How a Story Sent Europe to War in 1095

Pope Urban II addressing the crowd at Clermont, 27 November 1095 — the moment a story began to move Europe. (AI-generated image.)

Imagine a speech so powerful that within months, tens of thousands of people leave their homes, sell what they own, and begin a journey across continents — toward a war most of them do not fully understand.

No armies are conscripted. No states organise it. People simply decide to go.

This is what happened in November 1095, when Pope Urban II addressed a large crowd in the French town of Clermont. It is often described as the moment the First Crusade began.

But there is a curious complication. We do not actually know what he said.

A Continent Ready to Move

To understand why this speech had such an impact, we need to look at Europe as it was at the end of the 11th century. Western Europe was fragmented and often violent. Local conflicts between lords and knights were common, and many men were trained for warfare with few outlets beyond small-scale disputes.

The Church had tried to contain this violence. Movements such as the “Peace of God” and the “Truce of God” aimed to limit when and where fighting could take place. These efforts had some effect, but they did not remove the underlying reality: Europe had a surplus of organised violence and a class of people skilled in using it.

At the same time, a request for help had arrived from the eastern Mediterranean. The Byzantine emperor, under pressure from advancing Turkish forces, appealed to Western Europe for military support. This created an opening — not just for a military expedition, but for something larger. It offered a way to redirect internal tensions outward and give them a new meaning.

The Speech We Never Heard

The speech at Clermont is one of the most famous moments in European history, yet no official transcript exists. What we have are several versions written years later by different authors. They broadly agree on the main ideas but differ in tone and detail.

In these accounts, Pope Urban II calls on his audience to help fellow Christians in the East. He describes suffering and danger, and in some versions, he emphasises acts of violence committed by their enemies. Most importantly, he offers something deeply compelling: spiritual reward. Those who take part will receive forgiveness of sins.

Taken together, these elements form a simple but powerful narrative. There are people like you who are suffering. Their enemies are cruel. You have the ability to help. And if you do, your actions will not only be justified, but rewarded.

We cannot reconstruct the exact words spoken that day. But we can recognise the structure of the message. It is a story that turns a distant conflict into a personal responsibility and transforms risk into meaning.

Why People Responded

The response to this call was extraordinary. Within a few years, tens of thousands of people from different regions of Europe had set out toward Jerusalem. Some were knights, others were peasants, and many had little idea of the journey ahead.

The appeal worked because it spoke to different motivations at once. For knights, it offered a new outlet for violence, one that was not only permitted but presented as virtuous. For ordinary people, it turned a dangerous expedition into a meaningful act with spiritual significance. For the Church, it helped channel internal conflict into a common cause.

But beneath these different motivations lies something more fundamental. People did not respond to a detailed analysis of the situation in the eastern Mediterranean. They responded to a story that made sense of the world as they saw it and offered them a clear role within it.

The narrative simplified a complex reality into something emotionally compelling and morally clear. That clarity made action possible.

The Power of a Story

Looking back, it is easy to focus on the events that followed: the marches across Europe, the sieges, and the eventual capture of Jerusalem. But the starting point was not a battle. It was a shared story.

The speech at Clermont shows how quickly such a story can align individual decisions into collective action. It also shows how moral framing can transform violence into something that feels necessary, even righteous.

Perhaps the most striking lesson is this: the power of the moment did not depend on precise wording. We do not know exactly what Pope Urban II said. Yet the impact was enormous.

History is often shaped not only by what happens, but by what people believe is happening — and by the stories that make those beliefs feel true.

In that sense, the First Crusade did not begin with an army. It began with a story that people chose to follow.

From Iron Age Tribes to Digital Europe

The Turning Points That Changed Everything

Image created with AI.

When we travel across Europe today, history often feels calm and continuous. Roman roads become medieval streets. Castles turn into hotels. Old kingdoms slowly transform into modern nations. Yet this impression is deceptive. Europe did not grow in a straight line. Again and again, long periods of tension built quietly beneath the surface. Then a relatively small event pushed societies over the edge.

If we want to understand Europe, we must look at these turning points.

The Iron Age and the Birth of European Diversity (around 800 BC)

Around 800 BC, Europe was not a unified civilisation but a mosaic of peoples and cultures. Celts, Iberians, Greeks, Etruscans and many others lived in networks of trade and rivalry. Iron technology spread, making tools and weapons more accessible. Trade routes connected the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and deep into the European interior. Wealth accumulated in new hands. Power became more concentrated.

This slow transformation was itself a tipping point. Europe moved from small, local communities to larger and more complex societies. Warfare became more organised. Long-distance exchange intensified. Cultural interaction increased. By the first millennium BC, Europe was already a connected world, restless and dynamic. The stage was set for a power capable of linking these regions into a single system.

Rome: Crisis as the Trigger for Empire

Rome was not destined to dominate Europe. For centuries it was simply one city among many in central Italy. Its rise was not inevitable. What changed was a series of existential crises that forced Rome to innovate. Surrounded by rivals, it developed flexible political institutions and a remarkable capacity to form alliances.

The decisive trigger came with the wars against Carthage in the third and second centuries BC. These conflicts pushed Rome beyond its limits. To survive, it mobilised unprecedented resources, built large fleets, and organised armies on a scale never seen before in the western Mediterranean. Victory over Carthage removed its greatest rival and gave Rome control over key trade routes and territories.

From that moment, the balance of power shifted. Expansion followed. Roads, colonies, and law spread across Europe. What had begun as a defensive struggle became an imperial system. For the first time, large parts of Europe shared infrastructure, administration and political frameworks. Cooperation and conquest became two sides of the same process.

The Fall of Rome and the Return of Fragmentation

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century is often imagined as a dramatic moment. In reality, decline had been gradual. Economic strain, migration, political instability and internal conflict slowly weakened the system. When a Germanic leader deposed the last Western emperor in 476, the event itself was almost symbolic. The real transformation had already taken place.

Yet the consequences were enormous. Europe fragmented into regional kingdoms. Local identities re-emerged. The central question became how to create order without empire. This challenge shaped the next thousand years.

Clovis and the Fusion of Cultures

Around the year 500, the Frankish king Clovis chose to adopt Catholic Christianity. Many other Germanic rulers followed different forms of the faith. His decision helped bridge the gap between Roman populations and new rulers. It strengthened cooperation between political power and the Church.

This was a small choice with large consequences. It laid foundations for medieval Europe and helped create a shared cultural framework that would endure for centuries.

Charlemagne and the Idea of Europe

In the year 800, Charlemagne was crowned emperor. His empire did not survive long, but the idea did. Europe began to see itself as a civilisation rooted in shared learning, religion and governance. Administration, education and communication were revived. The political geography of modern Europe began to take shape.

This moment shows how ideas can outlive institutions.

The Black Death: Catastrophe and Renewal

In the fourteenth century, plague devastated Europe. Yet it struck a society already under pressure. Population growth had strained resources. Feudal structures were rigid. The sudden loss of labour changed everything. Wages rose. Social mobility increased. Old hierarchies weakened.

Crisis became a catalyst for transformation. Europe emerged more dynamic and more flexible.

The Reformation and the Power of Networks

When Martin Luther challenged the Church in 1517, he did not intend a continental revolution. But printing, urban communication and political rivalry spread his ideas rapidly. Europe divided into competing systems. States gained strength. Individual belief became central.

Once again, long-term tensions combined with a triggering event.

Revolution and modern politics

The French Revolution transformed Europe. It introduced citizenship, rights and nationalism. Yet it grew from structural pressures: debt, inequality and social frustration. A political crisis ignited forces that reshaped the continent.

