabotaging the war effort, and provokes with the rhetorical question of whether Putin might be an unwitting agent of the West. Gilbert Doctorow, another analyst historically sympathetic to Moscow, raised a similar interrogation. And the truly significant detail is that both texts were translated and published in the Russian press.

Pause there a moment, dear reader. In a regime that imprisons citizens for calling war by its name, domestic newspapers publish foreign columnists asking whether the czar knows what he is doing. This admits two readings, and neither is reassuring for the Kremlin. Either censorship has weakened because the system no longer has the energy to police all its narrative frontiers, or someone within the apparatus wishes the question to circulate, which would suggest that informal succession struggle has already begun in the cellars while the facade celebrates stability. In either case, the message is identical. The monopoly on the frame, to return to Lippmann, has begun to crack.

The uncomfortable mirror

It would be comforting to end here, with the West in the audience laughing at the gasless czar. But the reader who follows my work knows I do not write to comfort anyone, and intellectual honesty obliges turning the mirror around. The technique the Kremlin applies with brutality, we apply with varnish. Here too governments prefer to administer perception rather than correct fact, here too elections are reframed so the uncomfortable question never reaches the ballot, here too technical language serves as armor against diagnosis, as I have already demonstrated by dissecting Brazilian education and the ESG utopia. The difference between Moscow's managed democracy and the West's anesthetized democracies is one of degree and method, not nature. There they ration gasoline and manufacture consent. Here we ration truth and outsource consent to consultancies.

The war was conceived to demonstrate that Russia was a great power. Four and a half years later, it has demonstrated the opposite with an eloquence no enemy could achieve. And September's election, designed as a referendum on security, will be in practice a referendum on fear, that fuel the regime distributes without rationing and without queues. Thucydides, who saw Athens rot from within while triumphing from without, would recognize the plot without difficulty. The empire does not die when the enemy reaches the gate. It dies when the citizen, having stood four hours in a filling station queue, looks at the campaign poster and finally understands that the empty tank is the only official communique he can still trust.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

We have oil, water, land, minerals, and an obscene amount of territory. We depend on others to grow crops, locate tractors, process data, manufacture chips, and turn our own oil into diesel. Apparently, this is called independence.

Brazil is sovereign. I learned that in school and, like almost everything we learned in school, the statement came with a colorful map, a waving flag, and a teacher explaining with undisguised pride that we lived in a country of continental dimensions. It was true. It still is. The problem began when we turned geography into security doctrine and started believing that size spontaneously generates power, a kind of geopolitical reasoning inspired by the man who buys a three-ton pickup truck and imagines that physical strength came with the vehicle. We have 8.5 million square kilometers, one of the largest reserves of freshwater on the planet, oil at depths that would have made Jules Verne ask Petrobras for technical advice, minerals, arable land, and an Atlantic coastline whose sheer length should inspire indecent fantasies in any naval strategist. We feed a considerable part of the world, manufacture military aircraft sold to Europeans, and are building a nuclear-powered submarine. Seen from a distance, the picture is impressive. Seen up close, it becomes even more impressive, although for slightly different reasons, because in order to plant we need Russian and Chinese fertilizer, to operate our electronic infrastructure we depend on Asian semiconductors, to locate agricultural machinery we use a system controlled by the United States Department of Defense and, after extracting oil from beneath the Atlantic, we send part of it around the world so that we can buy refined diesel abroad. Brazilian sovereignty works admirably well, provided Moscow, Beijing, Washington, Taiwan, and a handful of foreign corporations remain in a good mood.

This peculiarity usually disappears from public debate because we still think about independence through the imagination of the nineteenth century. We look for soldiers at the border, enemy ships off the coast, and foreign flags flying over government buildings. History, that notoriously ill-mannered lady, modernized her instruments while we continued admiring Pedro Américo's painting of Brazilian independence. Today, one power can constrain another through fertilizers, semiconductors, payment systems, satellites, cloud services, digital infrastructure, and access to critical components. No general needs to appear on television and no aircraft carrier needs to anchor off Santos. Administrative decisions taken thousands of miles away will suffice, perhaps in a windowless room by people who have never heard of Tiradentes. This is why an unpleasant question occurred to me and, precisely for that reason, deserves some attention. What would happen to Brazil if, for ninety days, a few major powers decided to care exclusively about their own interests? We might discover that the independence proclaimed by Dom Pedro has aged better in school textbooks than in global supply chains.

THE GIANT LEARNED TO MARCH. THEY FORGOT TO BUILD THE BRAIN

It is worth acknowledging first what Brazil has done correctly, especially because we have developed such an intimate relationship with failure that any compliment directed at the country tends to sound like concealed irony. The Submarine Development Program, known as PROSUB, is one of the most important strategic initiatives in our recent history and, at the Itaguaí Naval Complex, Brazil is developing its first nuclear-powered submarine. Its significance goes far beyond photographs of admirals standing beside scale models and speeches about national pride. Nuclear-powered submarines provide endurance at sea, deterrence capability, technological mastery, and the means to protect a gigantic maritime area. Brazil calls its jurisdictional waters the Blue Amazon, an expression that sounds as though it were conceived by an institutional advertising agency and which, surprisingly enough, accurately describes the scale of the problem. There are approximately 5.7 million square kilometers of jurisdictional waters containing the pre-salt oil fields, commercial routes, and submarine cables responsible for a decisive share of our communications. SisGAAz seeks to integrate radars, sensors, and identification systems capable of monitoring this vast area while the Navy develops nuclear technology mastered by very few countries.

In the skies, the F-39 Gripen represents another important leap. The partnership with Sweden's Saab involves knowledge transfer and the participation of Brazilian engineers, while the C-390 Millennium, developed by Embraer, has become a Brazilian military aircraft purchased by European countries. This is particularly inconvenient for the old school of thought according to which Brazil should limit its industrial ambitions to producing soybeans, minerals, and bilingual waiters trained to receive foreign executives. Embraer has always been a kind of insult to Brazilian mediocrity because its mere existence demonstrates that we can train engineers, develop technology, compete in international markets, and produce sophisticated equipment. Perhaps this is why we prefer to treat it as an exception. Admitting that Embraer represents a possibility would force us to explain everything else. The Army, meanwhile, operates SISFRON across thousands of kilometers of border, the Navy develops nuclear technology, and the Air Force incorporates modern fighter jets. The giant has learned to march and is beginning to see farther. Then we open its electronic skull and discover an uncomfortable number of components with foreign accents.

The contradiction matters because contemporary warfare has evolved into a contest of processing, positioning, communication, and decision-making speed. Missiles still explode and soldiers still die, but before the explosion there was a long conversation among sensors, satellites, chips, and computer systems. The modern fighter jet is a computer with wings and weapons; the tank is an electronic platform wrapped in armor; air defense depends on signal processing; military logistics has become a data architecture. In this environment, military autonomy and technological dependency form a marriage that usually ends badly. Brazil may develop a nuclear-powered submarine and simultaneously discover that critical components in its electronic supply chains depend on decisions made in countries over which it exercises no influence whatsoever. It is a curious situation, almost the strategic equivalent of a man building an impregnable safe and buying the lock from his neighbor.

