By Werner L. HeiderJanuary 16, 2026

In early 2026, Venezuela remains a hybrid threat to the Western Hemisphere. The recent US capture of its strongman Nicolás Maduro Moros has not changed that basic reality. Authoritarian rule, criminal markets, migration pressures, and external influences undermine maritime security, finances, and regional stability. International reports document systematic repression, selective prosecution, and a largely hollowed-out separation of powers.[1] Electoral processes remain controversial, the opposition and media are under intense pressure, and constitutional guarantees are limited.[2] At the same time, Venezuela serves as a transit corridor for transnational organized crime. Reports and situation assessments show a shift in routes along the Mid-Atlantic corridor towards Europe, where semi-submersible platforms and other low-signature vessels bypass traditional bottlenecks.[3] Despite the guidelines issued by the International Court of Justice, the territorial dispute with Guyana over Essequibo continues to pose the risk of escalation in a region of growing energy policy importance.[4] The regime’s security services, political machinery, and protection rackets remain intact, and interim arrangements in Caracas have not resolved the underlying crisis. This creates a phase of ambiguity. Washington has removed the president but not the system that sustained him.

For the United States, this creates a situation in which internal security, energy supplies, supply chains, and the defense of a rules-based order in the Inter-American region are simultaneously under pressure. An effective response requires an evidence-based approach that integrates maritime operations, port integrity, financial pressure, human rights-compliant sanctions, and de-escalation mechanisms in the Essequibo region from the outset. Hybrid threats of this kind can only be contained if legal resilience and public communication are part of the planning from the outset. The first 72 hours after major events are crucial. Recent unilateral steps and hard-edged “oil or else” rhetoric make this even more important, because pressure without a visible evidentiary backbone risks eroding trust at home and among partners.

The recent presidential elections were overshadowed by arrests of opposition members, disqualifications, restrictions on civil society, and a lack of transparency in the counting and publication of votes. The Carter Center criticizes the process and questions the integrity of the announced results.[5] Amnesty International documented that the elections were followed by numerous arrests, recorded killings of protesters, and broad prosecutions marked by due process violations, obstruction of the defense, and digital repression.[6] Persistent shortages of basic goods and underfunded humanitarian programs are driving migration and straining host countries.[7]

In the overall assessment of political rights and civil liberties, Venezuela is classified as “not free.” Freedom House’s 2025 rating is 13 out of 100 points.[8] The rationale refers to systematic oppression, abuse of institutions, and a lack of transparency in government actions.[9] Security agencies, intelligence services, and pro-government groups take coordinated action against political opponents. The tactics include arbitrary arrests, harsh charges, solitary confinement, procedural obstacles for defense attorneys, and targeted stigmatization in the media. After the elections, protests were met with considerable violence. Reports document killings, torture, and abuse in detention.[10] Digital tools are used to suppress criticism, with apps and social media platforms being used as whistleblowing and surveillance tools. Taken together, these patterns explain why Venezuela is classified as “not free” and show how little the separation between government and judiciary matters in everyday life.[11]

In foreign and security policy, the government seeks support from Russia, Iran, Cuba, and China. This includes political support, technical cooperation, and elements of security assistance.[12] The US Intelligence Community’s annual threat assessment places these interdependencies in the context of broader regional developments and describes a situation in which authoritarian regimes collaborate with transnational networks and disinformation tools, thereby hindering sustainable cooperation with Western partners.[13] The dispute over Essequibo remains a source of ongoing conflict. In 2023, the International Court of Justice issued orders to stabilize the situation, calling on both states to refrain from exacerbating the situation and to avoid actions that could undermine the legal position of the other party. These orders create legal cover against escalation to open violence, even if the political environment remains unstable.