Modern Europe was born in this period of turmoil.

War and the Search for Cooperation

The twentieth century brought destruction on an unprecedented scale. Two world wars devastated Europe. Yet the response was not endless conflict. Instead, European leaders chose cooperation. Institutions replaced rivalry. Law replaced revenge. Integration became a strategy for survival.

This was perhaps Europe’s most surprising turning point.

1989 and the Reopening of the Continent

The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolised the end of division. Communist regimes had weakened for years, but small events accelerated change. Courage, communication and timing reshaped the political landscape. Europe reunited in ways few had predicted.

The Digital Age: a New Tipping Point

Today Europe faces another transformation. Globalisation, migration, climate change and digital technology are reshaping society. Social media amplifies emotions. Trust in institutions fluctuates. New communities emerge beyond borders.

The outcome remains uncertain. But history suggests that change will not be smooth. It will come through moments of crisis and renewal.

What Europe Teaches Us

Europe’s story is not only about conflict. It is about adaptation. Again and again, societies have faced collapse and uncertainty. Again and again, they have developed new forms of cooperation. Stability has never been permanent. Community has always had to be rebuilt.

For travellers, this perspective adds depth to every journey. Roads, villages and cities are not just heritage sites. They are the result of countless turning points. Europe is not a finished civilisation. It is an ongoing experiment.

And we are part of its next chapter.

Further Reading

• Brian Klass, Fluke: Chance, Chaos and Why Everything We Do Matters

• Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe

• Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians

• Ian Morris, Why the West Rules – For Now

• Peter Turchin, Ages of Discord

• Niall Ferguson, Civilization

Epstein — and the Silence That Made It Possible

Image created with AI

The story of Jeffrey Epstein is, first and foremost, a story of abuse. Young women were manipulated, exploited and harmed, and that fact should remain at the centre; nothing in what follows diminishes it.

What continues to linger, however, is not only how this could happen, but how it was able to continue for so long — in plain sight, in the presence of people and institutions that should have known better. It is tempting to frame this as a series of failures: failures of judgement, of oversight, of justice. Those failures were real, but the explanation remains incomplete, because it suggests that, had a few individuals acted differently, the outcome would have changed.

What the Epstein case reveals is something more uncomfortable: not just that people failed, but that the environment in which they operated made those failures easier, more likely — and, for a long time, less costly than acting.

The Network

Epstein did not build a conventional empire. He was not a celebrated innovator or a clearly successful financier. Yet he moved with ease among billionaires, politicians, academics and royalty. He hosted, introduced, connected. He was present in rooms where reputations were shaped and opportunities were created.

That presence — more than any asset he owned — was the source of his power.

He positioned himself at the intersection of worlds that rarely meet directly. He connected financiers to politicians, academics to donors, business leaders to social circles they could not easily enter on their own. He understood what each group needed and what the other could offer.

And, at times, he offered something far darker.

Young women — often very young — were drawn in with promises of opportunity: a modelling career, financial support, a pathway into a world that appeared closed to them. What began, in some cases, as access or assistance could shift into dependency and control. The abuse that followed did not exist outside the network; it was, in part, enabled by it.

Because Epstein did not operate alone. He operated within a web of relationships that gave him legitimacy, and that legitimacy allowed him to continue. It softened suspicion, created doubt, and made disengagement more complicated than it should have been.

To walk away from Epstein was not only a moral act. It could mean stepping away from access, from influence, from opportunity. And so, in many cases, people did not leave. Not necessarily because they approved, but because the cost of disengagement was real.

This is not a justification.
It is a description of how such systems sustain themselves.

The Broker

To understand Epstein’s position, it helps to focus less on who he was and more on what he did.

He functioned as a broker.

A broker does not need to be the most powerful person in the room. He only needs to stand between those who are. He identifies gaps — between industries, between social circles, between spheres of influence — and positions himself as the link that makes exchange possible.

Epstein did this with unusual effectiveness. By connecting people who lacked either the time, the trust, the resources, or the access to meet directly, he created value. And once someone creates value within a network, tolerance tends to follow.

This helps explain why reputational damage does not always lead to exclusion. Even after his conviction in 2008, some relationships did not disappear; they adapted. They became quieter, more cautious, but they did not always end. Within a dense network, reputation is rarely judged on its own. It is filtered through relationships, softened by proximity, and sometimes overridden by usefulness.

No conspiracy is required for this to happen. It is enough that individuals, each acting in their own interest, choose not to sever ties that still benefit them.

The broker thrives in precisely this space — where clarity gives way to ambiguity, and where connections matter more than conclusions.

A Pattern Older Than the Present

Seen in this light, the structure surrounding Epstein is not new.

In ancient Rome, political life revolved around patronage. Wealthy patrons offered protection and opportunity; clients offered loyalty in return. Formal rules existed, but outcomes were shaped by relationships.

In Renaissance Florence, families like the Medici built influence not through titles alone, but by connecting finance, politics and religion. Their strength lay in occupying the spaces between these worlds.

In 18th-century Paris, salons functioned as informal centres of power. They were not official institutions, yet they shaped reputations, alliances and ideas. Access mattered as much as authority.

And at the court of Louis XIV, proximity itself became a form of influence. To be present was to count; to be excluded was to fade.

Across these contexts, the pattern is consistent: power is embedded in networks, and those networks tend to stabilise themselves. What has changed is not the logic, but the scale. Today’s networks are global, faster and more opaque — but they still rely on the same mechanisms: trust, reciprocity, access, and, when necessary, silence.

Epstein did not invent this system.
He moved within it — and, for a time, benefited from it.

The Mirror

It is tempting to see this as a story about distant elites — a world of private jets and exclusive circles, far removed from everyday life.

But the mechanisms that sustained Epstein’s network are not confined to that world. They exist, in quieter and more benign forms, much closer to home. We all operate within circles of trust. We introduce people to one another, favour those we know, and hesitate to confront individuals who are well connected, respected or useful. In doing so, we constantly balance principles against relationships, often without fully recognising it.

At a small scale, these behaviours are not only harmless, they are essential. A society cannot function without networks of trust. Cooperation depends on them. Economic exchange depends on them. Even ordinary social life depends on them.

From an evolutionary perspective, this is not accidental. Human beings evolved in small groups where survival depended on cooperation, reciprocity and reputation. The instinct to maintain relationships, to protect alliances, and to avoid exclusion is deeply embedded. It is what allows groups to function — and individuals to belong.

But these same mechanisms, when scaled up and embedded in systems of power, create a tension that cannot be resolved once and for all. The trust that binds groups together can also shield them from scrutiny, while loyalty can discourage dissent and the desire to belong can outweigh the impulse to confront.

The conclusion is uncomfortable: societies depend on networks of trust, yet those same networks can protect themselves at the expense of accountability. That tension cannot be removed — only contained — and if it is ignored, the pattern will return.

Further Reading

• Julie K. Brown — Perversion of Justice

• Anand Giridharadas — Winners Take All

• C. Wright Mills — The Power Elite

• Mary Beard — SPQR

• Norbert Elias — The Court Society

• Antoine Lilti — The World of the Salons

• Robert Trivers — The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism

• Joseph Henrich — The Secret of Our Success

• Miami Herald investigative series on Epstein

• New York Times reporting on Epstein

The Punic Wars: How Carthage Rebuilt Its Power in Iberia

Image created with AI

Travel today through southern and eastern Spain—from Cádiz to Cartagena, and along the coast near Alicante—and you are moving through landscapes that once played a central role in one of the greatest conflicts of the ancient Mediterranean.

