Dehai News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/yanis-varoufakis-the-imperial-board  

https://theduran.com/yanis-varoufakis-the-imperial-board-of-peace-end-of-the-united

“Yanis Varoufakis: The Imperial ‘Board of Peace’ & End of the United Nations”

25 January 2026, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

This video interview of the great geostrategist Yanis Varoufakis by Glenn Diesen details how thoroughly Donald Trump humiliated the U.N.  —  and Varoufakis believes that the organization will never be able to live it down  —  by Trump’s getting a unanimous Security Council acceptance of the Donald-Trump-owned and controlled (even if Trump departs from the White House) ‘Board of Peace’ that Trump had announced to take control of Gaza even as the Israeli army with weaponry 70% of which is donated (not lent or sold) by U.S. taxpayers, continues the extermination of Gaza’s residents. How can the U.N. live that down and possess any authority over international law, which since 1945 has been the exclusive domain of the U.N.’s authority?

Here is the opening of that video and its transcript:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx351NmhCEk

“Yanis Varoufakis: The Imperial ‘Board of Peace’ & End of the United Nations”

Varifakis interviewed by Diesen, on 25 January 2026

0:00

DIESEN: Welcome back. We are very privileged to be joined today by Yianis Varoufakis,

0:05

the former finance minister of Greece, a professor and also uh the founder of

0:11

DM25 that is democracy in Europe movement. So, thank you for coming on. I

0:17

have been looking forward to speak with you regarding Trump's uh new peace board

0:23

which many people interpret as an effort to push aside and replace the United

0:28

Nations and international law itself. Um well you have referred to Trump's peace

0:34

board as an abomination. Now, I was wondering why do you see this being so

0:41

dangerous? VAROUFAKIS: I don't just see it as being dangerous. I think that historians of the future

0:46

will remember the 17th of November 2025 uh when uh resolution

0:52

2803 of the Security Council approved uh the

0:58

Board of Peace and Donald Trump as its owner and chair.

1:04

Um that approval by the Security Council I do believe is going to go down in

1:10

history as the end of the United Nations. Essentially the United Nations abolished itself through that uh

1:17

resolution. Now, at the time, you will recall that only two countries

1:22

abstained the Security Council. It was China and Russia. Uh, I have to say that

1:28

I was mad that they did. But then again when um when I heard their arguments, I

1:35

thought unfortunately they may have a point. But the the the reason why I'm

1:40

saying that it abolishes the United Nations, Glenn, is because, you know, come to think of it, essentially what it does

1:48

is it is a a recognition of the end of

1:53

history, not in Francis Fukuyama's terms, but in terms of the end of history regarding the Israeli

1:59

Palestinian conflict. You will recall, and I'm sure our audience knows this very well,

2:06

that uh the United Nations Security Council has been making um every few

2:13

months, every year, all the time, some efforts to keep on the rails the peace

2:21

process or whatever is left of the peace process between the two sides, the Israeli side and the Palestinian side.

2:26

And the United Nations has this uh uh tactic, or let's say it's an

2:34

institutional memory uh not tactic, institutional memory whereby, you know,

2:40

every resolution follows the previous resolutions. So, you know [that] if if you

2:46

follow the history of the engagement of the United Nations with the issue of

2:52

Palestine, you'll find that there is a continuity. It begins with uh the

2:57

recognition of um two parallel states [which was done on 14 May 1948, by U.S. President Tuman, who had earlier created the Cold War on 25 July 1925],

3:03

Israel and a Palestinian state. One of them was inaugurated, the other one

3:09

never was. And then it moves on to resolutions; uh, after every battle was uh

3:16

um fought, uh every defeat of the Palestinian people.

