Technofeudalism as the Regime of Managed Decline

If you listen to our ruling classes long enough, you’ll notice something odd. They talk as if the future is a brighter, more efficient version of now, with better gadgets and fewer “frictions,” yet their actual behavior looks like people quietly boarding lifeboats while assuring the passengers that the ship is unsinkable. The polite name for this is “digital transformation.” A more accurate label is something like technofeudalism, and it looks suspiciously like the political operating system of a civilization that knows, at some level, that it is winding down.

The thesis is simple. Industrial civilization is running up against its biophysical limits and its own complexity, and the people who benefit most from the current order are not preparing a just transition or a new social contract. They are building cloud‑castles and data‑fiefs on top of a crumbling base, locking in forms of extraction and control that will keep them comfortable for as long as possible while the rest of the structure buckles. Collapse, but with VIP seating.

From Capitalism to Digital Lordship, or a Very Persuasive Cosplay

Yanis Varoufakis gave the current version of this story its most popular label when he argued that capitalism has already died and been replaced by something worse, a system in which “cloudalists” like Amazon, Meta, Apple and Alphabet no longer behave like firms in competitive markets but like lords who own the terrain itself. We are not their customers so much as their tenants and serfs, forever posting, scrolling and buying on platforms whose rules can be changed overnight. The core of the argument is that these firms do not primarily profit from exploiting labor in production, in the classical capitalist sense, but from charging rent on access to digital space. They sit astride the chokepoints through which attention, communication and commerce must flow, and they tax every crossing.

It is a seductive picture, and not only because it flatters the tech barons as a new aristocracy. It also resonates with lived experience. Try to run a small business without Amazon or Google. Try to organize politically without social media, or to find work without platforms. You can do it, in theory, just as medieval peasants could in theory pick up and walk off a lord’s land. In practice, the fences are very real.

Not everyone agrees that a new mode of production has emerged. Critics of the technofeudalism thesis point out that digital platforms are still deeply embedded in capitalist relations. The surplus value that makes Silicon Valley rich still comes from factories, warehouses, data centers and code written by workers under very conventional forms of exploitation. The platforms reorganize competition and extract rents, but they have not abolished capitalism’s basic logic so much as layered a new regime of rent seeking and monopoly control on top. One recent paper sums it up rather unromantically: the “digital lords” are still capitalist titans, just with better lawyers and APIs.​

You do not have to resolve that theoretical dispute to see the political pattern. Whether you call it late capitalism with feudal tendencies, or full technofeudalism, the direction of travel is clear. Markets are being replaced not by democratic planning nor by small‑scale autarky, but by private empires whose systems decide what is visible, permissible and profitable. These are not simply companies. They are mini‑polities with their own security forces, currencies, courts of appeal and foreign policy.

The joke, if you have the stomach for it, is that this system presents itself as the peak of individual freedom. You are free to choose any platform you like, as long as it is one of the half dozen allowed by your app store. You are free to speak your mind, assuming the algorithm deigns to show your words to anyone. You are free to consent to data collection that you cannot realistically refuse. The old serf at least knew he was a serf.

Complexity, Goliath’s Curse and the Temptation of Managed Decline

At the same time as the lords are fencing off the cloud, the soil beneath the whole arrangement is turning to mud. Luke Kemp’s recent work on civilizational collapse, popularized in Goliath’s Curse, and a broader body of research on the “collapse of complex societies,” argue that industrial civilization is structurally fragile for reasons that have nothing to do with how we feel about it. Highly networked systems with tight couplings, high energy throughput and extreme inequality are prone to cascading failure. They rarely implode all at once, but they do tend to experience periods of rapid, synchronized breakdown in multiple domains.

Kemp’s reading of more than three hundred historical cases is not cheerful. Collapses typically arrive when elites push extraction too far, hollow out public goods and respond to early crises with repression instead of reform. Environmental overshoot, dwindling marginal returns on complexity, and elite overreach are preconditions. Authoritarian retrenchment is the standard late move, not the fix. Richard Heinberg phrases it more politely when he writes about “environmental‑political” collapse, but the point is the same. Our inability to stop cooking the planet is not a bug in policy. It is structurally baked into a growth‑addicted system whose leaders care more about short-term expansion than long-term survival. As warming crosses thresholds, states drift toward authoritarianism while ecosystems drift toward breakdown. The two are not separate stories. They are the same story playing out in different theaters.