Between 264 and 146 BC, Rome and Carthage fought three major conflicts known as the Punic Wars. These wars determined who would dominate the Mediterranean world for centuries. Yet one of the most important chapters of this story unfolded not in Italy or North Africa, but in Iberia, along the coasts and mining regions of what is now Spain.

The First Punic War

The rivalry began in 264 BC on the island of Sicily. Rome intervened in a local dispute and soon found itself at war with Carthage, the dominant maritime power of the western Mediterranean.

The conflict lasted 23 years. Rome, originally a land power, even built massive fleets to challenge Carthage at sea. In 241 BC, Rome finally won, forcing Carthage to surrender Sicily and pay a heavy indemnity. Soon afterwards Rome seized Sardinia, leaving Carthage weakened and humiliated. The First Punic War

But Carthage was not finished.

Turning to Iberia

After the war the city nearly collapsed during a rebellion of unpaid mercenaries. The general who saved it was Hamilcar Barca, a commander who had fought Rome in Sicily.

Hamilcar understood that if Carthage ever wanted to challenge Rome again, it needed new resources—especially money and soldiers. He found both in Iberia.

Phoenician traders had long been active along the Iberian coast. One of their oldest settlements was Gadir, modern Cádiz, founded centuries earlier as a trading port linking the Atlantic and Mediterranean. But in the 230s BC, Hamilcar began transforming Carthaginian influence in Spain into a real territorial power.

The region’s silver mines filled Carthage’s treasury, and Iberian warriors joined its armies.

Carthaginian Cities in Spain

Hamilcar’s successors continued this expansion. His son-in-law Hasdrubal the Fair founded a new Carthaginian capital in Iberia: Carthago Nova, today’s Cartagena.

The city had an exceptional natural harbor and lay close to the mining districts that financed Carthage’s growing power.

Further north along the coast lay Akra Leuke, usually identified with the area around modern Alicante. According to ancient sources, Hamilcar himself established a Carthaginian base here during his early campaigns in Iberia.

Together with Cádiz and Cartagena, these cities formed the backbone of Carthage’s Spanish power.

Among the young men growing up in this frontier world was Hamilcar’s son: Hannibal.

Hannibal’s Iberian War Machine

Hannibal spent much of his youth in Iberia, surrounded by soldiers and tribal allies from across the peninsula. The armies he would later command included large numbers of Iberian warriors, and Spain’s silver financed his campaigns.

In 218 BC, at the start of the Second Punic War, Hannibal marched from Carthaginian Spain across the Pyrenees and eventually over the Alps into Italy — accompanied, according to ancient accounts, by African forest elephants.

For years he defeated Roman armies, winning famous victories such as Cannae in 216 BC.

Yet even Hannibal could not destroy Rome.

Why Rome Survived

Rome’s strength lay in its political and military system. Roman commanders rotated regularly, creating a steady supply of competent leaders rather than relying on a single genius.

Even more important was Rome’s network of allies across Italy. These communities supplied vast numbers of soldiers, allowing Rome to rebuild its armies again and again.

Over time this system wore Hannibal down. Rome eventually defeated Carthage in 202 BC, and in 146 BC the city itself was destroyed.

Iberia’s Forgotten Role

Today the Punic Wars are often remembered for Hannibal’s dramatic march across the Alps.

But the deeper story runs through Spain.

From the ancient Phoenician port of Cádiz, to the Carthaginian stronghold of Cartagena, and the early military base near Alicante, Iberia became the place where Carthage rebuilt its power after defeat.

It was here that the silver, soldiers, and strategy emerged that allowed Hannibal to challenge Rome—and nearly change the course of Mediterranean history.

Stone Sentinels of the Pirate Coast (Costa Blanca, Spain)

Part of a map showing the coastline of the Costa Blanca with its watchtowers. (Seen at the Museu de la Mar in Denia.)

Standing on the cliffs of the Costa Blanca today, the old stone watchtowers look quiet and almost decorative. Many hikers pass them without realizing that they once formed part of a carefully designed defensive network. In the sixteenth century the Valencian coast was not a holiday destination. It was a frontier.

Across the Mediterranean lay the ports of North Africa where Barbary corsairs operated. Their ships appeared suddenly on the horizon, raiding coastal towns, looting houses and carrying captives away to slave markets. Communities along the Spanish Mediterranean lived with the constant fear that the next sail might bring disaster.

This fear was based on repeated attacks.

One of the most dramatic occurred in 1550, when the Ottoman corsair Turgut Reis (Dragut) attacked Cullera, south of Valencia. Corsair ships landed suddenly, overwhelmed the town’s defenses, and looted the settlement. Many inhabitants were captured and taken across the Mediterranean to be sold as slaves. The attack shocked the region and reinforced the urgency of improving coastal defenses.

Further south, Villajoyosa faced a similar threat in 1538, when Barbary corsairs attempted to land and plunder the town. The inhabitants managed to resist the attack, but the event revealed how vulnerable the coast was to sudden amphibious raids. It is still remembered today in the town’s Moros y Cristianos festival.

These raids were part of a wider Mediterranean conflict. Corsair fleets connected to the Ottoman world — commanded by figures such as Hayreddin Barbarossa and his lieutenants — regularly attacked Christian coasts. Their goal was often not conquest but profit: prisoners, livestock, goods and ransom.

Spain’s response was both practical and surprisingly modern.

In 1554, the Italian military engineer Giovanni Battista Antonelli travelled more than 500 kilometers along the Valencian coast with the viceroy of the kingdom. After inspecting the shoreline he proposed a coordinated defensive system built around roughly fifty watchtowers positioned on cliffs and strategic headlands.

Drawing of the port of Moraira and a proposed watchtower for Moraira and the island of Benidorm Island, created in 1596 by the military engineer Cristóbal Antonelli. The document illustrates the planning of the coastal watchtower network built to defend the Kingdom of Valencia against Mediterranean corsair raids.

The concept was simple but effective.

Each tower had a clear line of sight to the next. When lookouts spotted suspicious ships, they lit signal fires or raised smoke signals. The warning travelled rapidly along the coast, alerting inland towns and castles. Within minutes an entire stretch of coastline could prepare for an attack.

What appear today as isolated ruins were once parts of a coastal communication network.

The project reflected the ambitions of Philip II, who invested heavily in mapping and documenting his territories. Engineers, surveyors and cartographers worked together to understand the landscape and strengthen its defenses. One of the first maps to show the system was produced in 1584 by the Flemish cartographer Abraham Ortelius, depicting the Kingdom of Valencia and its chain of coastal towers.

The towers themselves varied in shape. Some had circular bases with sloping walls designed to deflect cannon fire, while others were square. Most housed a small garrison and a signal platform from which guards scanned the horizon.

Financing such a system required substantial resources. The Crown coordinated the project, but much of the funding came from regional revenues and local communities. In Valencia, part of the money came from taxes linked to the thriving silk industry, whose trade enriched the region during the same period.

Over time the chain extended along much of the Valencian shoreline. Later maps from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries still show more than fifty towers, demonstrating how long the system remained important.

Today many of these towers survive, scattered between modern resorts, pine forests and rocky headlands. Some have been restored, others stand as weathered fragments above the sea.

Seen from the cliffs today they may look like lonely monuments. In reality they were once the eyes and ears of an entire coastline — silent sentinels guarding a Mediterranean that was, for centuries, a pirate frontier.

Who Speaks for “Us”?

Populism and the loss of shared context

Image generated with ChatGPT.

Many people today recognise the same uneasy feeling, even if they describe it in different ways. Decisions are made that shape their lives, yet those decisions seem to come from somewhere else — distant, abstract, impersonal. Not openly hostile, but unfamiliar. As if politics no longer passes through the world they know.