THE BREADBASKET OF THE WORLD WAITS FOR THE SHIP TO ARRIVE

Few expressions generate as much patriotic enthusiasm as breadbasket of the world. It appears in ministerial speeches, agricultural fairs, institutional campaigns, and business presentations accompanied by rising graphs and photographs of harvesters at sunset. Brazil truly has become an agricultural power. We export soybeans, corn, coffee, meat, and enough food to make every Malthusian prophecy even more embarrassing than it already was. Brazilian agribusiness has developed tropical technology, productivity, and remarkable entrepreneurial capacity, yet the entire structure rests on a dependency that rarely receives the same advertising enthusiasm. More than 85 percent of the fertilizers used by the country come from abroad and, when it comes to potash, dependency exceeds 90 percent. In 2024, Brazil imported 44.3 million tons of fertilizer and spent $13.5 billion; the following year, volumes increased again and expenditure reached approximately $15.5 billion. Russia and China occupy decisive positions in this supply chain, which means, translated from economic jargon into a language normal people can understand, that two foreign powers exercise direct material influence over Brazil's ability to plant crops.

Suddenly, some of the subtleties of Brazilian foreign policy begin to look less mysterious. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Brasília adopted a carefully calibrated neutrality. Bolsonaro made his moves toward Moscow and Lula later made his own. Ideologically hostile governments discovered remarkably similar caution when dealing with Vladimir Putin, a phenomenon diplomats call pragmatism and a farmer might prefer to call potash. Matter has this unpleasant habit of interfering with convictions. A country may produce magnificent speeches about democracy, the self-determination of peoples, and a rules-based international order, but at some point somebody has to fertilize the soybeans. Material dependency, when prolonged, begins to produce diplomatic doctrine and, in February 2026, Russian Agriculture Minister Oksana Lut's visit to Brasília to discuss agribusiness cooperation merely confirmed what Moscow understands perfectly well. The Russians know the value of what they sell and understand the importance of the product to Brazil. Brasília knows it too, which makes our inertia considerably less innocent.

The country has potash reserves, studies dating back to the 1970s, and natural gas associated with the pre-salt fields, an important resource for any strategy aimed at expanding nitrogen fertilizer production. We have territory, resources, a market, demand, and human capital. We also possess an astonishing ability to organize seminars. This may be one of the most fascinating characteristics of the Brazilian state. We can identify a problem, commission studies, create committees, launch plans, gather experts and, fifty years later, convene a new meeting to discuss the same problem with younger experts. PowerPoint has become our principal strategic weapon. Whenever a national vulnerability emerges, someone prepares forty slides filled with arrows, targets, English terminology, and a photograph of a smiling family; everyone then goes to lunch and the country continues importing more than 85 percent of the fertilizer it uses.

Meanwhile, almost all foreign fertilizer arrives by sea, crossing routes exposed to wars, sanctions, trade restrictions, and logistical disruptions. An agricultural superpower whose production depends on ships carrying inputs from other powers should occupy a prominent place in every geopolitics textbook. In Brazil, we transformed the arrangement into a model of efficiency and called the result integration into global supply chains. The expression works admirably until the ship is late. At that point, we discover that supply chains are still chains, and that the word carries a rather appropriate secondary meaning.

WE IMPORT THE BRAIN AND ASSEMBLE THE BOX

If fertilizers reveal a dependency inherited from the twentieth century, semiconductors present the bill for the twenty-first. More than 85 percent of the chips used in Brazil are imported and our participation in the sophisticated stages of the semiconductor industry remains small. We package, test, and assemble while advanced design and cutting-edge fabrication remain concentrated elsewhere. The distinction sounds excessively technical until one realizes that the modern world operates inside chips. Hospitals, banks, telecommunications, electrical grids, automobiles, military systems, and precision agriculture depend on electronic components. A modern tractor contains a computational architecture that would have inspired envy in military command centers only a few decades ago, and the entire economy is rapidly approaching a stage in which almost every relevant object will, to some degree, be a computer disguised as something else.

In this environment, Brazil's position acquires an almost comic quality. We seek strategic autonomy using an electronic brain manufactured by others. Brazil's own intelligence agency, ABIN, warned in its 2026 Intelligence Challenges report about the country's dependence on foreign hardware and the concentration of power in major technology companies. ABIN has noticed the problem, which is an excellent beginning. We have now entered the most dangerous stage for any idea produced in Brazil. It will be forwarded. Soon it may receive a protocol number, perhaps it will be distributed for technical analysis and, if everything follows our administrative tradition, an extremely competent civil servant will produce a report explaining the urgency of the issue shortly before retirement.

Taiwan has around 23 million inhabitants and occupies a central position in the global production of advanced semiconductors. South Korea, with just over 50 million people, built a technological powerhouse. Brazil has more than 200 million inhabitants, universities, research centers, mineral resources, an enormous consumer market, and public banks capable of financing continental-scale projects. Our industrial ambition nevertheless remains carefully modest, as though aspiring to greatness were a form of fiscal bad manners. There is a peculiar national embarrassment about scale. When the United States announces industrial programs worth hundreds of billions of dollars, we call it strategy; when China plans twenty years ahead, we admire its state vision; when someone proposes something similar in Brazil, an economist immediately appears to explain that we need to do our homework. We have been doing our homework since the Real Plan. At some point, it might be interesting to find out what the next subject is.

THE PENTAGON HELPS WITH THE HARVEST

Brazilian precision agriculture uses positioning systems to increase productivity, reduce waste, and operate machinery with extraordinary accuracy. Satellites guide equipment on farms located thousands of miles from the United States, and the GPS system present in this infrastructure is controlled by the U.S. Department of Defense. There is something poetically Brazilian about the arrangement. A farmer in Mato Grosso may never have visited Washington, may speak little English, and may consider American politics a distant subject, yet his tractor maintains a daily relationship with the Pentagon. GPS has become so ordinary that it has lost its nationality in the eyes of the user. It lives in the phone, the car, the agricultural machine, and the logistics system, appearing almost like a natural phenomenon, a technological constellation created by God on the eighth day so that motorists could find restaurants and harvesters could travel in straight lines.

Infrastructures of power reach their most efficient form when users forget who controls them. The United States possesses the ability to manage signals and protect the military use of its system in strategic contexts, which is perfectly understandable, since it would be rather strange to imagine that the U.S. Department of Defense invested billions of dollars in a satellite constellation primarily to help Brazilians locate the nearest steakhouse. The question arises when we imagine a severe international crisis in which Brasília's interests directly collide with Washington's. Precision agriculture, logistics, and systems dependent on positioning may face difficulties and, in that event, no Marine will need to land on Brazilian territory. The tractor will begin to miss its line, logistics will lose efficiency, and the economy will feel the consequences of a decision invisible to the ordinary citizen. Modern warfare has acquired manners. It can reach the farm without getting mud on its boots.