By: Ilke Adam, Jean Beaman, Mariska Jung
This open access book provides a way to understand the current manifestations of anti-racism in Europe, including changes that became particularly visible with the Black Lives Matter related protests beginning in May 2020. The so-called ‘new' anti-racism is often described as being led by racialized minorities themselves, foregrounding structural racism, and drawing connections between contemporary racism and the colonial past. But are these features truly new? And can we speak of a new 'wave' of anti-racism, and what does wave-thinking clarify or obscure? The chapters in this volume explore anti-racist struggles and practices across a range of European contexts, tracing both change and continuity over time. They illuminate how several features of antiracism, now considered distinctive -  including the leadership by racialized minorities, have deep roots, though they were pushed to the margins, unrecorded or silenced by the mainstream. Today, these voices are beginning to rise, echoing -sometimes modestly - in the centre.  By providing a solid empirical portrait of current and past anti-racist movements in different parts of Europe, this book is a vital resource for students and scholars of race, anti-racism and migration in Europe, as well as for activists and policy-makers navigating the evolving terrain of anti-racist thought and action.

By Jordan Grasso, Nathan Cisneros, & Ilan H. Meyer

This study uses publicly available administrative data reported by California law enforcement agencies to the California Department of Justice to examine trends in reported hate crimes in the state, with a particular focus on gender identity hate crimes. 

By  Cachia, R., Villar Onrubia, D., Barreda Angeles,et al.

The European Commission is strongly committed to creating a safer digital environment for all citizens, specifically minors and youth. In the European Union Member States and Norway, 26 out of 28 countries have legislation addressing bullying and cyberbullying, with 13 providing specific definitions. While cyberbullying continues to increase, there is no consensus yet on a singular definition. An agreed definition would enable better measurement and monitoring cyberbullying and the effectiveness of related interventions. The widespread adoption of new technologies, like generative artificial intelligence introduce new factors that should be considered when defining cyberbullying.

HIGHLIGHTS ➔ The European Commission is committed to creating a safer digital environment for all citizens, especially minors and youth. ➔ While the prevalence of cyberbullying continues to grow, there is no consensus yet on a standardised definition. ➔ An agreed definition would i) support and inform policy making for a more effective response to cyberbullying by facilitating coordination and a globally cohesive approach, and ii) enable more accurate data collection and analysis, helping researchers and policymakers to track trends, assess the effectiveness of interventions, and make informed decisions. ➔ Almost all European Union Member States have legislation addressing bullying or cyberbullying, with 13 providing specific definitions. ➔ The rapid evolution and uptake of digital technologies (e.g., generative AI) is giving rise to new kinds of behaviours that pose challenges for defining, identifying and addressing cyberbullying. Doing so effectively requires consulting with a broad range of stakeholders, including minors, young people and vulnerable groups. 

By Rebecca Ward

This systematic review explores everyday sadism, a subclinical form of cruelty expressed through socially acceptable behaviours such as trolling, workplace bullying, and schadenfreude. Distinct from criminal and consensual sexual sadism, it is examined within the Dark Tetrad framework, complementing narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Synthesising over 85 studies using PRISMA guidelines, the review evaluates evolutionary, cognitive-behavioural, and reinforcement models, psychometric measures, and experimental paradigms. Findings highlight its prevalence across relationships, workplaces, and online spaces, and outline ethical challenges, interventions, and directions for cross-cultural and longitudinal research.

By The World Health Organization (WHO), Social Determinants of Health (SDH)

This technical report describes the prevalence, risk factors for, and consequences of child corporal punishment, which it defines as “any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light”. Globally, an estimated 1.2 billion children aged 0-18 years are subjected to corporal punishment at home each year, and between a quarter and half of children experience corporal punishment in schools. The consequences of child corporal punishment can last a lifetime and undermine physical and mental health, education, and social and occupational functioning. The report describes underlying risk factors at the individual, family, community and societal levels. It concludes that there is now overwhelming scientific evidence that child corporal punishment carries multiple risks of harm and has no benefits for children, parents, or societies. Efforts to enact and enforce laws banning corporal punishment are necessary but not sufficient, and should be complemented by efforts to support parents and teachers in the use of positive, non-violent approaches to discipline.