This sense of distance is fertile ground for populism.

Populism is often treated as a political problem: a style of rhetoric, a threat to democracy, a rejection of facts. But it can also be understood differently. Seen through a cultural lens, populism looks less like a doctrine and more like a reaction — a response to the feeling that public life has lost its connection to everyday experience.

At the heart of populism lies a simple question: Who speaks for “us”?
Not who governs most competently, or who follows the rules best, but who feels recognisable. Who understands how life is lived. Who belongs.

Modern democracies rely heavily on rules, procedures and institutions. This is necessary. Complex societies cannot function without clear laws, formal decision-making and expert knowledge. But over time, this way of governing can become distant. Politics begins to speak in the language of policy papers, statistics and legal frameworks — a language that makes sense, yet feels strangely empty.

When legitimacy has to be explained, rather than felt, trust becomes fragile.

Populist leaders thrive in this space. They do not primarily offer better solutions, but a different kind of connection. They speak in simpler terms, draw clear lines, and personalise responsibility. They name enemies and allies. In doing so, they restore a sense of context — even if that context is simplified or exclusionary.

Migration often intensifies these dynamics.

Migration is not only the movement of people; it is the movement of ways of life, habits and expectations. For many, this creates a vague sense of loss: familiar rhythms change, unspoken rules no longer seem shared. Populist narratives turn that unease into a story. Migrants become symbols — not only of change, but of the fear that no one is safeguarding what once felt self-evident.

This also helps explain why facts alone rarely weaken populism. Statistics and policy arguments address questions of efficiency and legality. Populism speaks to something else: recognition, dignity, and the feeling of being seen. When people feel unheard, being corrected does little to restore trust.

None of this means that populism offers good answers. It often simplifies, divides and excludes. But dismissing it as ignorance or manipulation misses the deeper issue. Populism is a signal that shared context is eroding.

The real challenge, then, is not how to silence populism, but how to rebuild forms of politics that reconnect rules with lived experience, and institutions with everyday life.

Who speaks for “us” remains an open question. Ignoring it will not make it disappear — it will only ensure that others answer it more loudly.

How the War in Iran Will Change What We Eat

A farmer asking himself: what now? (Image generated with AI.)

For many Europeans, food still feels predictable. You go to the supermarket, and everything is there. Prices have gone up in recent years, but the system still seems to work.

That sense of stability is now under pressure.

Not because of something happening in European fields, but because of what is happening far away — in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Military tension, blocked shipping routes, and rising insurance risks are disrupting one of the world’s most important trade corridors. As a result, energy prices are climbing, fertiliser supplies are tightening, and transport costs are rising — all at the same time.

What begins there does not stay there.

A system under strain

The Strait of Hormuz is best known for oil, but it is just as critical for natural gas and fertiliser. When that transport route is disrupted, the effects spread quickly. Energy becomes more expensive, fertiliser becomes less available, and moving goods becomes more costly.

These are not separate problems. They reinforce each other — and together they shape the cost and availability of food.

Energy hits the plate first

The impact is already visible across Europe. In the Netherlands, some fishing boats are staying in port because diesel costs have risen to the point where going out to sea is no longer viable. When boats stay in harbour, fish disappears from the market — just as grey shrimp have largely disappeared in recent years when costs became too high.

In Spain, tomatoes that supply much of Northern Europe are becoming more expensive because transport costs have increased sharply. Supermarkets in Germany and Belgium are already adjusting prices to reflect these higher costs, and consumers are noticing.

The pattern is simple: when energy becomes expensive, food follows. And this comes on top of several years of rising food prices, which have already stretched household budgets across Europe.

Fertiliser hits the plate second

At the same time, fertiliser is becoming less available. This is less visible, but just as important.

Modern agriculture depends on fertiliser to maintain yields. When supply tightens, farmers have to make difficult decisions. They may use less fertiliser, switch to crops that require less input, or reduce production altogether.

These decisions happen months before harvest, but their consequences are long-lasting. Lower fertiliser use leads to lower yields, which means less food entering the system later in the year. And because agriculture follows fixed seasonal cycles, a missed opportunity cannot be recovered.

Europe has to adapt

Europe is deeply connected to this system. It depends on imported energy, imported fertiliser, and long supply chains that link producers and consumers across borders. When all three come under pressure at once, the effects begin to accumulate.

Food becomes more expensive, some products become less available, and choices narrow. This is not a sudden shock, but a gradual tightening of the system.

Diets will have to adapt — not by choice, but by necessity.

A harder reality

For a long time, Europe has lived with the assumption that food is always available, that no matter what happens elsewhere, the shelves will remain full.

The war in Iran shows how fragile that assumption is. Food depends on energy, on fertiliser, and on stable global trade routes. When those are disrupted, the effects travel far — and they reach into everyday life.

What is changing is not just the price of food. It is something more fundamental: the quiet return of a reality Europe once knew well — that what we eat is shaped by forces far beyond our control, and that those forces can shift faster than we expect.

Myth, Memory, and Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer

The two Marys in their boat, symbolizing the legendary arrival of early Christians on this shore.

A Story from the Sea

At the edge of the Camargue, where land fades into marsh and sea, stands a church that looks like a fortress. It is here that local tradition places a striking beginning.

The story does not start here, however, but far to the east, in the lands of Palestine. In the years following the death of Christ, his followers were increasingly under pressure—from both Roman authorities and local opposition. According to tradition, a small group of women and early believers were forced to flee. They were placed in a fragile boat, without sail or rudder, and cast out to sea.

Carried by currents rather than by human control, the boat drifted across the Mediterranean until it reached this remote coastline. On board were Marie Jacobé and Marie Salomé, close relatives of Jesus, and, in many versions, Mary Magdalene. With them was also a woman named Sara, whose story would take on a life of its own in the centuries that followed.

Whether history or legend, the power of the story lies in the journey itself: a passage from persecution to arrival, from uncertainty to landfall—here, at the edge of Europe.

The fortified church of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer.

A Sanctuary of Stone and Presence

The church reflects both danger and refuge. Built as a defensive structure against attacks from the sea, it offered physical protection in turbulent times. Inside, however, the atmosphere softens. The Romanesque forms, filtered light, and quiet spatial rhythm create a sense of inward movement.

Above the altar, the two Marys are shown in a boat, a simple image that captures the essence of the story. Below, in the crypt, stands Sara—known as Sara la Noire—covered in layers of cloaks, jewelry, and offerings brought by pilgrims. These gifts are acts of gratitude or hope, not decoration.

The statue of Sara la Noire, covered in offerings from pilgrims—an enduring symbol of listening, protection, and devotion.

Sara’s origins are uncertain, but her meaning today is clear. She is especially revered by Roma and travelling communities, who see in her a figure of recognition and protection. She has been described as one who listens—a presence for those who feel unheard.

Ritual, Memory, and Mystery

Each year, especially in May, the town fills with pilgrims. Statues of the saints are carried from the church to the sea, and often into the water itself, recalling their legendary arrival. These processions are not simply reenactments; they are lived experiences, marked by strong emotion and a sense of shared participation.

Throughout the church, ex-votos—small offerings left behind—tell personal stories of illness, survival, and gratitude. Together, they form a quiet testimony to the human need for meaning, connection, and hope.

Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer resists simple explanation. It is a place where legend, history, and personal experience merge, and where the mystery itself becomes part of its power. People arrive out of curiosity or belief, but many leave with the sense that something has shifted—however slightly—within them.