YOUR DATA LIVES BETTER THAN YOU DO

The old idea of sovereignty depended on maps. There was a line, a border, and a checkpoint; the foreigner remained on the other side and national secrets rested in documents locked inside safes. That geography worked reasonably well when information traveled in diplomatic bags and espionage required a man in a trench coat photographing papers with a tiny camera. Today, government and corporate data circulate through global technological infrastructures while cloud services provided by Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure occupy a central position in the digital economy. Brazilian companies and government agencies use architectures designed, operated, or legally connected to foreign corporations. Sovereignty no longer lives exclusively at the border. It now appears in service agreements that probably nobody read to the end before clicking accept.

Brazil's mobile infrastructure also uses equipment supplied by foreign companies such as Huawei, Ericsson, and Nokia, while submarine cables carry our international communications and global platforms concentrate an enormous share of the country's digital life. In 2013, revelations about NSA operations caused outrage in Brasília because we discovered that Americans engaged in espionage. The shock was extraordinary. Apparently, part of the Brazilian elite imagined that the United States maintained gigantic intelligence agencies to monitor cake recipes and the results of the São Paulo football championship. Great powers spy. They always have and will continue to do so as long as something worth knowing exists. Technology merely increased the scale and reduced the embarrassment.

The episode generated speeches, committees, interviews, and that severe facial expression politicians adopt in front of cameras when they wish to demonstrate institutional concern. Then the news cycle ended and the structure remained. This is another understudied Brazilian talent. We transform strategic problems into television seasons. The issue premieres, dominates headlines, receives experts, and disappears when something more exciting arrives. The vulnerability continues working quietly, free from the inconvenience of public attention. Perhaps this explains why we are so skilled at discovering the same problems several times. Every generation is entitled to its own surprise.

BRAZILIAN OIL TRAVELS ABROAD TO GET AN EDUCATION

Few images explain Brazil as accurately as a ship leaving our coast loaded with crude oil while another arrives carrying diesel. The first takes raw material away and the second returns the raw material after it has received an education. Petrobras developed one of the world's greatest technological capabilities in deepwater exploration, and its engineers confronted miles of water, rock, and salt to reach the pre-salt reserves. It was an extraordinary achievement, the kind that should reorganize a country's perception of its own capabilities. We managed to extract oil from places that only a few decades ago seemed inaccessible and, after accomplishing this feat, our strategic planning showed signs of exhaustion.

In 2024, approximately 30 percent of the diesel consumed in Brazil came from abroad. The country's refining system carries historical limitations and part of its infrastructure was designed to process crude with characteristics different from the oil produced on a large scale in the pre-salt fields. A minimally attentive nation would observe the change in its production profile and adapt its infrastructure. Brazil observed, created projects, announced investments, and encountered the Petrolão corruption scandal. The Abreu e Lima Refinery became an involuntary monument to a sophisticated form of corruption. Initially estimated at around $2.5 billion, the project consumed tens of billions of reais amid delays, alterations, and scandals, although the wasted money represents only the most visible part of the damage.

We usually calculate corruption by adding up stolen amounts because this kind of accounting fits neatly into a headline and can be illustrated with photographs of suitcases. The real cost appears in lost time. A delayed refinery means imported fuel; imported fuel pressures freight costs; freight reaches food prices; food affects inflation; inflation influences interest rates and interest rates affect investment. A bribe delivered in an air-conditioned office in São Paulo or Brasília can, several years later, arrive in the price of a tomato purchased by a retired woman in Campinas. This is the marvel of state corruption. It has capillarity and, unlike the common thief, can steal assets that do not yet exist. The street criminal takes your wallet. Strategic corruption takes the refinery that would have been operating in 2035.

For this reason, Petrolão should also be studied as a geopolitical episode. During a historic window created by the expansion of the pre-salt fields, a strategic company was used as an instrument of political financing and power. While construction companies, parties, and intermediaries organized their interests, the country lost time in expanding its energy autonomy. The damage crossed generations, although it is difficult to explain this to voters because nobody misses a refinery that was never built. Absence does not appear on a bank statement and a stolen future rarely files a police report.

THE ENERGY TRANSITION AND OTHER FORMS OF HOROSCOPE

At this point, some reader will remember that oil is disappearing and the future belongs to renewable energy, a statement generally accompanied by photographs of wind turbines at sunset and children running through green fields. Brazil possesses extraordinary advantages in solar, wind, ethanol, and biomass, and developing these sources is a strategic obligation. The global energy transition, however, will continue to be conditioned by infrastructure, heavy transportation, petrochemicals, aviation, industry, and rising consumption in developing countries. Hydrocarbons will remain part of the global economy for decades even as their relative share declines. Trend and calendar are different things, although much of contemporary politics has decided to treat them as synonyms.

The energy transition has become a kind of geopolitical horoscope. Everyone knows some transformation will occur while disagreement remains over when, how, and who will pay the bill. Countries that have already built refineries and consolidated their industrial infrastructure can afford emotional speeches about the end of oil. Brazil, faithful to tradition, usually imports the speech before building the infrastructure. When the international slogan changes, our planning changes with it, which is why Brazilian strategic policies often last about as long as the average minister. Serious countries work with scenarios. We work with conference trends and, when the next trend arrives, we change the title of the PowerPoint.

REALITY HAS SCENARIOS. BRASÍLIA HAS COMMITTEES

Imagine a military escalation in the Middle East combined with restrictions on fertilizer exports. China and Russia reduce sales, Moscow recognizes Brazil's vulnerability and transforms agricultural inputs into a diplomatic instrument. Brasília begins choosing its words with extraordinary care because every adjective used by the Foreign Ministry has acquired a price per ton. Agricultural costs rise, the following harvest absorbs the impact, and food inflation reaches poor families first. Economists appear on television to discuss the Selic interest rate, although the crisis began months earlier in a port located thousands of miles from Brazil's Central Bank. Brazilians will watch a debate about monetary policy without realizing that part of the price of rice was determined by an international logistics chain and foreign governments.

Now imagine an escalation between the United States and China. Washington expands semiconductor controls, Beijing responds, and Brazil discovers the discomfort of selling commodities to the Chinese while depending on technological chains connected to the West and Asia. Our diplomacy has always appreciated the middle because the middle is comfortable in official statements, allows balanced speeches, and offers excellent opportunities to repeat the word dialogue. The arrangement loses some of its charm when components become unavailable. Diplomatic neutrality requires material autonomy and, without it, a neutral country risks becoming merely the dependent state that has not yet chosen from whom it will receive its next order.