By Samantha J. Prince

Domestic violence is sadly and shockingly all too prevalent in the United States. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, more than one in four women and one in seven men in this country are subject to domestic abuse “affecting an estimated 10 million people every year.”  Finances and financial abuse play a significant role in 99% of domestic abuse cases. “[L]acking financial knowledge or resources is the number one indicator of whether a domestic violence victim will stay, leave, or return to an abusive relationship.”When abusers have control over financial assets, victims are monetarily paralyzed and have little ability to escape their situation. Additionally, abusers can engage in financial sabotage maliciously and intentionally ruining the victim’s credit scores, taking their earnings, or “harassing them at their workplace until they lose their job and their own source of income.”Some circumstances can make escaping one’s abuser even more financially challenging. When children are involved, escaping is even more critical but financially difficult for a victim to escape and stay free. Further, during high inflationary or economically volatile periods when expenses are higher and investment balances uncertain, it can be more financially challenging to break and stay free from one’s abuser. Such immediate financial constraints may influence the victim’s choice to stay in abusive situations, since victims may additionally consider the long-term economic impact that leaving these relationships may have.Giving domestic abuse victims financial empowerment so that they can both escape their abuser and be positioned to stay free is crucial First, this essay focuses on the statutory requirements of the newly permissible 401(k) domestic abuse victim distributions. It then proffers how employers can help employees who are in abusive situations through employee benefits like their 401(k) plans. Specifically, it addresses how employers can shift to a more compassionate position by supporting and assisting their victim employees through their retirement plans.

By Max Schanzenbach and Kimberly Yuracko

The war between Hamas and Israel has caused havoc in higher education. Amid student unrest, alumni pressure, congressional hearings, civil rights investigations, and student lawsuits, universities stand at a crossroads. The current situation, in which most private universities unevenly regulate student speech under ambiguous student codes, is not sustainable politically or legally. A tsunami of litigation and regulatory actions has already begun. One increasingly favored response is for private universities to more vigorously enforce existing codes or expand their scope. An alternative is for private universities to deregulate student expression and commit by contract to the First Amendment. This paper argues for the latter approach largely on pragmatic grounds. In essence, our argument is grounded in the realities of university organizational behavior which make it difficult for universities to enforce speech codes in a manner that complies with their regulatory and contractual obligations. Ambiguous codes, informal process, and political homogeneity among decision-makers inevitably results in inconsistent regulation of speech. These problems can be mitigated by committing to the First Amendment, which would both clarify and constrain university speech regulations by incorporating a large body of caselaw, some of which bears directly on higher education. Such clarity would limit the scope of university action, provide a basis for legally required consistency, and be more readily amenable to external review by courts and federal regulators. Experience with the First Amendment in public universities suggests that such a commitment will not have deleterious consequences for campus life.

BY JEREMY DALRYMPLE, LISEL PETIS

Americans today increasingly describe the country as divided, dysfunctional, and drifting toward crisis. Political opponents are no longer merely mistaken—they are viewed as existential threats. And the majority of Americans believe political polarization is worse today than it was five years ago. In fact, “polarization” was Merriam-Webster’s 2024 Word of the Year, reflecting the growing belief that our nation is fracturing.

But what distinguishes today’s polarization is not just that Americans disagree—it is an attitude that accelerates the acceptance of violence as a possible response.

This growing sentiment has been fueled by high-profile tragedies, such as the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk, the murder of a Minnesota state legislator and her husband, and the attempted assassinations of President Donald J. Trump, among others. According to the U.S. Capitol Police, the number of threats or concerning statements targeting members of Congress, their families, and staff has more than doubled in the past seven years, with 9,474 reported in 2024 alone—marking the second consecutive annual increase. More than one-third of election officials know someone who resigned (at least in part) due to safety concerns, and local leaders across the country are reporting elevated threats as well. Unsurprisingly, most Americans believe political violence is up and expect it to continue to grow. More concerning, a growing number of Americans say they “may have to resort to political violence to get the country back on track.”