Technofeudalism fits snugly into this picture as an elite strategy for managing, or at least surviving, decline. If you know the growth engine is sputtering and the climate is destabilizing, you have two broad options. You can attempt a painful structural transition that will likely reduce your own wealth and power. Or you can build gated networks, both physical and digital, that will keep you and your class insulated from the worst consequences for as long as possible. The emerging order looks very much like the second choice.

From this angle, platform monopolies and cloud empires are not forward‑looking innovations so much as late‑imperial fortifications. They channel shrinking streams of profit into private channels, automate away bothersome labor, and erect terms of service around social life that can be tightened as conditions worsen. Energy constraints, supply chain chaos and climate disruptions can all be partially offset for those at the top by prioritizing their access through proprietary systems. Everyone else gets app notifications.

You do not have to take collapse theorists’ word for it; you can watch the logic in action in the way our rulers are handling the latest Middle East war.

War as Platform Maintenance

If you wanted to design a crisis perfectly calibrated to reveal the nervous system of industrial civilization, you could do worse than the current US–Israel war on Iran. It has everything a late‑imperial scriptwriter could ask for: decades of sanctions and shadow conflict, an aging hegemon with an addiction to oil and supremacy, a regional rival that refuses to accept its assigned place in the hierarchy, and an energy system that can be knocked sideways by a few well‑aimed drones. The fact that this is being sold as a war for “freedom” and “stability” is almost touching. What it is really about is keeping the existing platform running long enough for the people at the top to cash out.

The basic sequence is straightforward. In late February 2026, after years of covert attacks and proxy clashes, the United States and Israel launched large‑scale strikes on Iranian territory. Cruise missiles and stealth aircraft hit air defenses, Revolutionary Guard facilities and nuclear sites. Senior commanders were killed. Tehran responded with waves of ballistic missiles and drones aimed at US bases in the Gulf and at critical energy infrastructure, forcing some facilities to shut down and sending oil prices sharply higher. Shipping insurance spiked. Airlines rerouted or cancelled flights. Kuwait, in the fog of war, even managed to shoot down US jets it thought were Iranian. The conflict quickly spread to Lebanon and threatened to pull in other actors.

If you see this purely as a morality play about good states versus bad states, the story stops there. If you look at it through the lens of a system already straining under climate disruption, energy limits and political decay, the picture is less heroic. For years, collapse researchers have pointed out that a global economy built on a handful of fossil‑fuel chokepoints in politically volatile regions is not exactly a model of resilience. The Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf refineries, the pipeline web lacing the region together, the just‑in‑time tankers and jet fuel routes: all of this is a single, interdependent machine. It is also the machine that keeps global shipping, industrial agriculture and air travel running. When you toss cruise missiles into that system, you are not just punishing a regime. You are stress‑testing the life support for industrial modernity.

The rhetoric in Washington and Tel Aviv, however, is not “we are dangerously addicted to this machine and should probably do something about that before the next crisis.” It is “we will not tolerate threats to freedom of navigation” and “we must prevent Iran from dominating the region.” Translation: the platform must be defended at all costs, and any actor that tries to alter its terms of use will be treated as malware. So long as tankers keep moving and energy companies can hedge their risk, temporary spikes and turbulence are acceptable collateral damage. The cost is paid by everyone who lives downstream of those price shocks and disruptions, but that has never been a disqualifying consideration.

Meanwhile, the war offers a gift basket of opportunities to the digital and security oligopolies that already define technofeudal life. Big tech firms sign fresh contracts to provide satellite imagery analysis, AI‑driven targeting, cyber defense and battlefield networking. Data brokers and surveillance vendors pitch their tools as indispensable for tracking Iranian assets and domestic critics. Social media platforms are suddenly the main arenas for narrative control, deciding whose videos from Bushehr or Ras Tanura trend and whose vanish into moderation queues. The same companies that insist they are mere neutral conduits of communication become, once again, gatekeepers for what counts as reality. Fear and outrage are among the platform’s most dependable revenue streams.