There is also the scenario of a cyberattack against Brazilian critical infrastructure. Systems depend on technologies, services, or companies subject to foreign jurisdictions and the administrative ritual begins. Someone checks the contract, another calls the legal department, a videoconference is scheduled, and a foreign executive explains the cooperation protocols. Brasília prepares a formal request, the document moves through departments, and the hacker continues working. The scene sounds like a caricature because every effective caricature merely exaggerates features that already exist.

The most dangerous scenario, however, is far more familiar. Nothing happens. No world war, devastating attack, or sudden collapse interrupts our routine. The submarine is delayed by a few years, the chip industry grows slowly, we continue importing fertilizers, exporting crude oil, buying refined products, and maintaining data on foreign infrastructure. In 2035, some institute publishes a report entitled Challenges to Brazilian Sovereignty 2035 and the government creates a working group to analyze its recommendations. Experts will be invited to a seminar in Brasília, officials will deliver speeches about the urgency of the matter, and there will be PowerPoint. This is the most Brazilian scenario because it preserves our historical specialty. Disaster never arrives with enough force to compel change and vulnerability never disappears sufficiently to stop producing reports.

SOVEREIGNTY IS THE ABILITY TO DEFY SOMEONE AND STILL HAVE LUNCH THE NEXT DAY

For a long time, we taught sovereignty as a legal concept associated with territory, borders, constitutions, flags, and international recognition. All of that remains important, but the twenty-first century has added a brutally simple test. Can a country defy a major power and continue functioning the following morning? Can it plant crops, transport food, process data, operate financial systems, maintain military infrastructure, produce energy, and replace critical components? The answers to these questions reveal more about sovereignty than a hundred speeches delivered in front of flags.

Dependent countries can also make aggressive speeches. They summon ambassadors, publish notes of protest, organize summits, and vote against powerful states in international organizations. The problem begins after the diplomatic reception, when somebody needs to buy fertilizer, replace semiconductors, or contract technological infrastructure. Geopolitics usually begins where the official statement ends and, for that reason, Brazil must treat fertilizers, chips, refining, data, and digital infrastructure as permanent matters of state. Potash reserves require decisions, pre-salt natural gas can become part of a strategy for nitrogen fertilizers, the semiconductor industry needs an ambition compatible with a continental country, and sensitive government data requires infrastructure consistent with its strategic importance. Refining must return to the center of the debate over energy autonomy and strategic projects must survive ministers, presidents, and opinion polls.

This last requirement may be the most difficult because Brazilian politics has lost the ability to imagine time beyond the next electoral cycle. China thinks in decades, the United States thinks in permanent interests, and Russia thinks in spheres of influence. Brasília thinks about next Tuesday's poll and, if the numbers are bad, replaces a minister on Wednesday. No strategic policy can survive an elite whose unit of temporal measurement is voting intention. The future continues to exist after elections, a phenomenon our governments seem to encounter with the same astonishment every four years.

THE GIANT PLUGGED INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S SOCKET

Brazil's tragedy has a particularly cruel feature. We have already demonstrated our capabilities. Embraer demonstrates them, the pre-salt fields demonstrate them, deepwater engineering demonstrates them, agribusiness demonstrates them, and the Navy's nuclear program demonstrates them. Every Brazilian success becomes a witness for the prosecution against our strategic mediocrity because an incapable country could plead incapacity, while we have accumulated far too much evidence to the contrary. We have territory, water, oil, minerals, arable land, energy, engineers, universities, a consumer market, and a privileged geographic position. The list of Brazilian advantages sounds as though it were written by a teenage nationalist after three energy drinks, with the inconvenient difference that it is true. The problem appears when we compare what we inherited with what we built.

Olavo de Carvalho insisted for years that the Brazilian crisis began before party politics and involved the inability of the country's intellectual elite to imagine Brazil on a historical scale. There is something profoundly accurate in that perception. An elite without historical imagination administers a civilization like a condominium manager. It discusses budgets, changes suppliers, fixes leaks, calls meetings, and leaves the next century for the following administration. The result is a nation capable of extracting oil from the pre-salt fields while importing diesel, feeding the planet while depending on foreign fertilizer, and building a nuclear-powered submarine while importing the electronic brain of its infrastructure. These are extraordinary achievements connected by an equally extraordinary absence of strategic continuity.

Perhaps we have confused potential wealth with power for far too long. Natural resources create possibilities and geography offers advantages, but no mountain of minerals organizes an industrial policy by itself and no oil field builds refineries on its own initiative. Sovereignty requires institutions capable of identifying vulnerabilities, establishing priorities, and sustaining them for decades. It also requires an elite that understands the difference between administering a government and building a country. The first task fits inside an electoral term. The second crosses generations.

Leave a comment

Today, Brazil's switches are scattered around the world. Some run through Moscow and Beijing, others through Taiwan and Washington, while many terminate in satellites, servers, and submarine cables whose existence the ordinary citizen will never notice. We remain a giant, and the school map guarantees it with its bright colors and impressive scale. The relevant question has become less patriotic and considerably more unpleasant. When a giant depends on someone else's electrical socket, does its size still represent power, or does it merely increase the size of the machine that someone, somewhere, can switch off?

Get 20% off for 1 month

Subscribe now

There is a kind of war that dispenses with armies, inasmuch as its battlefield is the public imagination. It never appears in police reports, leaves no shell casings on the ground and no torn uniforms behind, and yet it topples governments, manufactures martyrs, elects presidents and buries reputations with an efficiency that would make any armored division blush. The manuals call it a false flag operation, an expression inherited from piracy, when ships would hoist a rival's colors so as to approach their prey without raising alarm. Vexillology, the gentle science of cataloguing flags, never suspected that its most profitable chapter would be written in invisible ink.

But what is a false flag, after all? And if the device is so vulgar, why do so few recognize it while it happens? It is worth defining the object before dissecting it. The operation consists in provoking, staging or instrumentalizing an event while attributing its authorship to an adversary, with the aim of mobilizing public emotion, justifying repression and harvesting the political dividend. The Spanish journalist Eric Frattini, who spent years mining declassified archives to write *Manipulating History*, arrived at a conclusion of disconcerting simplicity, insofar as strategic lying has never been an aberration of politics but rather one of its most traditional instruments. Machiavelli, who never had the bad taste to be a hypocrite, had already taught that governing is above all the administration of appearances, so that Frattini merely updated the Florentine with an archival stamp and a bureaucrat's signature. The sophisticated model, moreover, is rarely fabricated whole, since it blends real facts with deliberate narrative manipulation, and it is precisely for that reason that it withstands debunking so well. It is simpler than it appears, dear reader. Don't run off.