Of course, political violence is not new to America. In the 18th and 19th centuries, acts like duels were rooted in a shared culture of honor, and congressional canings often arose in the heat of the moment over political disputes. In the 1960s and 1970s, political violence was more organized and typically tied to specific movements like civil rights or anti-war, where violence was used to advance defined policy goals.But violence no longer appears to advance a political agenda. Instead, it is impulsive, attention seeking, or crisis-driven—and far from culturally accepted.

What Americans mean by “political violence” is increasingly unclear. The phrase has become shorthand for nearly any shocking public attack, from targeted assassinations to mass shootings to online death threats. Some incidents may indeed be political; however, political violence remains rare. Regardless, this type of atypical violence is more prevalent now than at any point in recent memory and cannot be ignored.

Not only does mislabeling violent acts as politically motivated inflate public fear, it also obscures a deeper reality: rising rage against society itself.

This rage operates in a vacuum of political purpose, driven by alienation, instability, psychological distress, or a desire to be seen rather than any belief or cause. In these cases, violence becomes expression rather than advocacy. Attacks now occur in public spaces once considered safe, including schools, parks, courthouses, and civic forums. Some perpetrators invoke partisan language, while others profess no cause at all.

Washington, DC: R Street, 2025. 11p.

by Gilbert K. Chesterton.

In Heretics, the young and exuberant Gilbert K. Chesterton takes aim at the ruling ideas of the modern world with unmatched wit, clarity, and theatrical flair. First published in 1905, this explosive collection of essays dissects the fashionable philosophies and celebrated thinkers of the Edwardian era—from the cool determinism of H. G. Wells to the austere moralism of G. B. Shaw—with a mixture of sharp criticism, generous humor, and a deep belief in the necessity of conviction.

Chesterton’s “heretics” are the men and women who shape public opinion yet shy away from defining what they truly believe. Against the drift of vague optimism and breezy skepticism, he argues for the courage to declare, defend, and live by coherent principles. More than a century later, his challenge feels startlingly contemporary. In an age saturated with opinions but thin on first principles, Heretics speaks with renewed urgency and delight.

Vigorous, provocative, and endlessly quotable, Heretics remains one of Chesterton’s most engaging works—an invitation to think boldly, question fashion, and reclaim the intellectual adventure of believing in something definite. Whether read as cultural critique, literary performance, or philosophical provocation, it is a book that still has the power to unsettle, inspire, and illuminate.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. 174p.

Edited by Ray Perrault and Jack Clark

From the co-directors:

Although global private investment in AI decreased for the second consecutive year, investment in generative AI skyrocketed. More Fortune 500 earnings calls mentioned AI than ever before, and new studies show that AI tangibly boosts worker productivity. On the policymaking front, global mentions of AI in legislative proceedings have never been higher. U.S. regulators passed more AI-related regulations in 2023 than ever before. Still, many expressed concerns about AI’s ability to generate deepfakes and impact elections. The public became more aware of AI, and studies suggest that they responded with nervousness.

Stanford University Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. 2024. 502p.

Converging Paths?

By Daniel G. Reginald

Although both Brazil and the United States inherited European norms that accorded whites privileged status relative to all other racial groups, the development of their societies followed different trajectories in defining white/black relations. In Brazil pervasive miscegenation and the lack of formal legal barriers to racial equality gave the appearance of its being a “racial democracy,” with a ternary system of classifying people into whites (brancos), multiracial individuals (pardos), and blacks (pretos) supporting the idea that social inequality was primarily associated with differences in class and culture rather than race. In the United States, by contrast, a binary system distinguishing blacks from whites by reference to the “one-drop rule” of African descent produced a more rigid racial hierarchy in which both legal and informal barriers operated to create socioeconomic disadvantages for blacks. But in recent decades, Reginald Daniel argues in this comparative study, changes have taken place in both countries that have put them on “converging paths.” Brazil’s black consciousness movement stresses the binary division between brancos and negros to heighten awareness of and mobilize opposition to the real racial discrimination that exists in Brazil, while the multiracial identity movement in the U.S. works to help develop a more fluid sense of racial dynamics that was long felt to be the achievement of Brazil’s ternary system. Against the historical background of race relations in Brazil and the U.S. that he traces in Part I of the book, including a review of earlier challenges to their respective racial orders, Daniel focuses in Part II on analyzing the new racial project on which each country has embarked, with attention to all the political possibilities and dangers they involve.