On the home front, the war works the old familiar magic. A president who ran on grievance now has an open‑ended external enemy. The domestic opposition, if it criticizes too loudly, can be painted as unpatriotic or even sympathetic to Tehran. Calls to rein in surveillance, border militarization or police violence can be dismissed as irresponsible when “our boys are under fire.” Budget fights that might have trimmed the sails of the security state get reframed as softness on Iran. The permanent emergency that keeps the carceral and surveillance apparatus fat and happy gets a new lease on life. In that sense, the Iran war is not a departure from technofeudal normality. It is normality stripped of its decorous language.

Seen from above, then, this is less a clash of civilizations than a piece of platform maintenance. A semi‑peripheral state that tried to assert some degree of autonomy in energy policy and regional security is being hammered into compliance. The fossil‑digital assemblage that keeps the current order afloat takes a hit, adjusts, and carries on without ever questioning its own architecture. The digital lords and their political partners farm the fear for contracts and clicks. And the underlying problem, that an energy‑hungry, growth‑addicted civilization is burning through its future, is once again displaced onto a new villain with a new flag. The world is not on fire because this or that regime is evil. It is on fire because the system itself cannot imagine a future in which it is not the center. War is how it buys itself more time, even as time runs out.

Digital Rents in a World with Less to Rent

The paradox of technofeudalism is that it promises infinite digital abundance on top of increasingly constrained physical baselines. You can stream as much content as you like, but you cannot stream fresh water into a dried‑out river. You can mint as many tokens as you like, but you cannot mint topsoil.

Analysts of planetary limits have been pointing out for years that modernity as we know it, with high material throughput and continuous compound growth, is incompatible with a finite planet. A 2021 paper put it bluntly in its title: modernity is incompatible with planetary limits. The authors argued that any version of “business as usual,” however greenwashed, relies on levels of energy and resource use that cannot be sustained without severe ecological damage. They suggested that a different model, one that deliberately scales down throughput and reorients economies toward sufficiency, is required if we want to avoid hard collapse.​

Technofeudalism is, among other things, the refusal of that conclusion. Instead of reorganizing production and consumption, it reorganizes access and control. Big Tech’s move into energy, logistics, health and finance is often marketed as efficiency, but it has another effect. It allows a small number of corporations to decide who gets to optimize what, under what conditions, and who gets cut off when systems are stressed.

If you are a hospital and your records system is locked into a proprietary cloud, your ability to function in a crisis depends partly on a distant company’s priorities. If you are a city whose traffic lights, water systems and communications infrastructure are owned or run by external platforms, any conflict between public need and corporate strategy will be resolved where it always is: on the boardroom side. As one recent article on “techno‑feudalism and the new global power struggle” put it, control over digital infrastructure and data now confers a kind of private sovereignty that can rival or undermine states. The digital lords do not just sell services. They write rules. In a context of civilizational strain, that is not a neutral fact. It determines who will be left holding the bag when things begin to fail.

At this point, the only thing missing from the picture is a way to make most people economically redundant while keeping their dependence intact, and that is where AI and automation stroll on stage.

Automation as Elite Life Raft

AI is being sold as a tide that will lift all boats, but in practice it looks more like a pump that quietly drains the water out from under everyone except the people who own the dock. Analyses of the “great displacement” already point to sharp job losses or hiring freezes in AI‑exposed roles, especially for younger and mid‑skill workers, creating what one recent essay calls a looming “junior crisis” where the first rungs of the career ladder are sawed off while the C‑suite installs more glass. Economic modeling goes further, sketching a future in which AI eliminates so much paid work that mass consumer demand shrinks, and only a thin oligarchy of infrastructure and IP owners retain real power, perhaps stabilizing the rest of us with just enough universal basic pocket money to keep the lights on and the platforms busy. AI policy researchers have warned that “artificial intelligence power” is already being used as a pretext to strip‑mine public institutions, privatize data, and redesign work so that human judgment is degraded and surveillance is intensified. None of this gives ordinary people any meaningful control over the systems that are replacing them. In collapse terms, this is not an accident; it is the point. If you expect a harsher, more brittle world, one way to protect your class is to automate away as much labor as possible, reduce the political leverage of workers, and concentrate control in a tiny group that owns the machines, the code, and the networks. AI becomes the tool that turns surplus populations into politically harmless background noise and turns tech oligarchs into the de facto nobility of a shrinking world.