3:22

What the 17th of November resolution accepting the Board of Peace as the next

3:30

step in this process, what it does, [is] it denounced this whole history. Essentially, um, it was a remarkable

3:37

success by Donald Trump, to step in and salvage the bacon of Benjamin

3:46

Netanyahu, because you will recall that uh before that resolution before the ceasefire the so-called ceasefire  —  

3:52

because there's no ceasefire, I mean Palestinians are being killed and starved to death on a daily basis as we

4:00

speak  —  uh, well, what that so-called ceasefire, and the resolution by the Security Council, did, was essentially to save

4:07

Netanyahu from a major propaganda defeat. Uh, you will remember that uh

4:13

four major countries, uh middle powers Canada, Australia, Britain and France,

4:18

[simultaneously] recognized the state of Palestine. It was a very hypocritical recognition because they never, if they really wanted to, do

4:24

something about uh bringing about the uh uh Palestinian state which they

4:29

recognized so hypocritically, they would have stopped arming Israel. They would have embargoed Israel. They would have

4:35

done all the things that the BDS [Boycott, Divest, Sanction] movement says that they should be doing, that they never did. But nevertheless, it was still a major defeat for Netanyahu.

4:41

Trump steps in, imposes a ceasefire, brings about the notion of a Board of

4:46

Peace, which will be totally outside international law, totally outside the history of uh the uh Palestinian

4:56

occupied lands as occupied lands, and effectively resets the clock as if we're

5:02

going back to 1945 or 1948 or maybe even before that. That saved Netanyahu

5:09

because, you know, let's face it, the International Court of Justice in June of 2024 had clearly stipulated

5:19

uh that uh Israel was in breach of international law, ordered Israel to

5:24

withdraw from East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Uh, you had international

5:31

condemnation of the genocide. You have the international criminal court indicting Netanyahu and his former

5:36

defense minister as war criminals, and with that resolution the United Nations

5:42

Security Council effectively annulled all of that. And we go back to a situation, Glenn  —  and this is the point the main point I want to

5:48

make  —  whereby uh Gaza doesn't belong to the Palestinians anymore. There are no Palestinians in the resolution. They

5:55

don't exist. It is as if it is Terra nullius, empty land. And I'm mentioning that

6:02

term very poignantly because Terra nullius was the legalistic term that

6:10

European colonial powers used, back in you know a century ago or more than two

6:18

centuries ago, in order to justify colonizing um various lands around the world from Australia, New Zealand,

6:24

Kenya, South Africa and so on. The first thing that European colonizers did was to say that land has no people and no

6:32

history, no owners. It's outside international law. It's like, you know, going to an asteroid between Jupiter and

6:39

I don't know some other planet, right? And, you know, the fact that the United

6:46

Nations recognize that, and recognize that there is going to be a corporation, uh a corporation a private company, that

6:53

is going to have, as a lifelong chairman, a man not a president not a

6:59

representative of the people but a man called Donald J. Trump and that he has

7:04

no obligation whatsoever. He's not answerable to any to the board. He's not to answer to the United Nations. She's not

7:10

an answering answerable even to the Congress of the United States of America, and he simply has to give a report every

7:16

6 months to the United Nations if he wants to. Uh, it's not even a report that has to be approved of or anything like

7:23

that. So, essentially, the United Nations um annulled itself when it approved of

7:29

that resolution in on the 17th of November uh 2025. And I have to then  — 

7:35

this is how I'm going to complete my long answer. Apologies for taking so long, but I'm livid about all this. Um,

7:43

why did the French and the British, who had supposedly recognized the state of

7:49

Palestine, including Gaza only a few weeks before, why did they accept that [Security Council Resolution 2803]? Well, they accepted that because for

7:56

them, this was something that concerned brown people in the Middle East. It didn't concern them. Now, they know

8:03

better. They know that the Board of Peace is not just about Palestine. It's not about Gaza. And now the Board of

8:09

Peace is [then] about everything. And, you know, you have all these bond villains that uh,

8:15

Trump has amassed, has surrounded himself with. And he's talking about Greenland. Um, tomorrow he's going to talk about

8:22

Canada. Um, and you know now the um

8:28

chickens are coming home to roost. Uh, metaphorically speaking. Uh, and you have people like, you know, Mark Carney, the

8:34

uh Liberal Premier of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada, coming out with a

8:40

very interesting speech in Davos recently, uh saying, "Oh my goodness, you know, this is, this is the end of the

8:46

world as we knew it." Well, you idiots, you brought us about by approving a

8:51

United Nations resolution which effectively announced the United Nations and announce international law and