The genealogy rests in the books, not in the internet's murkier forums. In February 1933 the German Parliament burned under circumstances historians debate to this day, although nobody debates who profited from the ashes, for Hitler signed within forty-eight hours the decree that suspended civil liberties and buried the Weimar Republic. Six years later, on the eve of the invasion of Poland, SS men dressed in Polish uniforms attacked a German radio station at Gleiwitz and scattered across the scene the corpses of concentration camp prisoners, a production signed by Reinhard Heydrich with a set designer's care. The final budget came to sixty million dead. Ideas have consequences, and so do pretexts. In 1964 the American government announced that North Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked its destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress authorized the escalation, and three million Vietnamese along with fifty-eight thousand Americans paid the bill for a second attack that Robert McNamara, years before becoming the penitent star of an award-winning documentary, would admit never took place. Operation Gladio, a clandestine network tied to NATO, seeded terror attacks across Western Europe while attributing them to the communist left, and its existence only left the territory of paranoia when Giulio Andreotti confirmed it before the Italian Parliament in 1990.

The most instructive case, however, is the Turkish one. In the early hours of July 15th, 2016, tanks occupied Ankara and Istanbul, fighter jets buzzed the Parliament and a military faction declared it had seized power, whereas Erdogan, holding a cell phone up to the cameras, summoned the population into the streets. The coup lasted hours; the purge, years. In less than a day the government already possessed complete and detailed lists of judges, prosecutors, professors, journalists and officers to be arrested or dismissed, more than one hundred and fifty thousand people in all, at a speed no bureaucracy on the planet achieves without prior rehearsal. Erdogan himself described the episode as a gift from God. Rare candor in a politician, one must concede. Analysts the world over have since pointed to the uncomfortable alternative, for either the government knew and let it happen, or it helped it happen, and in both scenarios the outcome was identical, namely a sultanate with an electoral veneer. The Turkish Reichstag burned in July, and the lists were already written.

Notice, dear reader, that the pattern displays an almost Franciscan economy, inasmuch as it requires only an event, an enemy designated in advance and a power eager to expand. Well then, the phenomenon respects neither hemispheres nor work visas, for both the empire and its tropical laboratory have supplied abundant material over the past decade.

Let us begin in the tropics. The assassination of Marielle Franco, a Rio de Janeiro councilwoman gunned down in 2018, was real, brutal and unacceptable, and it was also, it must be said, immediately hijacked. Before forensics had concluded a single report, the narrative was already circulating fully formed, with a culprit named and an electoral destination assigned, and the councilwoman's name was stamped across billboards and campaign stages as though the authorship were settled fact, when it remained an absolute mystery. Years later, the investigation pointed to the Brazão brothers as the men who ordered the hit, fixtures of Rio's old political machine and of the establishment MDB party, a universe entirely alien to the fascism of convenience that had been denounced. The lie, note well, never needed to last forever, since it only had to survive one electoral cycle, and survive it did. Time, however, is an indiscreet witness.

In September 2018, a man named Adélio Bispo stabbed Jair Bolsonaro at a campaign rally, and the attack was real, the knife existed, the blood existed. What was never clarified was the surrounding cast. The assailant had been a member of a far-left party, his defense was bankrolled by lawyers whose connections the press registered without ever explaining, and the judiciary of Brazil's notarial-secretive republic, in a gesture that defies the grammar of any state pretending to transparency, decreed a hundred-year seal over parts of the case. Now, when a republic locks away for a century the investigation into the attempted murder of the candidate leading the polls, it has ceased protecting the inquiry in order to bury it, and in any minimally serious country this would constitute a scandal of historic proportions, whereas down there it yielded, at most, a fortnight of headlines and an institutional shrug.

There is, furthermore, the tragicomic chapter of the self-inflicted attacks, in which activists were caught, between 2018 and 2022, spray-painting threats on their own walls in order to attribute them to adversaries afterward, mailing intimidations to themselves and staging assaults before security cameras which, ungratefully, recorded the wrong framing. The revealing detail, however, lies less in the farce than in its afterlife, given that the accusation occupied headlines for days while the retraction, when it came, fit in a footnote. The damage was done, the emotion had been harvested, the voter had been moved, and this perverse arithmetic, it bears insisting, constitutes the very design of the operation, never an accident along the way.

The loudest case, though, unfolded in the heart of the empire. On January 6th, 2021, a crowd stormed the Capitol while Congress certified the presidential election, and the world watched, somewhere between the horned shaman and the selfies in Nancy Pelosi's office, the most photographed and least explained event in recent American history. The uncomfortable questions, here as elsewhere, remain orphans of any answer. Why did the intelligence warnings circulating in the preceding days, including a memo from the FBI's own field office, never translate into reinforced security, and why did the National Guard take hours to be authorized while the predictable consummated itself live, before the cameras of the entire planet? Who planted the pipe bombs outside the headquarters of both parties the night before, real devices, filmed and examined, whose maker the most powerful investigative agency on earth declares itself, years later, unable to identify? Big surprise. What role did the federal informants present in the crowd perform, informants whose existence the Justice Department's inspector general would later confirm in an official report, although clearing the agency of any orchestration? And who, in the end, harvested within forty-eight hours a second impeachment, a congressional committee broadcast in prime time, the largest mass prosecution in the country's history and the moral license to treat half the electorate as a domestic threat? To the unwary, these are rhetorical questions. It may have been incompetence in sequence, and incompetence, even in the empire, must never be underestimated. It may have been something else. What is certain is that the bomber remains faceless, the questions remain ownerless, and the political harvest was immediate, abundant and meticulously exploited. Remember Turkey, and remember, above all, the lists that were already written.

Back in the tropics, there exists an even more refined modality, one that dispenses with physical events altogether inasmuch as it operates directly on the institutional plane, and which consists in fabricating a juridical-narrative enemy to justify emergency powers. Judicial inquiries opened without an identified victim, without a specific crime and without a clear legal basis, never submitted to legislative scrutiny, let alone popular scrutiny, christened with cinematic titles about digital militias and structured disinformation, fulfilled less the function of investigating than that of intimidating, mapping adversaries and producing a jurisprudence of permanent exception. One fabricates the threat and then justifies the power that fights it, in a closed feedback loop Frattini would recognize at a glance and that no Dan Brown ghostwriter would dare propose, for being too far-fetched.

When one surveys the whole, coincidence gives way to method, which operates, broadly speaking, with the same elements as ever, namely a victim, real or staged, capable of producing shock, an enemy designated before any investigation, an investigative blockade woven of seals and coordinated indifference, a window of electoral or legislative mobilization and, crowning the edifice, a selective media amplification in which the accusation becomes a headline and the retraction a footnote. Capisce? In plain black and white, the model requires no proof, insofar as it needs only speed, emotion and allies in the right places, and to deny the pattern at this point, with the entire genealogy sitting in declassified archives, is to punch the blade of a knife.