The Authoritarian International as Crisis Management Committee

One of the more depressing spectacles of the past decade has been watching the convergence of tech barons, fossil fuel interests, nationalist politicians and security apparatuses into a loose, self‑protective network. Call it an authoritarian international if you like, or simply a very exclusive trade association.

Analysts of global power have noted that as digital platforms grew, they began to reshape international relations as well. A recent paper on technofeudalism and the “new global power struggle” describes a nascent digital cold war in which corporations are key actors alongside states, controlling infrastructure, data and AI capabilities that have strategic significance. These firms are not neutral. They cooperate with some governments, resist others, and occasionally behave as if they are sovereign entities in their own right.

Meanwhile, collapse research points out that in prior civilizations, elites often responded to emerging stresses by doubling down on extraction and repression rather than sharing power or resources. It worked, for a while. Then it didn’t. Our elites are repeating the pattern, but with better gadgets. Surveillance systems that would have made twentieth century dictators swoon are now quietly integrated into smartphones, city cameras and data brokers’ servers. AI tools can filter, flag and predict dissent. Autonomous systems are being developed for border control and policing. The apparatus of a digital autocracy is being built in peacetime, under the logo of consumer convenience.

In this environment, the distinction between “public” and “private” repression becomes fuzzy. When a government leans on a platform to mute certain narratives, or when platforms preemptively tweak their recommendations to avoid regulatory heat, control is exercised through a partnership. When a security service wants access to communications or location data, it often does not need to build its own system. It can politely tap into existing ones. Technofeudalism is, among other things, the privatization of the panopticon.

This is where the sardonic part writes itself. The same people who rail against “big government” are delighted to hand coercive functions to unaccountable corporations, then quietly fuse those corporate tools back into the state when it suits them. Instead of “everything within the state,” the real slogan now is “everything within the tech stack” – as long as it runs on their platforms, it’s under their control.

Adaptation for Whom?

If decline and fragmentation are indeed on the menu, the hard question is no longer simply whether “humanity” survives in some abstract genetic sense. On a planet that has burned through its easiest fossil fuels, destabilized its own climate system, shredded biodiversity and poisoned much of its soil and water, survival is not a binary outcome but a spectrum of increasingly harsh possibilities. A small, scattered population of Homo sapiens could limp on in damaged niches for a very long time, but what we usually mean by survival is something closer to “billions of people living decently in functioning societies.” It is that version of “technological humanity,” built on high‑energy systems, global supply chains and dense institutions, that now looks fundamentally incompatible with the biophysical reality we have created.

Technofeudalism offers one grim answer to the question of who gets to live well on a depleted planet. It imagines that high‑tech life will continue for those who can pay for priority access to shrinking stocks of energy, food, habitable land, data and security, and that everyone else will slide down a ladder of regression calibrated to how useless they are to the owners of the system. Some will be kept on as precarious gig and cloud‑serf labor, still tethered to the digital grid through low‑bandwidth pipes, algorithmic management and credit scores. Others will be quietly discarded into zones of abandonment where the old promises of development, citizenship and rights no longer apply, and where climate shocks, disease and scarcity are allowed to do slow, deniable work.

This is not speculative in the comfortable science‑fiction sense. Proto‑zones of abandonment are already visible in sacrificed rural regions, in inner cities stripped of services, in communities living downwind of refineries and mines, in refugee camps and informal settlements that exist just outside the polite perimeter of “global integration.” As resource depletion, climate disasters, crop failures and supply‑chain breakdowns intensify, the temptation for the lords of the cloud and their political allies will not be to shrink these spaces but to expand them. When there is physically not enough energy, food or safe territory to support everybody at current levels, triage is not a moral thought experiment. It is logistics. The only real question is who gets to write the triage protocol and how honestly they name what they are doing.

Collapse theory has a dark sense of humor about all this. Its more sardonic voices like to point out that every ruling class in history thought its particular arrangements were the culmination of rational progress, right up until the moment they were not. The Roman aristocracy did not plan for a world in which their villas were ruins picked over by peasants. The coal barons of the nineteenth century did not imagine a world where burning their product would destabilize the jet stream. The technofeudal elite does not plan seriously for a world without high bandwidth, cheap chips, predictable seasons and functioning grids, even though those things rest on ecological and material conditions that are now visibly eroding. They are very good at modeling other people’s risk and very bad at relinquishing the power and wealth that would have to be given up to reduce it. That, more than any abstract limit, is what makes the future feel narrow.