8:56

announce your right to exist. DIESEN: Well, I remember when um Trump first

9:03

proposed to ethnically cleanse the entire population of Gaza, uh have the United States take over the region and

9:10

create this Riviera of the Middle East. Mhm. Uh to be honest, at the time I I interpret it as an effort to shake up

9:17

the status quo and create some room for maneuver. Uh but I thought it was going

9:22

to be a bit limited as well. Uh but uh this as you said, this is something a

9:28

lot bigger. This is uh uh again and I think he I I didn't take it literally. I

9:34

thought cuz he what he says and what he does is two very different things. But the I think yeah we opened up uh

9:41

Pandora's box with with this one. So uh but another aspect of this whole thing is the whole what what you already

9:48

alluded to which is that this is a private corporation and even the members have to pay in a billion dollars. How do

9:54

you make sense of this um privatization of international law or yeah bringing

10:01

merging all this commercial interest with coercion and uh and yeah

10:06

essentially law because this is uh uh well it's not unprecedented but it is u

10:13

well where is this going? VAROUFAKIS: You know, what surprises me, Glenn, what

10:19

surprises me is that people are surprised, because you I have always followed a

10:26

very simple strategy, a very simple method of thinking. I take seriously

10:32

what villains say. So, you know, Donald Trump, maybe he's not the most cogent

10:39

and eloquent of theorists in the history of the universe, but he's got people around him who are. If you ever listen

10:48

to Peter Thiel speak to various u uh tech lords that he has amassed around him,

10:55

they have a very clear view of the future. Their future is the replacement of the state by corporations. They talk

11:02

about um free cities and they don't mean it in terms of freedom of the citizens.

11:10

They made it in terms of uh cities that belong to corporations, where the board,

11:16

the members of the board of the corporation, are free to do whatever they want with the city. They went to Honduras and they carved out a chunk of

11:24

Honduras and they turned it into a corporate mini state [see especially this paragraph, about that] and this is what they want to

11:30

do. They want to convert our cities. They want to convert our states. They want to convert

11:35

Gaza. They want Greenland. Tomorrow it will be Canada. Maybe my country. Well, my country has already been taken over

11:41

by corporations anyway after 2015. Uh, it's totally consistent with their own

11:50

very specifically and clearly stated political philosophy.

11:54

…

MY COMMENTS:    

Here is from the originator of fascism, Mussolini, on 14 November 1933, which was 9 months after his follower Hitler had become Germany’s Chancellor and was on his way to becoming Fueher 9 months later  —  so, it was midway between those two dates  —  and I am here presenting this Mussolini speech “The Corporate State” (which is the State as the representative of its corporations) from the original Italian as posted on the Italian site polyarchy.org, autotranslated here into English (I think that the complete text has never before been published in English; so, that is why this won’t be only excerpts; and, since it is lengthy, I shall here be boldfacing passages that together constitute a summary of it; and I will also be placing my own added comments [between brackets]):

Benito Mussolini

The Corporate State

(1933)

(Note

This speech, delivered by Mussolini before the National Council of Corporations on November 14, 1933, is rich in insights and data. It illustrates the nature and direction of fascism: the pure and simple domination of the state over everyone and everything. Mussolini reaffirms fascism's close connection to the French Revolution and holds fascist ideology and practice up as a model for all European countries. What survived fascism and spread to many countries was precisely the state welfare economy [which that website opposes] and, even more so, statism in the form of bureaucratic and all-encompassing democracy that website being pro-fascist, anti-socialist]. In other words, the state was present in every aspect of social life.) [That introductory note was written from the pro-fascist perspective; and fascism is anti-socialist and pro-corporate, and consequently the first-ever privatisations were done by Mussolini and by Hitler, and in both cases it was a reversion from the prior Government’s socialistic entities, making those entities again private; privatizing what had been governmental operations is, thus, in actual practice, the hallmark of fascist regimes, because it is the very essence of fascism, as Mussolini here explained — though this speech didn’t even mention privatizations, perhaps because he himself had already done them during 1922 to 1925, which were the word’s first-ever privatizations.]

The applause with which you greeted the reading of my statement last night made me wonder this morning whether it was worth giving a speech to illustrate a document that spoke directly to your minds, interpreted your convictions, and touched your revolutionary sensibilities.