Leave a comment

The instinctive response is indignation, which is legitimate and nonetheless insufficient, for the public has been indignant since time immemorial and the operations have not slowed for a minute. The effective response demands documenting in real time every narrative that arrives ready-made before the facts, since the contemporaneous record is the only vaccine against later revision; it demands treating independent investigation as a democratic requirement rather than a partisan whim, given that a republic which seals inquiries for a century and an empire which cannot find the maker of its own bombs have stopped functioning in order to be operated; and it requires, above all, refusing emotion as a substitute for analysis, because the false flag only prospers when the public feels before it thinks, and when every culprit has been named before forensics reaches the crime scene, one is hardly standing before clarity, and almost certainly before fabrication.

The Germans who kept silent before the Reichstag fire did not enter history as prudent men, and the Turks who applauded Erdogan on that July night never noticed they were celebrating their own captivity. Today's reader, however, enjoys a luxury denied to both, namely the published manual, the named method and the pattern recognizable while it happens rather than decades later, in the history books. The next operation already has its screenwriter and the next enemy has already been chosen. It remains to be seen whether we shall be the forensics team or the audience. And when the next Reichstag burns, someone will assure the world, with the customary liturgical solemnity, that this time the fire was spontaneous, and the audience, with bovine placidity, will applaud. The lists, naturally, will already be written.

Get 20% off for 1 month

There was a time when power, in order to exercise itself, needed at least to pretend it was asking permission. From the Athenian agora to the contractualism of Hobbes, from the signature wrested from a king upon the fields of Runnymede to the ballot dropped into the urn, Western civilization erected, over the course of centuries, one of the most ingenious fictions on record, namely, that ruling over men requires, in some fashion, the assent of the governed. Broadly speaking, the whole architecture of modern politics rests upon that promise, since even the most shameless tyrants felt the need to commission plebiscites and to draft constitutions of façade. Consent could be forged, yet it could never be dispensed with altogether.

Subscribe now

And now there arises, silent and efficient, a form of power that no longer bothers to ask. I refer to what Palantir Technologies, a company founded with the capital of Peter Thiel and captained by Alex Karp, represents with an almost didactic clarity. Now, this is not merely one more company that sells programs to the state, for that would be banal and as old as the state itself. It is something subtler and, precisely for that reason, more disquieting, inasmuch as the company does not confine itself to delivering the tool, but goes on to shape the direction of what the tool executes. It sells not only software but theses, conceptual frameworks and strategic positions about how nations ought to operate in a world defined by technological competition. And whoever supplies the direction, and not merely the instrument, begins to adopt the logic of state power while carrying none of the constraints that make a state something answerable.

The thesis I put to the dear reader is simple to state and uncomfortable to digest. Politics has ceased to arrive, exclusively, by way of law. It arrives, more and more, by way of infrastructure. Data platforms decide how information flows, algorithms determine who is flagged, prioritized or simply ignored, and integrated systems become the backbone of surveillance and enforcement. When such systems are deployed at scale, they operate as public policy in fact, even though no parliament ever voted upon the true extent of their effects. We are not facing an academic hypothesis nor a seminar abstraction, but something operational, already underway, functioning while the reader runs his eyes down these very lines.

Tocqueville, when he glimpsed the face of the despotism that would one day threaten the democracies to come, did not imagine the classical despot with sword in hand. He imagined instead an immense and tutelary power, meticulous and mild, which does not break wills but softens them, which does not torment but administers, and which reduces each nation to a flock of timid and industrious animals. What the French thinker foresaw with melancholy, we now contract out by public tender, and we even thank the vendor for the efficiency of the service.

It is worth observing the manner in which this expansion justifies itself, for every enlargement of power requires its alibi, and the alibi of the hour answers to the name of geopolitical competition. The argument is familiar and not devoid of truth, insofar as, should the United States decline to build such capabilities, China assuredly will. Yet, my friend, the very same reasoning has served, across the long span of history, to justify every manner of excess, from the widening of surveillance to the centralization of authority, always in the name of the sacred imperative of not falling behind. Now, once the criterion becomes matching the adversary, limits turn flexible, and where limits grow flexible, accountability tends to be the first casualty of the war.

It is worth enumerating, without fanfare, the concrete reach of this infrastructure, given that it touches military logistics and support for defense operations, intelligence analysis, the integration of police data, immigration and border operations, disaster and crisis response. This is not, therefore, marginal influence, but the nervous tissue of the contemporary state. And yet the public does not vote upon Palantir, nor does it approve its contracts directly, nor does it receive full visibility into what quietly decides upon its life. So that the question imposes itself, uncomfortable as every honest question, namely, how much power to govern can exist outside the very act of being governed.

Leave a comment

A caveat is in order here, one that intellectual honesty demands, for the merit of the matter does not lie in speculating about private conversations or backroom collusion, which would sit rather well in a novel and very badly in a serious article. Figures such as Thiel and Karp cultivate broad passage among media, politics and technology, which, at that altitude of fortune and influence, is almost banal. The point that genuinely merits scrutiny is structural in nature and remains independent of the personal intentions of those involved. A private entity builds the systems employed by the state, those systems influence concrete outcomes in the lives of millions, the public holds limited visibility into their operation, and the same entity publicly advocates for how those systems ought to expand. This constitutes a concentration of power which, although not illegal by definition, is significant enough to demand permanent vigilance from anyone who still takes the word republic seriously.

Chesterton, in one of his Father Brown tales, offered a lesson worth more than an entire library of political science. He conceived of a murder committed by a man whom four honest witnesses swore they had never seen, though he had walked in through the front door in plain sight of them all. The man was the postman, and he had gone unnoticed not because he was hidden but because he was expected, mentally invisible, too ordinary for the eye to register as a presence at all. The new power is precisely of that kind. It does not conceal itself in cellars nor announce itself in manifestos, but operates in broad daylight, in the innocuous shape of a system update, of a service contract, of a platform that promises nothing beyond efficiency. We dreamed that tyranny, when at last it came, would arrive in boots and banners, preceded by drums, so that we might at least recognize it and resist. It arrives, on the contrary, without a face and without a sound, asking only that we accept the terms of use. And we, docile, after all, click I agree.

Get 20% off for 1 month

Get 20% off for 1 month

A three-year investigation conducted by InSight Crime, published under pseudonym for obvious reasons of survival, mapped this supply chain from the interior of mainland China to the Mexican chemical kitchens. The portrait that emerges is not that of a movie conspiracy, complete with villains stroking cats, but something considerably more disturbing, namely a banal, prosperous and socially respected commercial ecosystem. It begins in a jewelry shop tucked into the back streets of a remote city, where a merchant with a protruding belly and a Louis Vuitton shirt displays emeralds confiscated from mandarins imprisoned in Xi Jinping's anticorruption campaign, and it ends in a port warehouse where thirty-liter metal drums, some labeled and others strategically anonymous, await shipment to the far side of the Pacific. Between one end and the other lie tea ceremonies, elite universities, Party officials and a single word that explains everything, *guanxi*.