Hannah Arendt, AI and Social Media: The Risks of a World That Thinks for Us

A portrait of Hannah Arendt created with AI.

Hannah Arendt (1906 - 1975) is often seen as a thinker of the past, shaped by the rise of totalitarian regimes in 20th-century Europe, especially Nazi Germany. But her work is not just about that time. It is about something more basic: what happens when people stop thinking for themselves.

One of her most striking ideas came from watching the trial of Adolf Eichmann. She expected to see a monster. Instead, she saw an ordinary man who followed rules and spoke in clichés. He did not really think about what he was doing. That led her to a simple but troubling insight: great harm can come from people who do not think.

This idea feels very relevant today. The world around us makes thinking easier to avoid. Social media rewards quick reactions instead of careful reflection. Algorithms show us what we already agree with. AI tools give us fast, clear answers. None of this forces us to stop thinking—but it does make it easier not to.

Arendt also believed that this kind of situation often grows out of loneliness. When people feel disconnected from others and from the world around them, they look for simple explanations and guidance. In the past, political ideologies filled that gap. Today, digital platforms and AI sometimes play a similar role. They offer connection, but often in a way that stays on the surface and does not challenge us.

This links to a question that is becoming more important: what do we lose when technology does more for us? AI can help us work faster and find answers quickly. But if we start relying on it for judgment, interpretation, or even conversation, we may slowly lose the habit of thinking things through ourselves.

Arendt also warned that the real danger is not just lies, but confusion about what is true. In today’s digital world, information is filtered and repeated in ways that can make almost anything seem believable. AI adds to this by producing answers that sound convincing, even when they are not fully reliable. Something can feel right without actually being true.

This creates a problem. The world may seem clear and coherent, but it becomes harder to question or check what we see.

We are not living under totalitarian rule. But some of the conditions Arendt described are still present: people feeling disconnected, a weaker sense of shared reality, and a growing reliance on systems that guide our thinking.

Arendt did not offer simple solutions. Instead, she stressed something more basic. Thinking is not just a skill—it is a responsibility. It takes time, effort, and a willingness to pause and reflect.

In a world where technology makes everything faster and easier, that responsibility becomes more important.

The real question is not what AI and social media can do for us. It is whether we continue to think for ourselves.

The Giant Clay Jars of Valdepeñas (Spain)

Rows of traditional clay tinajas in an underground cellar in Valdepeñas.

If you descend into one of the old wine cellars of Valdepeñas, you may find yourself walking through a silent forest of giant clay vessels. These monumental jars, called tinajas, once formed the heart of the region’s winemaking tradition. Some are taller than a person and can hold thousands of litres of wine.

Wine has been produced in this part of La Mancha for a very long time. Archaeological evidence suggests that vines were already cultivated here by Iberian peoples and later by the Romans. The written history of the town itself begins in 1243, when several small settlements in the “Valley of Stones” were united under the name Valdepeñas—a place already known for its wine culture.

By the early modern period, the region had become one of the major wine suppliers of central Spain. When Madrid became the royal capital in the 16th century, demand for wine increased dramatically, and the vineyards around Valdepeñas expanded to meet the needs of the growing city.

In those centuries, the wine was not stored in small oak barrels as we often imagine today. Instead, it was kept in enormous earthenware vats like the tinajas seen in the photo. Some traditional vessels held more than a thousand litres and were sometimes partly buried in the ground to keep the temperature stable during fermentation and storage.

The cellars themselves were often carved into the soft limestone beneath the town. In the cool darkness, rows of these giant jars stored the harvest of the surrounding vineyards. Wine could ferment slowly, settle naturally, and remain stable for long periods before being transported to other cities.

In the 19th century Valdepeñas entered a new phase. Railways connected the town to the rest of Spain, and large quantities of wine were shipped across the country and even overseas. The town became one of Spain’s best-known wine centres, a reputation that continues today with its protected designation of origin (D.O. Valdepeñas).

Modern wineries now rely mostly on stainless-steel tanks and smaller oak barrels. Yet many historic bodegas still preserve their old tinajas. Walking between them is like stepping back into an earlier chapter of European wine history—when wine was produced and stored on a monumental scale beneath the streets of Valdepeñas.

From the Marquis de Sade to Jeffrey Epstein

Power, Desire, and the Abuse of Freedom

An AI portrait of Jeffrey Epstein and Marquis de Sade.

In the late eighteenth century, Europe was in upheaval. Monarchies were collapsing, revolutions were spreading, and Enlightenment thinkers were promoting reason, equality, and human dignity. It was in this charged atmosphere that the Marquis de Sade lived and wrote.

De Sade was not just a controversial thinker. He was repeatedly accused—and in several cases convicted—of serious abuse of vulnerable people, including coercion, violence, and the exploitation of young women and prostitutes. His writings did not merely describe cruelty; they celebrated it, presenting domination and suffering as legitimate forms of pleasure.

Even in an age that was questioning authority and tradition, this crossed a line. He spent long periods in prison. Society, however inconsistently, recognized that what he represented was not freedom, but a radical denial of human dignity.

Power Without Accountability

More than two centuries later, Jeffrey Epstein operated in a world of global elites—private jets, luxury properties, and access to political and scientific influence.

Epstein was not a theorist. His actions are documented in court cases and testimonies. He:

• recruited, abused and traficked underage girls, often through a network of intermediaries

• paid victims, normalizing exploitation as a transaction

• maintained properties where abuse took place over extended periods

• cultivated relationships with powerful individuals, some of whom continued to associate with him even after his conviction in 2008

This was not hidden in the shadows alone. Warning signs were visible. Yet access, status, and influence allowed him to continue for years.

The Same Logic, Different Language

What links de Sade and Epstein is not just what they did, but how their actions reflect a deeper mindset.

De Sade argued openly that:

• moral limits are artificial

• the strong have the right to dominate

• empathy is weakness

Epstein never wrote this down, but his behavior followed the same logic. The systematic nature of his actions—organizing, paying, and repeating abuse—points to more than impulse. It suggests a belief that others exist to be used.

In both cases, human beings were reduced to objects:
for pleasure, for control, or for experimentation.

Epstein’s reported interest in genetic “improvement” adds another layer. It echoes older, dangerous ideas that some people are superior and entitled to shape the future of others.

A Necessary Judgment

It is tempting to respond to stories like these with cynicism—to say that all elites are corrupt, that morality is a façade, that nothing really changes.

But that reaction risks blurring something essential: not everything is the same, and not everything is acceptable.

What de Sade described and what Epstein practiced are not controversial lifestyles or boundary-pushing ideas. They are clear violations of human dignity:

• coercion

• exploitation of the vulnerable

• abuse of power

De Sade was imprisoned because his actions and ideas were recognized as dangerous. Epstein was eventually arrested and exposed because, despite failures, there were still institutions and individuals willing to act.

That is the line that matters.

Freedom does not include the right to harm others.
Power does not justify exploitation.
Intelligence does not excuse abuse.

The comparison between these two men should not lead to fascination, but to clarity. Across centuries, the pattern is the same—and so must be the response: firm rejection.

Further Reading

• Marquis de Sade – Justine

• Neil Schaeffer – The Marquis de Sade: A Life

• Julie K. Brown – Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story

When Farming Reached Iberia - the Neolithic transition

Neolithic decorated clay vessel (c. 5500–3500 BC) from the Cueva del Higuerón near Rincón de la Victoria (Málaga), now displayed in the Museo de Málaga. Hand-made and decorated with impressed patterns, pots like this belong to the earliest farming communities of the Iberian Peninsula.