However, it may be interesting to know through what process of reflection and thought I arrived at last night's statement. But first, I want to praise this assembly and express my satisfaction with the discussions that have taken place.

Only idiots can be surprised that divergences have arisen and nuances have emerged. All this is inevitable, I would even say necessary.

Harmony is harmony, cacophony is something else.

On the other hand, when discussing such a delicate problem as the current one, it is perfectly logical and inevitable that everyone brings not only their doctrinal preparation, not only their state of mind, but also their personal temperament.

The most abstract of philosophers, the most transcendent of metaphysicians, cannot entirely ignore or prescind from his personal temperament.

You will remember that on October 16th of the tenth year, in front of the thousands of hierarchs who had come to Rome for the tenth anniversary, in Piazza Venezia, I asked:

"This crisis that has gripped us for four years  —  we've now been in our fifth for a month — is it a crisis 'in' the system or 'of' the system?"

A serious question, one that couldn't be answered immediately. To answer it, you need to think, think long and hard, and do a lot of research.

Today I answer: the crisis has penetrated so deeply into the system that it has become a crisis of the system.

It's no longer a trauma, it's a constitutional disease.

Today we can affirm that the capitalist mode of production is obsolete and with it the theory of economic liberalism that illustrated and apologised for it.

I would like to outline for you the history of capitalism in the last century, which could be defined as the century of capitalism.

But first of all, what is capitalism?

We must not confuse capitalism with the bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie is something else. The bourgeoisie is like a way of being, which can be great and small, heroic and philistine.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a specific mode of production, it is an industrial mode of production.

At its most perfect, capitalism is a mode of mass production for mass consumption, financed en masse through the issuance of anonymous national and international capital. Capitalism is therefore industrial, and has not had far-reaching manifestations in the agricultural sector.

I would distinguish three periods in the history of capitalism: the dynamic period, the static period, and the period of decadence.

The dynamic period runs from 1830 to 1870. It coincides with the introduction of the mechanical loom and the appearance of the locomotive. The factory arises. The factory is the typical manifestation of industrial capitalism; it is the era of large margins, and thus the law of free competition and the struggle of all against all can fully play out. There are casualties and deaths that the Red Cross will later collect. Even in this period there are crises, but they are cyclical, not long-lasting, not universal. Capitalism still has the vitality and resilience to overcome them brilliantly.

It is the era in which Louis-Philippe shouted: "Get rich!"

Urbanization develops. Berlin, which had one hundred thousand inhabitants at the beginning of the century, reaches one million; Paris, from five hundred and sixty thousand at the time of the French Revolution, also moves toward one million. The same can be said of London and the cities across the Atlantic. Selection in this early period of capitalism is truly effective. There are also wars. These wars cannot be compared to the world war we experienced. They are short wars. The Italian war of 1848-1849 lasts four months the first year, four days the second; that of 1859 lasts a few weeks. The same can be said of that of 1866. Nor are the Prussian wars longer. The war of 1864 against the Duchies of Denmark lasts a few days; that of 1866 against Austria, which is the consequence of the first, lasts a few days and ends in Sadowa. Even the war of 1870, which includes the tragic days of Sedan, lasts no more than two seasons.

These wars, I dare say, in a certain sense stimulate the economies of nations, so much so that just eight years later, in 1878, France was already back on its feet and able to organize the Universal Exhibition, an event that made Bismarck reflect.

We wouldn't call what happened in America heroic. That's a word we should reserve for events of an exclusively military nature; but it's certain that the conquest of the Wild West was arduous and fascinating, and had its risks and casualties, like any great conquest.

This dynamic period of capitalism should be between the advent of the steam engine and the cutting of the Isthmus of Suez. It's forty years.

During these forty years, the State observes, it is absent, and the theorists of liberalism say: you, the State, have only one duty: to ensure that your existence is not even noticed in the economic sector. The better you govern, the less you concern yourself with economic problems.

The economy, therefore, in all its manifestations, was limited only by the Penal Code and the Commercial Code. But after 1870, this period changed. No longer was the struggle for survival, free competition, and the selection of the fittest. The first symptoms of the weariness and deviation of the capitalist world were felt. The era of cartels, unions, consortia, and trusts began.