It is worth pausing on that word, dear reader, because it is the hermeneutic key to the entire system. *Guanxi* designates, broadly speaking, the web of personal relationships that lubricates Chinese life, but in the underworld of precursor chemicals it assumes its rawest meaning, which is to say political protection bought and maintained. The businessmen interviewed by the investigation were crystalline about the mechanics. The politician calls when the municipality needs money, the money arrives, the politician rises through the ranks of the Communist Party, and in exchange he extends over the business what the local vernacular calls the *bǎohùsǎn*, the protective umbrella. One of the interviewees summarized the ontology of the arrangement with Confucian frankness by stating that without guanxi a man is nothing at all. Hobbes could not have put it better, though he would have put it in Latin.

The retail side of this industry, meanwhile, is of an embarrassing modernity. The investigators, posing as Mexican buyers, navigated the dark web and found suppliers like MicroDroper, a vendor boasting seven years in the market, more than sixteen thousand transactions and enthusiastic customer reviews praising the speed of delivery and the new methods of postal camouflage. There are coupon codes, gift certificates, shipping estimates and tax calculations at checkout, lacking only a loyalty program and gift wrapping. The nomenclature is encrypted in CAS numbers, the standard industrial registry of chemical substances, so that the pre-precursor 1-Boc-4-AP, the favorite ingredient of the fentanyl cooks of Culiacán according to the investigation's fieldwork, circulates under the discreet identity of 125541-22-2. Some sellers adopt Latin names like Ana Sofía to generate ethnic rapport with the Mexican clientele, which demonstrates that the marketing departments of these enterprises understand audience segmentation better than half the agencies on Madison Avenue. Orders of twenty kilograms, enough to produce roughly twenty kilograms of fentanyl, were answered in under twenty-four hours. There is, moreover, the premium option of stealth shipping to multiple addresses, a modality that corresponds exactly to what independent producers in Sinaloa described to the investigators about their networks of rented properties for receiving cargo.

The most revealing detail, however, lies not in the commerce but in its respectability. The companies maintain ties with institutions of the highest academic prestige in China, among them Zhejiang University and the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, the latter affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Sciences. They recruit freshly graduated chemical engineers and biologists, and the students interviewed displayed no moral unease whatsoever, only the filial pragmatism of those who must support the parents who sacrificed so much for them. Here Hannah Arendt becomes unavoidable, not as decorative erudition but because the banality of evil has rarely found so didactic an illustration. No one along that chain perceives himself as a cog in a machine that kills, in the United States alone, tens of thousands of people per year through overdoses. All see themselves as suppliers of inputs to a world that demands chemistry, and China, it bears remembering, accounted for 44% of global chemical sales in 2022, according to the European Chemical Industry Council. The fentanyl precursor is merely a drop in that industrial ocean, and the drop dissolves into the statistics as easily as it dissolves into the conscience.

There is, naturally, the legal layer of the problem, and it deserves a treatise on regulatory cynicism. Many of these substances are legal or lightly regulated in China while severely controlled in Mexico and the United States. The normative asymmetry between jurisdictions functions as a structural alibi, so that the Chinese seller can claim, with the candor of a neighborhood shopkeeper, that he merely exports products that are licit on his own soil. When the final substance is prohibited, the semi-finished product is sold instead, accompanied by the recipe, the reagents and even the complete laboratory kit with three-necked flask, thermostat, electric agitator and centrifuge, all described in advertisements of typographically deafening enthusiasm. The investigation itself, with commendable methodological honesty, acknowledges that many of these companies may be breaking no law at all, and that several of these chemicals serve perfectly legitimate industries. The question that remains, therefore, is not whether there is crime but whether there is design, and here the documented evidence must be separated from the inferences. It is documented that the hubs of this industry are concentrated in Hebei, Zhejiang and Fujian, all in mainland China proper, and not in Hong Kong or Macau as Beijing's official version tends to suggest. It is documented that the sector's businessmen are interwoven with local Party cadres. What remains open, nevertheless, is the degree of knowledge and tolerance at the upper echelons of the Chinese state, and the prudent reader will do well not to confuse absence of evidence with evidence of absence, nor the reverse.

What can be affirmed without recklessness is that a state capable of tracking every citizen's face in real time, of censoring a word within seconds and of regulating even the number of hours a teenager may play video games has chosen, in this particular sector, myopia. And the selective myopia of a panopticon is, let us agree, a political choice. Meanwhile the old road runs its course, now inverted. In the nineteenth century, British clippers poured opium into Canton in the name of free trade and civilization. In the twenty-first, the containers leave Chinese ports carrying the raw material of the largest overdose crisis in American history, equally in the name of free trade, with the added advantage of a five-star seller rating. Western civilization won the Opium Wars. Whether it survives the refund remains to be seen.

Leave a comment

Observe the sequence, for the sequence is the argument itself. On April 27, two months into the American and Israeli war against Iran, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi flew to Moscow and sat with Putin to review, item by item, what Tehran could absorb, what it could not, and what it would settle for at the Strait of Hormuz. Nine days later, on May 6, the same Araghchi delivered substantially the same brief to Wang Yi in Beijing, laying out the state of the negotiations with Washington, Iran's next steps, and every active file of the crisis. In mid-May, Donald Trump arrived in the Chinese capital with a delegation so large it constituted a political object in its own right. And on the 19th, at last, comes Putin. Whoever sees in this chain nothing but a crowded calendar has mistaken the procession for the liturgy.

Read more

Subscribe now

There is an irony the ancients understood well and that our own age, distracted by its many urgencies, prefers to overlook. Every movement born against something carries in its cradle the very shape of the thing it fights. Contemporary populism is the living proof of that quiet law. It has won. It polarizes elections from France to Austria, it governs or helps to govern in Italy and Slovakia, it leads the polls in Nigel Farage's Britain, and yet it is still described, by friends and enemies alike, as little more than a long list of negations. Anti-elite, anti-globalist, anti-technocratic, anti-immigration. Everything populism refuses fits neatly on a pamphlet. What it affirms, however, has not yet been written.

And it is precisely here that its deepest weakness lies, because to be against something is still to linger in the antechamber of politics, in the stage of protest, in that adolescent moment when one knows perfectly well what one hates and almost nothing of what one loves. The man who merely reacts does not govern, he only fumes. The adversaries of populism, however decadent they may be, possess something it has not yet earned, namely a worldview. Liberalism answers the question of who man is, declaring him an autonomous individual, society a voluntary association, authority a guardian of rights and property. Socialism answers in the same register with the sign reversed, seeing man as a social being and power as a great redistributor. Both are mistaken, yet they are mistaken with method. Populism, for now, is right only by instinct, and instinct, broadly speaking, is a compass that works only while the weather holds.