Other Endings Are Available, At Least in Theory

If this all sounds like a counsel of despair, it is worth recalling that collapse is not necessarily uniform, nor is it ethically neutral. The fact that complex systems simplify does not tell you who gets crushed and who lands lightly. Richard Heinberg, in his discussion of intertwined environmental and political breakdown, insists that there are still meaningful choices to be made. We can, he suggests, shift our focus from “sustainability” as a euphemism for maintaining business as usual, and start talking honestly about survival, resilience and regeneration. That means building local capacities, strengthening mutual aid, reducing dependence on brittle long chains and fighting like hell against authoritarian shortcuts.

Technofeudalism is not destiny. It is a particular way a frightened elite is trying to ride the down‑slope of industrial civilization without losing its privileges. It depends on our acquiescence, our willingness to live as tenants on platforms and to accept the story that there is no alternative. There is no law of physics that says digital infrastructures must be privately owned or that data must flow upward and never sideways. There is no thermodynamic principle that requires AI to be pointed at ad targeting and automated repression instead of at, say, optimizing food systems for equity.

The deeper problem, of course, is that the reforms required to avoid the worst outcomes would feel, to people at the top, less like reform and more like regime change. You do not transition smoothly from cloud castles back to a society of modest, widely shared comforts without someone losing a yacht or three. The same is true of the energy and material side. Staying within planetary limits means rich societies using less, not just using differently. That is heresy in both boardroom and cabinet.

So we have arrived at a kind of late‑civilizational farce. The official narrative says that more innovation and more efficiency will keep the party going. The actual system is retooling itself into a gated, surveilled, stratified order that can wobble through a long decline while preserving the status of those who built it: oil still flowing, algorithms still sorting, worlds quietly ending offstage. Call it technofeudalism, call it a fascist operating system running on capitalist hardware. Either way, it is our current answer to the question of how to face collapse without admitting that collapse is what we are facing.

Whether we can still write a different answer is the only interesting political question left.

---

References

“AI, Job Displacement and the Case for a New Social Contract.” Baker Tilly Global, February 10, 2026. https://www.bakertilly.global/insights/ai-job-displacement-and-the-case-for-a-new-social-contract

AI Now Institute. “Executive Summary – Artificial Power: 2025 Landscape Report.” June 03, 2025. https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/research/executive-summary-artificial-power.

“AI‑Driven Collapse 2026–2100: The End of Normal Work, the Rise of AI Oligarchs, and How Entrepreneurial Families Can Survive.” MECI Group, February 26, 2026. https://meci-group.com/ai-driven-collapse-2026-2100-the-end-of-normal-work-the-rise-of-ai-oligarchs-and-how-entrepreneurial-families-can-still-win/

AP News. “War Between Iran and Israel and the US Widens.” March 2, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-us-03-02-2026-cb42936de1d8c261be8f30f11c6665fa.

Atlantic Council. “Experts React: How the US War with Iran Is Playing Out around the Middle East.” February 28, 2026. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/experts-react-how-the-us-war-with-iran-is-playing-out-around-the-middle-east/.

“Book Review: Techno-feudalism: What Killed Capitalism.” Freedom Socialist Party, May 22, 2024. https://socialism.com/fso-article/book-review-techno-feudalism-what-killed-capitalism/.

CNN. “Live Updates: Trump Warns Iran about Larger Strikes as War Spirals in Middle East.” March 2, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-israel-us-attack-03-02-26-intl-hnk.

“Digital Lords or Capitalist Titans? Critiquing the Techno-Feudalism Narrative.” Developing Economics, May 5, 2025. https://developingeconomics.org/2025/05/05/digital-lords-or-capitalist-titans-critiquing-the-techno-feudalism-narrative/.

Heinberg, Richard. “Environmental-Political Collapse Accelerates.” Polycrisis.org, December 13, 2024. https://polycrisis.org/resource/environmental-political-collapse-accelerates/.