University Park, PA, Penn State University Pess, 2006

By Adam Baird

Globally, 90% of firearms homicides are committed by men, and men also make up the vast majority of the victims. The highest rates of homicide are mainly found in cities in the Americas (including the Caribbean) and southern Africa, mainly in cities. “Men killing men” disproportionately affects young people in the Global South who live in precarious economic circumstances. This has been the consistent demographic of lethal armed violence for decades.

If men are at the centre of the global armed violence epidemic, it clearly has something to do with their gender. The report explains that when frustrated young men in contexts of persistent poverty gain easy access to small arms and ammunition, it creates a significant risk of an epidemic of lethal violence. This prompts the question: What work is being undertaken with men using a masculinities focus to prevent armed violence? The answer, in short, is none. Efforts to reduce armed violence that do not consider masculinities  will only have a limited effect.

The report suggests that greater debate about this issue is required and that the United Nations can lead progress by developing initiatives in collaboration with Member States, academia and civil society partners. However, to achieve this goal, greater advocacy, political support and funding are vital. 

UNIDIR, Geneva, 2025. 36p.

Domestic violence against women remains alarmingly widespread in the EU, with Eurostat data showing that one in three of the 228 million women are affected. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) has long championed efforts to combat this abuse, first raising the issue in a 2006 opinion. More recently, it helped shape the EU’s first-ever law to protect women from domestic violence and continues to play an active role in the UN Commission on the Status of Women, reinforcing its global commitment to ending this form of violence.

The first ever EU-wide legislation to fight violence against women and domestic violence.

In 2024, the EU adopted the first ever law to combat violence against women. The EESC directly contributed to this EU directive, which incorporated key provisions of our opinion:

• a comprehensive definition of violence: the directive criminalises various forms of violence against women, such as female genital mutilation and cyber violence, aligning with the EESC’s call for a broad definition;

• adopting an intersectional approach: the directive acknowledges the greater vulnerability of certain groups, including women with disabilities and migrant women, and calls for tailored support measures;

• enhanced support services: the directive provides for specialised support services for victims, in line with the EESC’s emphasis on comprehensive victim support.

In addition, the EU set up the 116 016 EU-wide helpline number for victims of violence against women.

The EU directive not only criminalises various forms of violence, but also provides for the creation of victim support services and mandatory training for law enforcement, along with preventive measures such as awareness campaigns and educational programs. It also ensures cross-border cooperation and protection for victims, with legal procedures that are harmonised across EU Member States.

Member States will have until 14 June 2027 to transpose the directive into their national law and policy.

Strengthening EU measures:

The EESC recently adopted a further opinion, which identifies shortcomings in the directive and seeks to further strengthen EU-wide measures. It calls for:

• a broader definition of violence against women (institutional violence, prostitution, chemical submission, pornography, etc.);

• violence against women to be added to the list of EU crimes;

• comprehensive sexuality education at all stages of education;

• specific focus on women with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.

Taking action on the global stage

The Committee’s participation in the 69th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) provided an opportunity to reiterate the EESC’s position and recommendations on the issue of equality of women and the fight against gender-based violence. The EESC called for the direct involvement of civil society organisations in shaping national and regional plans to end violence against women. The political declaration adopted at the end of the session reaffirmed the global commitment to gender equality, including the commitment to end gender-based violence.

Looking ahead

The EESC remains committed to combating domestic violence and violence against women in general. It will continue its efforts to have newly emerging forms of violence recognised in the EU, such as ‘sexual digital forgeries’ or ‘deepfakes’. In June 2025, the EESC also adopted a resolution on Supporting the Declaration of principles for a gender-equal society, backing the European Commission’s Roadmap for Women’s Rights. This will guide the Committee’s policy agenda on gender equality in the long term.