The usual answer the movement offers is nationalism, and here one must tread carefully, dear reader, because a conceptual trap lies in wait. Nationalism, essential as it is, amounts not to a worldview but to a vector, a direction, a pronoun that tells us on whose behalf politics is done without ever explaining what politics that might be. The proof is written into history itself, which is generous in supplying it. Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam married nationalism to communism. National Socialism married it to the most abject of racial theories. Liberal nationalism dressed it in civic clothing. Now, if the same word can serve masters so different, then it is master of nothing at all. To call oneself a nationalist is to announce whom one serves, not what one intends to build, and building, after all, has always been harder than swearing allegiance to a flag.

If populism intends to speak on behalf of the people, it must then explain how that people is to rule, or it will simply repeat the very vice it denounces. On this point the critique that Alain de Benoist directs at liberal representative democracy seems to me accurate, even where I distrust some of his remedies. Modern democracy, he argues, tends to hollow itself out from within, preserving the electoral shell while the marrow of power migrates toward a narrow class of operators. The elections remain, the parties remain, the institutions remain, and the citizen, sovereign on paper, is gently demoted to spectator of a play whose script was never shown to him. Real power drains away toward bureaucracies, courts, and central banks that no one elected and no one can remove, which is exactly the question Nigel Farage once flung in the face of the Brussels machine when he asked who had voted for men whose very names Europe did not know. Oligarchy, in this design, need not abolish democracy at all. It is enough to occupy it from inside, the way a hermit crab settles into a shell that was built by someone else.

The alternative de Benoist proposes points toward frequent referenda, local decision, and forms of direct democracy, and new technologies such as blockchain voting promise, in theory, to make that participation easier. I confess, however, that this is where technological euphoria tends to stumble over the old question, the one the Greeks were already asking in the agora and that no application will ever resolve, namely under what criterion, and with what weight, the citizen ought to vote. For to multiply consultations without cultivating virtue in the voter is merely to accelerate the error, and an accelerated error, let us admit, is still an error, only faster.

From there populism slides onto another terrain it will have to learn to walk with more care, that of human rights. When the movement criticizes the language of rights, it usually does so for a concrete reason, sensing that abstract rights discourse tends to tie the hands of communities that wish to defend their borders and preserve their cohesion. The mistake is to confuse the critique of abstraction with the rejection of dignity, when in fact the two are opposites. What must be fought is not the dignified man but the generic one, the rights-bearing subject without a face, without grandparents, without memory, that floating citizen whom international documents adore precisely because he belongs nowhere and therefore inconveniences no one. True dignity is always embodied, it comes with an accent, with soil, with the dead buried in some particular churchyard, and it is this situated dignity, rather than the other, ethereal kind, that a mature politics ought to defend.

This leads to the deepest question of all, which is anthropological before it is political. Sooner or later populism will have to define what it means by the human person, instead of borrowing the definition from its adversaries. Liberals and socialists answer the question of man with variations on a single horizontal reply, seeing in him an individual, a consumer, an economic unit, a bearer of rights. They are not entirely wrong, merely mediocre in ambition, since they picture man lying down when he was made to stand upright. A loftier answer would describe the human being as a historical and inherited creature, formed by family, memory, nation, and civilisation, and oriented toward something that surpasses him. In the European case this means the Graeco-Roman and Christian inheritance set atop the nearer matter of the village and the baptismal name, and whoever ignores that verticality ends up, without noticing, offering the people a soul the size of a spreadsheet.

The same verticality applies to our relation with nature, and here the dominant environmentalism offers the perfect example of what is to be avoided. The ecology in fashion is managerial and accountancy-minded, crowded with acronyms and metrics, treating the river as an asset and the forest as a carbon sink to be optimised by some consultant in a necktie. Ludwig Klages warned long ago that modern man destroys nature first within himself, reducing it mentally to quantity before reducing it to rubble. A rooted ecology would walk the opposite road, remembering that the forest of Brocéliande belongs to the myths of King Arthur and that Mount Pelion keeps the centaurs, and that a lake inhabited by a Lady of the Waters is no longer the same lake of a sustainability audit. Roger Scruton gave this affection a name, calling it oikophilia, the love of home, and the simple truth behind the erudite word is that nobody defends with tooth and nail what he loves only in the form of a report. Here, I suspect, Chesterton would have smiled, for he held that a thing must be loved before it is loveable, which is the whole of conservatism compressed into a paradox.

There remains the temptation that haunts every doctrine that discovers its own roots, the temptation to turn rootedness into nostalgia. Populism cannot promise the voter a return ticket to the 1950s, first because the past has no entrance, and second because the world of today is made of artificial intelligence, cryptography, and a technological acceleration that no nostalgic decree will reverse. Guillaume Faye christened the fusion of ancient values with new technology archeofuturism, and the formula has its merit, provided one remembers that the future is not the enemy of tradition but the very ground on which tradition will have to prove it still breathes. A right that loves the past yet fears the machine is condemned to lose both at once.

And so I arrive, dear reader, at the point that interests me most and that, for that reason, I have saved for last. If populism ever builds its theory, it will have to keep a virtue that nearly all its rivals lack, which is flexibility. Liberalism still prays to the global free market while multipolarity laughs in its face. The Greens still embrace an abstract environmentalism that suffocates the very Europeans they claim to protect. The socialists still defend the welfare state while geopolitics forces Europe to spend on defence what it once spent on comfort. Each of these creeds died of loyalty, clinging to its dogma the way a drowning man clings to an anchor. Populism, if it wishes to last, will have to be firm in its principles and light in its certainties, which is, I admit, the most difficult balance in all of politics, and perhaps in life as well.

There is, however, an objection that no honesty of mine permits me to hide, and it came from the very readers of the essay I am rewriting here. This entire vertical architecture, built of myth, civilisation, and inheritance, runs the risk of committing the exact sin it denounces, by concentrating power and decision within a small circle of the enlightened who speak on the people's behalf without ever explaining through which concrete mechanisms the people would actually decide. One criticises technocracy only to propose, in the following paragraph, a vanguard of sages who, seen from a distance, look rather like another technocracy, merely better dressed in antiquity. The institutional question, that tedious and indispensable matter of who decides what and how one replaces whoever decides, remains unanswered. And a worldview that answers everything except this is not yet a political theory. It is a beautiful liturgy waiting to become one.

Perhaps that is the fate of every young movement, to discover that winning was the easy part. Populism has force, it has numbers, it has the wind of the age at its back. It lacks only what hurried victors throughout history have always lacked, namely the knowledge of what to do on the morning after the triumph. For defeat carries the consolation of clarity, since one knows against whom one has lost, whereas victory without doctrine is the loneliest of conditions, the one in which the throne has been won before anyone decided what the throne is for. And the people, that patient sovereign in whose name so many give speeches, will in the end ask the only question that matters, wishing to know whether it was invited to govern or merely to applaud, on its feet, while others govern in its place.

Get 20% off for 1 month