Around 7,500–5,500 years ago, life on the Iberian Peninsula began to change in a profound way. For thousands of years people had lived as hunter-gatherers, moving through landscapes rich in animals, plants and marine resources. But during the sixth millennium BC, new communities appeared along the Mediterranean coast bringing something revolutionary: farming and herding.

Archaeologists call this moment the Neolithic transition.

The Arrival of the First Farmers

The first Neolithic communities of Iberia cultivated crops such as wheat and barley and kept sheep and goats. They used polished stone tools, flint sickles for harvesting, and—perhaps most visibly—ceramic vessels. These early farming groups did not appear everywhere at once. The earliest sites are often found along the Mediterranean coast, especially in caves and rock shelters. From these coastal footholds, farming gradually spread inland.

Archaeologists believe these communities likely arrived by sea from other parts of the western Mediterranean, possibly from the Italian or Ligurian coasts. Another possibility, still debated, is that some groups reached southern Iberia from North Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar. Wherever they came from, their arrival created one of the most important cultural encounters in European prehistory: the meeting between incoming farmers and local hunter-gatherers.

A Landscape of Caves and Coasts

Southern Iberia—especially the coast of Málaga and Granada—is rich in caves that preserve traces of this transition. These caves were often occupied repeatedly for thousands of years.

At sites along the Andalusian coast, archaeological layers show the gradual shift from Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to Early Neolithic farmers, including pottery fragments, stone tools, shell ornaments, and remains of domesticated animals.

Even after farming arrived, people continued to exploit the sea. Shellfish, fish, and other marine resources remained important in daily life along the Mediterranean coast.

In other words, the Neolithic did not replace earlier traditions overnight—it blended with them.

A Pot from the Beginning of Farming

A quiet witness to this transformation can be seen today in the Museo de Málaga. The clay vessel shown here was found in the Cueva del Higuerón, a cave near Rincón de la Victoria, just east of Málaga. It dates to the Neolithic period between about 7,500 and 5,500 years ago. At first glance it may look simple: a hand-made clay pot with decorative impressions along its rim. But this object tells an important story. Pottery like this is one of the clearest signs that a community had entered the Neolithic world. Clay vessels allowed people to store grain, cook food, and transport liquids, making them closely connected to farming life.

Unlike modern ceramics, Neolithic pots were made without a potter’s wheel. The clay was shaped by hand, decorated with simple impressions or incised patterns, and fired in basic kilns or open hearths. Each pot was therefore unique. The decorative band around the rim of this vessel—made by pressing tools or cords into the wet clay—was not strictly necessary. It was a human touch: a moment where utility became design.

A Quiet Revolution

When we look at objects like this pot, we are seeing the material traces of one of the biggest revolutions in human history.

The introduction of farming meant:

• more permanent settlements

• new technologies such as pottery

• domesticated animals and crops

• new social structures and ways of organizing land.

Within a few centuries, these early farmers transformed landscapes across the Iberian Peninsula.

Yet the people who made this vessel were still close to older traditions. They lived in caves near the sea, gathered shellfish, hunted animals, and moved through familiar territories that had been used by hunter-gatherers long before them.

This clay pot, now resting in a museum display case, therefore stands at the meeting point of two worlds: the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers of Iberia.

The Four Troublesome Heads by Georges Méliès

While visiting the Museo Picasso Málaga, we unexpectedly encountered a small piece of film history: Un Homme de Tête (1898) by the French filmmaker and magician Georges Méliès.

The film lasts barely a minute. Méliès sits at a table, removes his own head, places it on the table, and then calmly grows a new one. Soon several identical heads are singing and moving next to each other like a strange little choir.

For audiences in 1898, this must have looked like pure magic. In reality Méliès used simple but ingenious techniques such as multiple exposures and stop-camera editing—methods that made the camera itself a magician’s tool.

Seeing this playful experiment in the Picasso Museum makes sense in an unexpected way. Artists of the early twentieth century were fascinated by new ways of showing reality. Just as Méliès multiplied his own head on screen, Pablo Picasso would later fragment faces and perspectives in his paintings.

Different media, but the same spirit: curiosity, experimentation, and the joy of discovering what images can do.

And all of it captured in a film that lasts barely a minute.

Can the U.S. and Israel Win a War with Iran — Or Has Winning Become Impossible?

At the start of the war, the language was familiar: targets destroyed, capabilities reduced, pressure increasing. It is the language of progress — and ultimately, of victory.

But very quickly, a more difficult question emerges: what would “winning” actually look like?

Is it destroying Iran’s military capacity, stopping its nuclear ambitions, forcing regime change, or simply restoring deterrence? These are not the same objectives. Some are military, others political, and some may not be achievable at all. When goals diverge, even success on the battlefield can fail to produce a clear outcome.

More striking still is that the strategic rationale itself remains unclear. This is not just a hard war to win — it is a war whose end state is difficult to define.

Why Military Success Is No Longer Enough

For much of modern history, war followed a simple logic: defeat the enemy’s army, and political results would follow. That logic still matters, but it no longer works on its own.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all show the same pattern: military superiority does not guarantee a lasting political outcome. Power can dominate the battlefield without shaping the result.

There is also a more practical constraint. Modern warfare depends on complex, expensive systems — missiles, interceptors, air defense — that cannot be produced quickly or in unlimited quantities. Stockpiles are limited, and production capacity is slow to expand.

A war can be started quickly. Sustaining it is much harder.

A War of Endurance, Not Decision

In this conflict, the asymmetry is clear. The United States and Israel need visible results. Iran may only need to endure.

At the same time, the war extends beyond the battlefield into a wider system of constraints:

• Energy markets, where disruption affects global oil and gas flows

• Regional stability, where escalation spreads beyond a single front

• Military supply chains, where limited production constrains the pace of war

• Domestic support, where public opinion limits how long governments can continue

These pressures reinforce each other. Rising costs, strained supply chains, and political fatigue make prolonged conflict increasingly difficult to sustain.

The burden is not evenly shared. The United States itself faces limited direct risk, but its allies depend heavily on scarce and expensive defensive systems. The ability to continue the war may depend less on offensive success than on whether these partners can hold out.

At the same time, the economic impact spreads far beyond the region — through oil, gas, shipping, and even fertilizer markets — often hitting the most vulnerable countries hardest.

Together, these pressures define what economic resilience now means in practice: the ability to absorb shocks, sustain pressure, and continue functioning under disruption.

In this kind of conflict, time works differently. The stronger side seeks a quick result. The weaker side benefits from delay. The longer the war lasts, the less likely a decisive outcome becomes.

Ending Without Losing Face

If objectives are unclear, resources constrained, and outcomes shaped by forces beyond direct control, then the question is no longer how to win, but how to end the war.

That is a harder problem. Ending such a conflict requires a way out that allows all sides to step back without appearing to lose. These exits are political, negotiated, and often ambiguous.

The longer the war continues, the harder this becomes. Costs rise, positions harden, and expectations can make compromise politically untenable. At the same time, the complexity of the conflict makes it increasingly difficult for any one actor to control its trajectory.

The real question, then, is not whether the United States and Israel can win this war, but whether their leaders are willing and able to shift from a logic of victory to a logic of termination.

If they are not, the war may continue not because it can be won, but because it has become too difficult to end.

Further Reading

• Rupert Smith — The Utility of Force

• Donald Stoker — Why Nations Lose Wars

• Hew Strachan (ed.) — The Changing Character of War

• Adam Tooze — lectures on war and the global economy (On YouTube)

Rastapopoulos and the Business of Influence

Image created with AI

In the adventures of Tintin (1929 - 1976), villains rarely appear as villains. They wear good suits, run international companies, and speak the language of progress and opportunity. At first glance, these stories may seem like a story from another time. Yet the patterns they reveal feel uncomfortably close to decisions being made in our own time.