I certainly won't linger so you can see the difference between these four institutions. The differences aren't significant, or almost. They're the differences between taxes and duties. Economists haven't yet defined them. But the taxpayer who goes to the counter finds it completely pointless to argue, because he has to pay either tax or duty.

It's not true, as an Italian liberal economist has said, that the "trust-based," cartelized, and syndicated economy is the result of the war. No, because the first coal cartel in Germany, founded in Dortmund, dates back to 1879. In 1905, ten years before the outbreak of World War II, there were sixty-two metal cartels in Germany. There was a potash cartel in 1904, a sugar cartel in 1903, and ten cartels in the glass industry.

In total, at that time, between five and seven hundred cartels shared the governance of industry and commerce in Germany.

In France, in 1877 the Industrial Office of Longwy was established, which dealt with metallurgy, in 1888 that of oil, and in 1881 all the insurance companies had already joined forces.

The Austrian iron cartel dates back to 1873; international cartels developed alongside national ones. The bottle factories' union dates back to 1907. The glass and mirror factories' union, which included French, British, Austrian, and Italian members, dates back to 1909. The railway track manufacturers formed an international cartel in 1904. The zinc union was founded in 1899. I'll spare you a tedious reading of all the chemical, textile, shipping, and other unions that formed during this historical period. The British-Chilean nitrate cartel dates back to 1901. Here's the complete list of national and international trusts, which I'll spare you.

It can be said that there is no sector of the economic life of the countries of Europe and America where these forces that characterize capitalism have not formed.

But what is the consequence? The end of free competition.

With margins shrinking, capitalist enterprise finds that rather than fight, it is better to reach agreements, form alliances, or merge to divide markets and share profits. The very law of supply and demand is no longer a dogma because cartels and trusts can influence supply and demand; finally, this coalesced, "trustified" capitalist economy turns to the state.

What does it ask of him? Customs protection [such as Trump’s tariffs and sanctions].

Liberalism, which is merely a broader aspect of the doctrine of economic liberalism, is being struck dead. Indeed, the nation that first erected almost insurmountable barriers was America. Today, England itself, for some years now, has renounced everything that seemed traditional in its political, economic, and moral life, and has embraced ever-increasing protectionism.

War comes. After the war, and as a consequence of it, capitalist enterprise inflates. The scale of the enterprise increases from millions to billions. The so-called vertical constructions, seen from afar, give the impression of something monstrous and Babel-like. The very scale of the enterprise surpasses human capacity. Previously, it was the spirit that dominated matter; now, it is matter that bends and subjugates the spirit. What was physiology becomes pathology; everything becomes abnormal.

Two characters - since in all human affairs representative men appear on the horizon - two characters can be identified as the representatives of this situation: Kreuger, the Swedish match seller, and Insull, the American businessman.

With the brutal truth inherent in our fascist habits, we add that similar demonstrations have occurred in Italy too: however, overall, they have not reached those heights. Having reached this stage, supercapitalism draws its inspiration and justification from this utopia: the utopia of unlimited consumption. The ideal of supercapitalism would be the standardization of the human race from cradle to grave.

Supercapitalism would like all men to be born the same length, so that standardized cradles can be made; it would like children to want the same toys, for men to wear the same uniform, for all to read the same book, for all to have the same taste in movies, and finally for all to desire a so-called compact car.

This is not a whim, but rather the logic of things, because only in this way can supercapitalism carry out its plans.

When does capitalist enterprise cease to be an economic fact? When its size makes it a social fact.

This is the precise moment when capitalist enterprise, when it finds itself in difficulty, throws itself like lead into the arms of the State.

This is the moment when state intervention arises and becomes increasingly necessary.

And those who were unaware of it are desperately searching for it.

We've reached this point: if the state in every European nation were to go to sleep for twenty-four hours, that brief moment would be enough to cause disaster. There's no longer any economic sector where the state shouldn't intervene.

If we were to give in to this last-minute capitalism, we would suddenly arrive at state capitalism, which is nothing other than state socialism turned inside out! We would, one way or another, lead to the functionalization of the national economy!