  European Economic and Social Committee, 2025. 2p.

By Steven Mello

While survey evidence suggests widespread financial fragility in the U.S., causal evidence on the implications of typical, negative income shocks is scarce. I estimate the impact of speeding fines on household finances using administrative traffic citation records and a panel of credit reports. Event studies reveal that fines averaging $195 are associated with a $34 increase in unpaid bills in collections. Given additional evidence that fine payment explains this effect and that default is the “last resort” for households, I interpret this finding as suggesting rates of inability to meet unplanned expenses which are consistent with the survey evidence. I also find that fines are associated with longer-run declines in credit scores, borrowing limits, and the likelihood of appearing as employed in payroll records covering a subset of large, high-paying employers. This impact on employment situations appears attributable to the diminished financial position of households rather than, e.g., downstream license suspensions.

Unpublished paper; 

By Albert Edward Wiggam. Introduction by Colin Heston.

Albert Edward Wiggam’s The Fruit of the Family Tree (1924) occupies a distinctive place in the intellectual landscape of early 20th-century America, where science, social reform, and cultural optimism converged. Wiggam, a prominent science writer and lecturer, sought to popularize the principles of heredity and evolution for a general audience, framing them as tools for personal and societal improvement. His work reflects the era’s fascination with genetics and its implications for human progress—a fascination that often intersected with the controversial discourse of eugenics.

At its core, Wiggam’s book argues that the family is not merely a social institution but a biological continuum, transmitting physical, mental, and moral traits across generations. He contends that understanding these hereditary forces is essential for shaping character, guiding marriage choices, and fostering the “betterment” of humanity. This perspective resonated with contemporary movements advocating scientific approaches to social problems, yet it also raises critical questions about determinism, individual agency, and the ethical boundaries of applying biological principles to human affairs.

Historically, The Fruit of the Family Tree emerged during a period of optimism about science’s capacity to engineer progress. The rediscovery of Mendelian genetics and the rise of evolutionary psychology fueled public interest in heredity, while the eugenics movement—then regarded by many as progressive—sought to apply these insights to improve population quality. Wiggam’s writings, widely read and influential, exemplify this cultural moment: they blend scientific exposition with moral exhortation, urging readers to consider the long-term consequences of their choices for future generations.

Upon its publication, The Fruit of the Family Tree was warmly received by a public eager for accessible scientific knowledge. Wiggam’s engaging style and ability to translate complex biological concepts into practical advice made him a popular figure on the lecture circuit and in print. The book was praised for its clarity and its alignment with contemporary ideals of progress and rational planning. Many readers embraced its message as a guide to responsible parenthood and social improvement.

However, the legacy of Wiggam’s work is more complex. While his writings contributed to the popularization of genetics and the notion of “scientific living,” they also reinforced ideas that later came under ethical scrutiny. His advocacy of selective breeding and emphasis on hereditary “quality” aligned with mainstream eugenics discourse, which would eventually be discredited due to its association with coercive policies and discriminatory practices. Today, scholars view Wiggam’s work as emblematic of a historical moment when optimism about science blurred into prescriptive social engineering.

Despite these controversies, The Fruit of the Family Tree remains significant as a cultural artifact. It illuminates the interplay between science and social ideals in the early 20th century and invites reflection on the enduring tension between biological determinism and human freedom. In revisiting Wiggam’s text, modern readers confront not only the aspirations and anxieties of a bygone era but also the cautionary lessons about the ethical use of scientific knowledge in shaping human destiny

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.234.