No one embodies the dealmakers that we are talking about better than Roberto Rastapopoulos, the cigar-smoking tycoon who first appeared in Cigars of the Pharaoh (1934). Behind his elegant offices and film studios lay a network of smuggling, bribery, and intimidation that stretched across continents.

Rastapopoulos’ genius was not the crime itself, but his ability to make the system work for him.

If Hergé were writing the stories today, Rastapopoulos would probably not be dealing in opium or stolen jewels. His warehouse might instead contain rows of AI drones, missile components, and autonomous aircraft being prepared for “defense contracts.”

Everything would look perfectly legitimate.

Government officials would speak about security. Companies would talk about innovation. Investors would discuss growth markets.

But Tintin — and readers of Tintin — would look beyond the hardware.

• A contract appears after a convenient political donation.

• A procurement board is chaired by an old acquaintance.

• A strategic position goes to a relative of someone powerful.

• A competitor quietly withdraws after an unpleasant conversation.

Corruption opens doors. Nepotism keeps them open.

From the outside it all looks modern, technical, even respectable. Yet the structure behind it would be instantly familiar to anyone who has followed the adventures of Tintin.

Because in Rastapopoulos’ world, the real product was never opium, diamonds, or weapons. The real product was influence. And influence, once captured, can move markets, governments — and sometimes even wars.

The Celts: Europe’s First Cultural Network

Image created with AI

When we travel slowly across Europe — as many culture lovers do — we begin to notice something curious. Landscapes change, languages shift, cuisines evolve. Yet certain patterns return: hilltop settlements, spiral motifs, sacred springs, warrior legends. Part of this shared layer goes back to a people who never built an empire and never wrote their own history, but who shaped Europe in lasting ways: the Celts.

A Cultural Europe Before Political Europe

The Celts were not one nation. They were a wide network of tribes who shared languages, beliefs, artistic styles and ways of life. At their height, they spread from Ireland to Anatolia in modern Turkey.

What they created was something like a cultural Europe long before any political unity existed. They travelled, traded, fought, and mixed with local populations. Rather than replacing earlier cultures, they blended with them. This is why so many regions in Europe still feel both different and strangely connected.

From Alpine Origins to a Continent

Their earliest roots lie in the Alpine world of the early Iron Age. These were skilled farmers, miners and traders. Salt, copper and tin brought wealth. Trade connected them to the Mediterranean, and prosperity encouraged expansion.

Over centuries, Celtic groups moved into Gaul, Iberia, the British Isles and Central Europe. They helped shape early versions of cities that would later become Paris, Lyon, Vienna and London. In many places, hybrid cultures emerged. In Spain, for example, Celtiberian societies combined Celtic and Iberian traditions.

Europe, even then, was a layered landscape.

Warriors, Poets and Craftsmen

Ancient writers often focused on Celtic warfare, but archaeology reveals a more complex society. The Celts valued beauty, craftsmanship and storytelling. Their jewellery and weapons were highly sophisticated. Poets and musicians held respected roles. Druids acted as religious leaders, judges and teachers.

Trade and craftsmanship were prestigious paths. Metalworkers and merchants enjoyed status close to that of elites. This world encouraged individuality and self-expression — something that still resonates in Europe’s regional cultures today.

Why They Never Built an Empire

Despite their vast reach, the Celts never formed a unified state. Loyalty remained local. Rivalries between tribes were frequent. When Rome expanded, Celtic resistance was fierce but fragmented.

The Romans brought organisation, discipline and long-term strategy. Gradually, most Celtic regions were absorbed. Yet conquest did not erase local traditions. Instead, Roman structures blended with Celtic cultures, creating new forms of society across Europe.

A Legacy That Never Disappeared

By the early centuries of our era, Celtic political power had faded. But their cultural influence remained. Languages survived in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany. Myths and artistic traditions shaped medieval Europe. Place names, landscapes and festivals still carry their imprint.

The Celtic story reminds us that Europe was never built only by empires. It grew through movement, exchange and cultural mixing. In that sense, the Celts were among the first to live the reality of a connected yet diverse continent.

If we travel with curiosity, we can still see their traces — not as isolated ruins, but as part of a shared European memory.

Further Reading

• Barry Cunliffe — The Ancient Celts

• Miranda Aldhouse-Green — The Celtic World

• John Collis — The Celts: Origins, Myths and Inventions

• Archaeological guides to major Celtic sites such as Hallstatt, Bibracte and Numantia

Rutger Bregman and the Possibility of a Better World

Rutger Bregman

In a time when public debate often assumes the worst about human nature, the Dutch historian and writer Rutger Bregman has built a career around a strikingly different idea: most people are fundamentally decent, cooperative, and capable of building a better society—if institutions allow it.

His books, especially Utopia for Realists and Humankind: A Hopeful History, combine history, social science, and moral argument to challenge common assumptions about human behavior, poverty, and economic systems.

A More Optimistic View of Human Nature

At the center of Bregman’s thinking is a simple but controversial claim: humans are not naturally selfish and violent. Instead, cooperation, empathy, and trust have been crucial to our evolutionary success.

Many famous historical stories, he argues, reinforce an overly pessimistic image of humanity. Looking more closely at history—from wartime behavior to everyday crises—often reveals the opposite: people helping one another rather than descending into chaos.

If this more optimistic view is correct, it has important consequences for politics and economics.

Poverty as a Lack of Money

One of Bregman’s most famous arguments concerns poverty. Rather than seeing poverty as a moral failure, he describes it as something simpler: a shortage of money.

From this perspective, direct support—simply giving people money—can be one of the most effective solutions. This idea lies behind his support for a universal basic income, a policy in which every citizen receives a regular payment from the state.

Supporters argue that such a system could reduce bureaucracy, eliminate extreme poverty, and give people greater freedom to shape their own lives.

A Critique of Modern Capitalism

Bregman does not call for the abolition of markets or capitalism. Instead, he argues that modern capitalism operates under rules that often favor the wealthiest actors.

One of his most widely discussed moments came during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he criticized global elites for celebrating philanthropy while avoiding serious discussion about taxation. For Bregman, fair taxation and the closing of tax havens are essential for a more balanced economic system.

Rethinking Work

Another theme in Bregman’s work concerns the nature of modern work. He has helped popularize the debate about so-called “bullshit jobs”—roles that even the people performing them feel contribute little to society.

At the same time, many socially essential professions—teachers, nurses, and caregivers—often receive lower pay and status. This contrast, he argues, suggests that markets do not always reward what is most valuable to society.

What His Vision Would Mean

If Bregman’s ideas were widely implemented, the result would not be a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism but a redesign of its rules.

Extreme poverty might largely disappear through direct income support, taxation systems could become more transparent, and social policy would rely more on trust than suspicion.

Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, Bregman’s work invites readers to consider a simple question: what kind of institutions would we build if we truly believed that most people are basically good?

Further Reading

• Rutger Bregman - Utopia for Realists

• Rutger Bregman - Humankind: A Hopeful History

• Davos speech by Rutger Bregman at the World Economic Forum (2019)

• David Graeber – Bullshit Jobs

Cancho Roano: A Sacred Complex in Iron Age Spain

An artist impression of Cancho Roano.

In the quiet countryside of Extremadura, far from Spain’s main tourist routes, lies one of the most intriguing archaeological sites of the Iberian Peninsula: Cancho Roano.