This is the crisis of the capitalist system taken in its universal meaning.

But for us, there is a specific crisis that concerns us particularly as Italians and Europeans. There is a European crisis, a typically European one.

Europe is no longer the continent that directs human civilization. This is the dramatic realization that men who have the duty to think must make of themselves and others. There was a time when Europe dominated the world politically, spiritually, and economically.

He dominated it politically through his political institutions.

Spiritually through everything that Europe has produced with its spirit over the centuries.

Economically because it was the only highly industrialized continent.

But across the Atlantic, great industrial and capitalist enterprise developed.

In the Far East, it is Japan which, after having made contact with Europe through the war of 1905, is advancing in great strides towards the West.

The problem here is political.

Let's talk politics; because this assembly is also exquisitely political.

Europe can still try to take back the helm of universal civilization, if it finds a minimum of political unity.

We must follow our constant guidelines. This political understanding in Europe cannot occur without first repairing grave injustices. We have reached an extremely grave point in this situation; the League of Nations has lost everything that could give it political significance and historical significance.

Meanwhile, the very person who invented it had nothing to do with it.

Russia, the United States, Japan and Germany are absent.

This League of Nations started from one of those principles which, when stated, are beautiful: but when considered, anatomized, dissected, they reveal themselves to be absurd.

What other diplomatic acts exist that can reconnect states?

Locarno? Locarno is something else. Locarno has nothing to do with disarmament; you can't get through there.

There's been a great deal of silence lately surrounding the Four-Party Pact. No one talks about it, but everyone thinks about it.

This is precisely why we do not intend to re-initiate initiatives or rush a situation that will logically and inevitably mature.

Let us now ask ourselves: is Italy a capitalist nation? Have you ever asked yourself this question? If by capitalism we mean that set of habits, customs, and technical advances now common to all nations, we can say that Italy is also capitalist.

But if we delve deeper into matters and examine the situation from a statistical point of view, that is, from the perspective of the mass of the various economic categories of the population, we then have the data on the problem that allow us to say that Italy is not a capitalist nation in the now common sense of the word.

As of April 21, 1931, there were 2,943,000 farmers owning their own land, while there were 850,000 tenant farmers. There were 1,631,000 sharecroppers and tenant farmers, and 2,475,000 other salaried farmers, day laborers, and farm laborers. The total population directly and immediately involved in agriculture was 7,900,000.

There are 523,000 industrialists, 841,000 merchants, 724,000 employed and self-employed artisans, 4,230,000 salaried workers, 849,000 service and labor personnel, 541,000 members of the State Armed Forces (including, of course, the police), 553,000 members of the liberal professions and arts, and 905,000 public and private employees. The total for this group together with the other is 17,000,000.

There are not many wealthy and well-off people in Italy, just 201,000; there are 1,945,000 students; and there are 11,244,000 women waiting for a house.

Then there is a figure that refers to other non-professional conditions: 1,295,000, a figure that can be interpreted in various ways.

You can immediately see from this table how the Italian economy is varied and complex, and how it cannot be defined by a single type, especially since the industrialists, numbering a staggering 523,000, are almost all industrialists with small and medium-sized businesses. A small business employs a minimum of fifty workers and a maximum of five hundred. From five hundred to five or six thousand, there is medium-sized industry; above that, large-scale industry; and sometimes, it leads to supercapitalism. This table also shows you how wrong Karl Marx was when, following his apocalyptic schemes, he claimed that human society could be divided into two clearly distinct and eternally irreconcilable classes.

In my opinion, Italy must remain a nation with a mixed economy, with a strong agriculture sector, which is the foundation of everything. Indeed, the modest revival of industry that has occurred recently is due, as is the unanimous opinion of those in the know, to the modest agricultural harvests of recent years. A healthy small and medium-sized industry, a bank that does not engage in speculation, and a trade system that fulfills its essential role, which is to deliver goods to consumers quickly and efficiently.

In the declaration I presented last night, the corporation was defined as we understand it and wish to create it, and its objectives were also stated. It states that the corporation is created with a view to developing the wealth, political power, and well-being of the Italian people. These three elements are interdependent.