Inside Climate News. “With the World Stumbling Past 1.5 Degrees of Warming, Scientists Warn of Unrest and Authoritarian Backlash.” February 5, 2024. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28012024/with-world-warming-scientists-warn-of-unrest-and-authoritarian-backlash/.

Institute for the Study of War. “Iran Update Evening Special Report, March 1, 2026.” March 2, 2026. https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-evening-special-report-march-1-2026/.

IZA Institute of Labor Economics. “Artificial Intelligence, the Collapse of Consumer Society, and Oligarchy.” Discussion Paper, December 31, 2024. https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/17682/artificial-intelligence-the-collapse-of-consumer-society-and-oligarchy

Kemp, Luke. Goliath’s Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse. Reviewed in The New York Times, October 2, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/books/review/luke-kemp-goliaths-curse.html.

LessWrong. “[Link] The Collapse of Complex Societies.” December 30, 2012. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cfiJLA7aGhMWqMe7i/link-the-collapse-of-complex-societies.

“Lessons from Goliath’s Curse.” Collapse of Industrial Civilization, October 12, 2025. https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2025/10/13/collapse-authoritarianism-and-overpopulation-lessons-from-goliaths-curse.

MIT Press Reader. “The Collapse Is Coming. Will Humanity Adapt?” February 19, 2026. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-collapse-is-coming-will-humanity-adapt/.

MIT Sloan. “How Artificial Intelligence Impacts the US Labor Market.” September 30, 2025. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-artificial-intelligence-impacts-us-labor-market

Occupy IR Theory. “Technofeudalism versus Total Capitalism (with Alex Hochuli).” January 1, 2026. https://www.occupyirtheory.info/2026/01/02/episode-43-technofeudalism-versus-total-capitalism-w-alex-hochuli/.

PBS NewsHour. “Live Updates: U.S.–Israel Conflict with Iran Widens.” March 2, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/live-updates-u-s-israel-conflict-with-iran-widens.

Polycrisis.org. “The Collapse of Complex Societies.” September 28, 2023. https://polycrisis.org/resource/the-collapse-of-complex-societies/.

Reuters. “Iran Conflict Widens to Lebanon, Kuwait Mistakenly Shoots Down US Jets.” March 1, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-lebanon-following-hezbollah-attacks-widening-iran-conflict-2026-03-02/.

Science of the Total Environment. “Modernity Is Incompatible with Planetary Limits: Developing a PLAN.” 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629621003327.

Security Council Report. “Emergency Meeting on the Military Escalation in the Middle East.” February 27, 2026. https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2026/02/emergency-meeting-on-the-military-escalation-in-the-middle-east.php.

“Techno Feudalism and the New Global Power Struggle: Echoes of a Digital Cold War.” International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science 9, no. 2 (2025). https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/techno-feudalism-and-the-new-global-power-struggle-echoes-of-a-digital-cold-war/.

“The Collapse of Complex Societies: A Primer on Tainter’s Theory.” R-Word (Substack), November 6, 2022. https://rword.substack.com/p/the-collapse-of-complex-societies.

“The Collapse of Complex Societies.” Dark Mountain Project, May 21, 2018. https://dark-mountain.net/the-collapse-of-complex-societies/.

“The End of the World as We Know It? Theorist Warns Humanity Is Headed Toward Civilizational Breakdown.” The Independent, January 13, 2025. https://www.the-independent.com/news/science/world-end-apocalypse-human-civilization-collapse-b2678651.html.

“The New Yorker. ‘Has Capitalism Been Replaced by “Technofeudalism”?’” March 25, 2024. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/04/01/has-capitalism-been-replaced-by-technofeudalism.

TRT World Research Centre. “Weaponising ‘Freedom’: Regime Change Narratives in the 2026 Iran War.” February 27, 2026. https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/publications/analysis/weaponising-freedom-regime-change-narratives-in-the-2026-iran-war/.

Varoufakis, Yanis. Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Profile Books, 2023.

Varoufakis, Yanis. “Two Reviews of Technofeudalism by Conservative Publications.” April 1, 2024. https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2024/04/01/two-reviews-of-technofeudalism-by-conservative-publications-free-beacon-the-european-conservative/.

Wikipedia. “Prelude to the 2026 Iran Conflict.” January 29, 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelude_to_the_2026_Iran_conflict.