By Robert C. Olby

From the cover:

"At last, a book about genetics has been written as a science to be reckoned with. Mr. Olby, a librarian of the Cotany School, Ixford, England, has written the whole story with remarkable ease. The text has a clarity which is not found too often in a book of this kind. This is partly because of the excellent notes and bibliography at the end of each chapter. The appendixes give further proof that a book such as this has never been written before-the work cited in each chapter is quoted as originally written by the scientists doing the work in this complicated field." -Library Journal

"Significant contribution to the history of genetics.... After reading this account, one cannot but have greater esteem and appreciation for Mendel as a scientist, a mathematician, a keen observer, and a keeper of careful records. The work and lives of the early hybridists are included in an informing manner with many accounts.... A large appendix includes original findings and writings of the early hybridists. ...Laymen as well as geneticists will appreciate this book." -Choice

Copyright © 1966, 1966 by Robert C. Olby. Schocken. 1967. 209p.

by Rudolf Diesel (Author), Graeme R. Newman (Translator)

When Rudolf Diesel published Solidarismus: Natürliche wirtschaftliche Erlösung des Menschen in 1903, he was already celebrated as the inventor of the internal combustion engine that bore his name. Yet behind the engineer stood a man deeply troubled by the social consequences of industrial capitalism. He had seen firsthand the paradox of modernity: machines producing abundance while workers lived in misery.
By Rudolf Diesel. Translated from the German by Graeme R. Newman (assisted by ChatGTP)

Diesel’s Solidarism was his attempt to resolve this contradiction. It was neither Marxist nor anarchist, nor a conventional liberal reform. Instead, Diesel proposed a peaceful, cooperative, and disciplined movement in which ordinary workers, artisans, and families would pool resources into “People’s Treasuries.” From these would grow “Beehives”—productive cooperatives where every member shared in ownership and security. Over time, he envisioned these federating into a global network that could replace the inequities of capitalism with solidarity, justice, and peace.
The book attracted attention in Europe as an unusual hybrid of social thought, moral appeal, and engineering pragmatism. Diesel stressed repeatedly that he was not a professional economist but an inventor who felt compelled to seek “the natural economic redemption of mankind.” Some reviewers praised his sincerity and practical outlook; others dismissed him as a dreamer outside his field.
Socialists noted that Diesel rejected class struggle, revolution, and expropriation, favoring instead disciplined self-help and gradualism. Conservatives criticized his call for economic transformation beyond private capitalism. For both sides, Diesel seemed too unorthodox to embrace fully, but impossible to ignore. Diesel diagnosed the dangers of unregulated capitalism—inequality, insecurity, global rivalries—that remain urgent today. He envisioned cooperative economics, community-based security, and international solidarity long before these became mainstream topics.
In an era of global climate crisis, technological upheaval, and renewed questions about justice, Diesel’s voice speaks with surprising clarity. He insists that no technical advance has value unless it serves humanity; that no society can survive when millions live in fear and want; and that solidarity, not competition, is the moral law of the future.
Of course, Diesel’s scheme of Treasuries and Beehives reflects its own time, with the language and structures of early-twentieth-century Germany. But behind the particulars lies a timeless conviction: that human beings can organize economic life around justice, security, and brotherhood. His call is not to tear down violently, but to build patiently—penny by penny, act by act, institution by institution—the foundations of a more humane order.
This English edition makes accessible, for the first time in a complete form, Diesel’s forgotten social manifesto. It allows modern readers to see him not only as an inventor of machines, but as a moral thinker wrestling with the human meaning of technology.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. . p.138.

By H. G. Wells

H. G. Wells’s A Short History of the World is a sweeping and ambitious narrative that compresses the entire story of humanity into a single, accessible volume. Written in clear, engaging prose, Wells aimed to make the great arc of world history comprehensible to a general audience, without requiring specialized knowledge.

The book opens with the origins of the Earth, tracing the formation of the planet and the earliest appearance of life, before moving to the evolution of humankind. Wells then explores the emergence of civilizations across Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China, carefully weaving together political, religious, and cultural developments into a unified story. His coverage spans the ancient empires, classical Greece and Rome, the rise of Christianity and Islam, the medieval period, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment.

In the later chapters, Wells addresses the industrial age, scientific discoveries, and the sweeping social and political transformations of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Writing just after the First World War, he gives particular attention to the global impact of modern warfare and the urgent need for new international structures to avoid future catastrophe.