Political strength creates wealth, and wealth in turn strengthens political action.

I would like to draw your attention to what has been stated as the objective: the well-being of the Italian people. It is essential that at a certain point these institutions we have created be directly felt and experienced by the masses as instruments through which they improve their standard of living.

At a certain point, the worker, the landowner, must be able to say to himself and his family: if I am truly better off today, it is thanks to the institutions that the fascist revolution created. [Mussolini is here saying that the indivdual’s well-being depends upon one’s corporation’s well-being, which depends upon one’s Government. The ideology’s name, “fascism”, means that strength or power, which is the nation’s purpose, comes only through unity, so that anything that dissents must be crushed.]

Poverty is inevitable in all national societies. A portion of people live on the margins of society; special institutions take care of them.

Conversely, what should torment our spirits is the misery of healthy, able-bodied men who desperately and vainly search for work. But we must want Italian workers, who interest us as Italians, workers, and fascists, to feel that we are not creating institutions merely to give shape to our doctrinal schemes, but rather that we are creating institutions that must, at a certain point, yield positive, concrete, practical, and tangible results.

I won't dwell on the conciliatory tasks the corporation can perform, and I see no problem with the practice of consultative functions. It already happens that whenever the government must take measures of a certain importance, it calls on the interested parties. If tomorrow this becomes mandatory for certain issues, I see no problem, because everything that brings citizens closer to the state, everything that brings them into the workings of the state, serves the social and national goals of fascism.

Our State is not an absolute State, much less an absolutist one, distant from men and armed only with inflexible laws, as laws should be.

Our State is an organic, human State, which wants to adhere to the reality of life.

The bureaucracy itself is not today, and even less does it want to be tomorrow, a diaphragm between the work of the State and the actual and concrete interests and needs of the Italian people.

I am absolutely certain that the Italian bureaucracy, which is admirable, the Italian bureaucracy, as it has done up to now, will tomorrow work with the corporations whenever necessary for the most fruitful solution to problems.

But the point that most enthralled this assembly is the one that intends to give legislative powers to the National Council of Corporations.

Some, ahead of their time, have already spoken of the end of the current Chamber of Deputies. Let's explain.

The current Chamber of Deputies, its legislature having now ended, must be dissolved.

Second, since there is not enough time in these months to create the new corporate institutions, the new Chamber will be chosen with the same method as in 1929.

But the Chamber will have to decide its own fate at some point. Are there any fascists out there who would want to cry at this prospect?

However, let them know that we will not dry their tears.

It's perfectly conceivable that a National Council of Corporations could completely replace the current Chamber of Deputies. I've never liked the Chamber of Deputies. Ultimately, this Chamber of Deputies is now anachronistic, even in its very title: it's an institution we've found ourselves in, and it's foreign to our mentality, to our fascist passion.

The Chamber presupposes a world we have demolished; it presupposes a plurality of parties, and often, attacks on the stagecoach. From the day we abolished this plurality, the Chamber of Deputies lost the essential reason for its existence.

Almost all of the fascist deputies lived up to their faith, and one must assume that their blood was very healthy because it did not become saddened in those environments where everything reeks of the past.

All this will happen soon because we have no precipitation. It is important to establish the principle because the fatal consequences arise from the principle.

When the Grand Council was created on January 13, 1923, superficial people might have thought: an institution had been created.

No: that day political liberalism was buried.

When, with the Militia, the armed garrison of the Party and the revolution, when with the constitution of the Grand Council, the supreme organ of the revolution, everything that was the theory and practice of liberalism was suddenly given over, the road to revolution was definitively taken.

Today we bury economic liberalism.

The corporation plays on the economic field as the Grand Council and the Militia played on the political field!

Corporatism is a disciplined, and therefore controlled, economy, because one cannot think of a discipline that does not have control.

Corporatism surpasses socialism and surpasses liberalism, creating a new synthesis.

One fact is symptomatic, a fact that perhaps has not been sufficiently reflected upon: that the decline of capitalism coincides with the decline of socialism!

All the socialist parties in Europe are in pieces!

I'm not just talking about Italy and Germany, but also about other countries.