At first glance the place looks modest—low walls, foundations, and a protective structure over the excavation. Yet beneath this calm landscape lies the story of a sophisticated Iron Age society that was deeply connected to the wider Mediterranean world.

Cancho Roano is not just an archaeological site. It is one of the most fascinating puzzles of prehistoric Spain.

An Accidental Discovery

The site came to light almost by accident.

For a long time a low mound near the town of Zalamea de la Serena was believed to be nothing more than the remains of an old agricultural structure. In the 1970s, when the landowner tried to level the mound for farming, workers encountered thick walls of adobe and stone, together with ancient objects.

Archaeologists quickly realized that the mound concealed something extraordinary. Excavations began in 1978 and soon revealed a large and carefully planned building hidden inside the hill.

A Monument from the Iron Age

The complex dates roughly between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, during the Iron Age, centuries before the Romans arrived in Spain.

At that time the Iberian Peninsula was home to many different cultures. Communities in the southwest were linked through trade to Phoenician merchants from the eastern Mediterranean and later to Greek traders. Through these contacts luxury goods, new technologies, and religious ideas spread far inland.

Cancho Roano seems to belong to this world of exchange and cultural mixing.

The archeological site of Cancho Roana.

Palace, Sanctuary, or Both?

The building itself is surprisingly sophisticated.

Constructed on a stone platform and surrounded by a wide moat, the complex is organized around a central courtyard. Rows of small rooms line the sides of the building. Archaeologists found storage spaces, working areas, and rooms that appear to have had ritual functions.

The objects discovered there are remarkable: bronze vessels, imported Greek pottery, ivory pieces, jewelry, and tools related to textile production.

Because of this mixture of finds, archaeologists still debate the exact function of the site. Some see it as a sanctuary, a sacred place where rituals and offerings were made. Others interpret it as the residence of a local elite, a rural center of power that controlled agricultural production and trade.

Many scholars today think it may have been both: a palace-sanctuary, where political authority and religious practice were closely linked.

A Mediterranean World in Western Spain

One of the most fascinating aspects of Cancho Roano is how strongly it reflects connections with the wider Mediterranean.

The architecture shows similarities with sacred buildings found in places such as Etruria in Italy or Phoenician sites around the Mediterranean. Imported ceramics and luxury goods confirm that the community living here was not isolated. Instead, it was part of a network of exchange stretching across the ancient world.

Even in this rural corner of Extremadura, people were connected to distant cultures and ideas.

A Deliberate End

The story of Cancho Roano ends in a mysterious way.

Around the late 5th century BCE the building was deliberately destroyed. Before abandoning the site, its occupants carefully burned parts of the complex and then sealed the structure beneath layers of earth.

This does not appear to have been the result of war or accident. Instead, archaeologists believe it was a ritual closure—a symbolic act marking the end of the sanctuary’s life.

Why this happened remains unknown.

Why Cancho Roano Matters

Cancho Roano is unique in western Europe. Few places offer such a clear glimpse into the complex societies that existed in Iberia before the Roman conquest.

The site shows that these communities built monumental architecture, accumulated wealth, and maintained connections with the Mediterranean world. It reveals a society where religion, politics, and trade were closely intertwined.

Standing among the quiet ruins today, it is easy to forget how vibrant this place once was. Yet Cancho Roano reminds us that long before Rome arrived, southwestern Spain was already part of a dynamic and interconnected ancient world.

Further Reading

Sebastián Celestino Pérez & Javier Jiménez Ávila — El Palacio-Santuario de Cancho Roano
José María Blázquez Martínez — El Santuario de Cancho Roano
Javier Jiménez Ávila — Cancho Roano y la Protohistoria de Extremadura
Manuel Bendala Galán — Protohistoria de la Península Ibérica

A Necklace from 5000 Years Ago

Shell necklace from the Early Copper Age (c. 3000 BC), made from pierced seashells and discovered in the dolmen of Cuesta de los Almendrillos near Alozaina (Málaga). Now displayed in the Museo de Málaga.

In a quiet display case in the Museo de Málaga lies something unexpectedly familiar: a necklace made entirely of small seashells. At first glance it looks almost modern — the kind of necklace you might see today in a seaside market.

Yet this one is about 5,000 years old.

The necklace was found in the dolmen of Cuesta de los Almendrillos, near Alozaina, and dates to the Early Copper Age. Each shell was carefully pierced and strung together into a long loop. Some are smooth, some still show their fine natural ridges, but together they form something unmistakable: jewelry.

And that is the first surprise.

When we look at this necklace, we are not looking at something strange from a distant prehistoric world. We are looking at something that would not feel out of place today. Walk through a coastal market anywhere around the Mediterranean and you will find shell necklaces that look remarkably similar.

Five thousand years have passed — yet the idea is exactly the same.

A Necklace Worn in Life

Objects like this often come from megalithic tombs, collective burial monuments built by early farming communities across Iberia. The dolmen at Cuesta de los Almendrillos was one such place. People were buried there together with objects that mattered to them: tools, pottery, and sometimes personal ornaments.

But a necklace like this was almost certainly not made for the tomb. It was worn in life.

Someone once gathered these shells, pierced them one by one, and threaded them onto a cord. Someone wore this around their neck — perhaps daily, perhaps on special occasions. Shells also hint at connections: they come from the sea, and inland communities often valued them precisely because they traveled from elsewhere.

The Familiarity of the Past

Standing in front of the display in the Museo de Málaga, the realization slowly settles in.

Humans still collect beautiful things from the sea.
We still pierce them.
We still string them together.
We still wear them.

Materials change — gold, silver, glass, plastic — but the impulse is identical. Jewelry is one of the most persistent human habits, appearing in cultures across the world and deep in the archaeological record.

This simple necklace reminds us that the people of the Copper Age were not so different from us.

Five thousand years ago, somewhere in southern Iberia, someone held a handful of shells and had the same simple thought many people have had since:

These would make a beautiful necklace.

Streets that made a city: the Decumanus Maximus and Cardo Salvius of Roman Cartagena

When we think of Roman cities, we tend to think in monuments. But Rome was built first on streets.

In ancient Carthago Nova — today’s Cartagena — two main axes shaped the city: the Decumanus Maximus, running east to west, and the Cardo Salvius, running north to south. Together, they organised movement, power and daily life. Before entering a theatre or a forum, you were already inside Rome simply by walking these roads.

The Decumanus Maxima: an urban spine

The Decumanus Maximus in Cartagena.

The Decumanus Maximus was Cartagena’s main east–west artery. Adapted to a hilly landscape and a busy harbour, it was not a ceremonial boulevard but a working street. Shops opened onto it, carts passed through it, conversations and transactions filled it. This was Rome as routine rather than spectacle.

The Cardo Salvius: life at street level

The Cardo Salvius in Cartagena.

Crossing the decumanus was the Cardo Salvius, the city’s principal north–south street. Its name hints at importance and local pride. Lined with houses, workshops and public buildings, it connected residential areas with the civic and economic heart of the city. This was a street designed for presence, not speed.

Roman Cartagena (Carthago Nova) you can still walk today

What makes Cartagena special is that these streets are still visible. Near Parque de El Lago, sections of both the decumanus and the Cardo Salvius lie exposed at their original level. Wheel ruts, paving stones and drainage lines remain clearly readable. Here, Rome is not imagined — it is encountered underfoot.

Where streets became a city

The intersection of decumanus and cardo was the core of Roman Cartagena. From this logic flowed the forum, the theatre and other monuments. Streets came first; buildings followed.

Rome did not rule only through emperors and armies. It ruled through infrastructure, repetition and familiarity. In Cartagena, that logic is still written in stone.