Unlike a traditional textbook, Wells’s work reflects his perspective as both a novelist and a futurist. He is concerned not only with recounting events but also with tracing the moral and intellectual progress of humankind. His narrative frequently comments on human unity, the dangers of nationalism, and the promise of scientific and social cooperation.

A Short History of the World became one of Wells’s most widely read nonfiction works and remains notable as an early 20th-century attempt at a "world history for everyone," blending science, history, and philosophy. Though some interpretations and factual details have since been superseded by later scholarship, the book stands as a landmark in popular historical writing.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 354p..

By Munroe Smith. Introduction by Colin Heston.

When Munroe Smith, the American jurist and scholar of comparative constitutional law, published Militarism and Statecraft in the early twentieth century, the world stood at a threshold. The balance of power in Europe was faltering, national ambitions clashed violently with the ideals of peace and progress, and the question of whether nations could master the destructive temptations of militarism was no longer abstract. It was a pressing reality. Smith’s concern was not simply with armies and weapons, but with the deeper political psychology that drives nations toward war. He sought to expose how the logic of militarism—discipline, hierarchy, and force—could infiltrate civil government, undermining the very statecraft that was supposed to serve reason, justice, and stability.

At the time of its writing, Smith was addressing the dangers of an era when Prussian militarism, the rivalries of empires, and the failure of diplomacy threatened the international order. His work can be read as both analysis and warning: a sober reflection on how the pursuit of military superiority can distort the priorities of states, drawing them away from long-term peace toward short-term domination. For Smith, the central challenge was not only to prepare adequately for defense but also to ensure that the military ethos did not overwhelm civil society and political judgment.

The value of these reflections is not confined to Smith’s age. In 2025, more than a century later, the tension between militarism and statecraft persists, albeit in new forms. The end of the Cold War did not usher in an era of lasting peace, but rather revealed the fragility of international institutions and the persistence of rival nationalisms. Today, the global order is marked by renewed great-power competition, particularly between the United States and China, alongside Russia’s continuing assertiveness in Europe. The conflicts in Ukraine, the South China Sea, and the Middle East remind us that the balance of deterrence and diplomacy remains unstable.

Moreover, the rise of advanced technologies—autonomous weapons systems, cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence in military planning, and the militarization of outer space—has created new arenas where Smith’s questions echo with urgency. If he warned against the creeping influence of military logic on the political state, how much more should we be concerned when the logic of algorithms and machine efficiency begins to shape the most consequential decisions of war and peace? The issue is no longer only about armies marching across borders but about invisible lines of code and satellites in orbit—yet the fundamental danger is the same: that the tools of defense become ends in themselves, driving state policy rather than serving it.

Smith also recognized that militarism poses a danger to the vitality of democratic institutions. In times of insecurity, citizens may surrender too readily to centralized authority, trading liberties for promises of safety. In 2025, as societies grapple with disinformation campaigns, rising authoritarianism, and deep political polarization, Smith’s warning acquires a renewed resonance. The militarization of politics—whether through expanded security states, the rhetoric of perpetual conflict, or the invocation of national emergency—remains a challenge to civic freedom.

What Smith offers, therefore, is not a simple rejection of military power but a call for balance. Statecraft requires prudence, restraint, and a recognition of the limits of force. True security, he suggests, cannot rest on militarism alone, for unchecked military logic corrodes the very foundations of peace. In 2025, as nations navigate the double-edged sword of military innovation and the uncertainty of a multipolar world, his insights invite us to reflect on the perennial dilemma: how can we cultivate security without letting the instruments of war dominate our political imagination?

To read Militarism and Statecraft today is to encounter a voice from another century that speaks to our own. It reminds us that the dilemmas of power, security, and diplomacy are not new, even as the technologies and actors change. Smith’s work urges us to see beyond immediate crises and to measure the costs of militarism not only in battles fought, but in the subtle ways it reshapes our societies, our freedoms, and our possibilities for peace. If the twenty-first century is to avoid the mistakes of the twentieth, it will be by heeding the balance that Smith demanded: a statecraft that governs militarism, rather than a militarism that governs the state.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. 151p.