Evidently, I won't say that the two phenomena were conditioned, from a strictly logical point of view; however, there was a simultaneity between them of a historical nature.

This is why the corporate economy arose at a specific historical moment, when the two concomitant phenomena, capitalism and socialism, had already given all they could give. From both, we inherit what was vital in them.

We have rejected the theory of economic man, the liberal theory, and we have become enraged every time we have heard that labor is a commodity.

The economic man does not exist, the integral man exists, who is political, who is economic, who is religious, who is holy, who is warrior.

Today we are once again taking a decisive step on the path of revolution. Comrade Tassinari rightly said that for a revolution to be great, to leave a profound mark on the life of a people throughout history, it must be social.

If you look deeply, you see that the French Revolution was eminently social, because it demolished everything that remained of the Middle Ages, from tolls to corvées ; social, because it brought about a vast upheaval in the entire land distribution of France, and created those millions of landowners who have been and still are one of the solid and healthy forces of that country.

Otherwise, everyone will think they've brought about a revolution. A revolution is a serious matter; it's not a palace coup, nor is it a change of ministries or the rise of one party to supplant another.

It's laughable to read that the arrival of the left in power in 1876 was defined as a revolution.

Let us finally ask ourselves this question: can corporatism be applied in other countries? This question must be asked, because it is being asked in every other country, everywhere people study and strive to understand it. There is no doubt that, given the general crisis of capitalism, corporatist solutions will prevail everywhere, but for corporatism to be full, complete, integral, and revolutionary, three conditions must be met.

A single party, where political discipline comes into play alongside economic discipline, and where there is a bond that unites all, in a common faith, above conflicting interests.
It's not enough.

After the single party, we need the totalitarian state — that is, the state that absorbs, to transform and strengthen it, all the energy, all the interests, all the hopes of a people.
This is still not enough.

Third, final, and most important condition: You need to experience a period of extremely high ideal tension.

This is why we, little by little, will give strength and consistency to all our achievements, we will translate all our doctrine into reality.

How can we deny that this, our fascist, period is an ideal period of high tension?

No one can deny it. This is the time when arms were crowned with victory.

Institutions are renewed, the land is redeemed, cities are founded.

——

MY COMMENTS: 

Here is a video dated the same day as Varoufakis’s, but which mentions the continuity between Trump and Biden on America’s Government replacing the U.N., and noting that Biden’s effort to do it was less competent than Trump’s effort on this matter has been:

https://theduran.com/board-of-peace-putin-invite-and-us-attempt-to-replace-un/

“U.S. Attempt to Replace U.N.”

25 January 2026, Christoforou & Mercouris

On 16 March 2023, I had headlined “The Transformative Present Moment in History” and described how Truman dismounted FDR’s plan for the U.N. and replaced that with his own version that he designed to fail, and how to re-establish the U.N. on FDR’s plan, which I argued was always the correct one. Unfortunately, what Trump has now one might doom any such effort. However, if his Board of Peace fails to become established, then I think that there will be a chance to replace Truman’s U.N. by FDR’s U.N. To do that would prevent there being any World War Three. The U.S.-and-allied armaments manufacturers and extraction corporations are now in firm control over The West and would do all they can to either implement Trump’s plan or else preserve Truman’s plan. So, the lobby for a WW3 is extremely formidable in The West. The reason it isn’t so in The East (such as Russia and China) is that they never privatized their armaments manufacturers.

To boil it all down: fascism is rule by the billionaires, and it is heading the world straight into WW3. Truman reversed the WW2 victory against the fascist countries and made America into their successor which would succeed at taking over the world, the same goal that Hitler had failed to achieve for Germany. And Trump is trying to culminate that. Either the American Government will finally quit Truman’s plan or else it will force China and/or Russia into a position where the only options are either to allow it to take control of them or else to nuke Washington DC, NYC, and the villain’s other core cities so as to preserve their own sovereignty over their own land. Any effort by the U.S. to further expand its empire — this fascism, this empire of and for only billionaires — endangers the entire world’s security and will be resisted by every decent nation. And the U.N. desperately needs to be rebuilt in line with what had been FDR’s plan.

 —  —  —  —  — 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’  —  duping the public.