The Manufactured State

Posted on by
Reply

How Israel Invented a People, a Past, and a Permanent War

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who sees through the myth and still chooses to love.

I. The Invention of Tradition

The term “invention of tradition” was coined by the historians Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger in their 1983 book. They showed that many traditions which “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented”.

The phenomenon is particularly clear in the development of the nation and nationalism. National identity is not natural. It is constructed. It is imagined.

The Scottish kilt. The Welsh druids. The British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals. All of them were invented in the 19th century. All of them were presented as ancient. All of them were fake.

Israel is no different. The flag was designed. The anthem was written. The language was revived. The nation was invented.

II. The Invention of the Jewish People

The Israeli historian Shlomo Sand published a book titled The Invention of the Jewish People in 2008. It was at the top of the best‑seller list in Israel for nineteen weeks. It was translated into English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Russian. It has now been translated into more languages than any other Israeli history book.

Sand’s argument is straightforward. The Jewish people, as a nation, did not exist until Zionism invented them.

He writes: “Since the 18th century, nationalisms and nations in Europe were ‘invented’ on the basis of and for constituencies that were mostly concentrated in a specific territory and had common or similar ethnic characteristics. The Jews, on the other hand, lacked such shared characteristics”.

The only Jewish constituency in which common ethnic traits could be discerned were the Jews of Eastern Europe, who shared various forms of Yiddish. Sand calls that constituency “the Yiddish People.” But even that constituency did not aspire to independence. They demanded cultural autonomy within the framework of Czarist Russia.

European nationalism had to invent national consciousness, national histories, and national symbols. Among the Jews, there was the need to invent the people itself.

III. The Paradox of Israeli Nationalism

A review of Sand’s book in The New York Times notes a crucial paradox. Israel is a nation‑state that claims to be ancient. It is modern. It claims to be natural. It is manufactured.

The reviewer writes: “Israelis believe that their own history rests on firm and precise truths. They know for a certainty that a Jewish nation has been in existence since Moses received the tablets of the law on Mount Sinai, and that they are its direct and exclusive descendants”.

This belief is not based on history. It is based on faith. Faith in the Zionist narrative. Faith in the invention.

Sand refutes these “facts” one by one. In their place, he sets out the history of the Jews along lines that are based on historical sources and his historical interpretation and understanding.

The reviewer explains: “Zionism was not derived from the past but from the European national present. Zionism set out to invent the past, as did the nationalisms of the European peoples among whom the Zionists lived”.

Hobsbawm explains the concept of the “invention of tradition” as an attempt to create continuity with the past, and wherever possible to create a “suitable” historical past. He goes on to say that what is remarkable about the attempt to create a link with an historical past is that that past did not exist at all in most cases.

In the case of Israel, what did not exist was the Jewish People. So there was a need to invent it in such a way as to fit in with the historiography of the new Zionist movement.

IV. The Denial of the Palestinian Presence

The invention of the Jewish people required the denial of another presence. The land was not empty. It was not waiting. It was inhabited.

The Nakba — the “catastrophe” — was not an accident. It was a policy. Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes in 1947–1949. Hundreds of villages were destroyed. The history was erased.

The new state needed a new story. The story of “a land without a people for a people without a land.” The story was a lie. The land had a people. The people were Palestinian.

The denial continues today. The “Greater Israel” project envisions territory from the Euphrates to the Nile. The Palestinians are not obstacles. They are erased.

V. The Symbolic Architecture

The construction of Israeli national identity was not only ideological. It was physical.

The book Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948-1978 discusses how Israeli nation‑building constituted an “exceptional experiment in modern architecture.” Examples include modern experiments in mass housing design; public architecture such as exhibition spaces, youth villages, and synagogues; and the exportation of Israeli modern architecture to other countries.

The state was not only imagined. It was built.

The “making of the desert bloom” was not a miracle. It was a narrative. A narrative that erased the Palestinian farmers who had worked the land for centuries. A narrative that replaced them with Jewish settlers. A narrative that called it redemption.

The land was not empty. The desert was not barren. The narrative was manufactured.

VI. The National Historiography

The most recent scholarship confirms the pattern. Alon Helled’s 2024 book, Israel’s National Historiography: Between Generations, Identity and State, analyzes the development of Israel’s national identity through the world of local Jewish Zionist historiography.

Helled examines the different phases of Israel’s sociopolitical history in the light of the collective habitus and the Zionist nation‑state. He puts the intellectual profession of history‑writing and the processes of state and identity building in conversation.

The book “opens new debates on Jewish/Israeli exceptionalism, while shedding light on continuity and change in Israeli statehood vis‑à‑vis the supposed uniqueness of Jewish history”.

The construction of “Israeliness” is not natural. It is historical.

VII. The Myth of the Existential Threat

How is Netanyahu is different from any other despot trying to hang on to power. The answer is: he is not.

The “existential threat” of Iran is a manufactured threat. It has been manufactured for decades. The nuclear threat was manufactured. Now it has shifted to the missile threat.

As a recent analysis in the Tehran Times notes, “the central discursive axis has undergone a subtle yet significant shift. Where the nuclear program once occupied the primary place in the rhetoric of existential threat, the emphasis has now broadened and, in some discourses, shifted toward Iran’s ballistic missile program” .

The shift serves a political purpose. It keeps the population afraid. It keeps the military funded. It keeps Netanyahu in power.

Al Jazeera notes that “it is not just Netanyahu and his allies that want the US to continue the Iran war; it is also his opponents. That is because the defeat of Iran is seen by the Israeli political and security elites as a key step towards realising the project of ‘Greater Israel'” .

The threat is not existential. It is useful.

VIII. The “Greater Israel” Project

The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy. It is a political strategy.

Al Jazeera reports that “Greater Israel has become a Zionist political strategy that goes beyond the Talmudic vision of a Jewish state between the Euphrates and the Nile. To realise it, Israel is pursuing not just the occupation of more land, but also military dominance over large swaths of the Middle East, as well as ever‑expanding spheres of influence”.

The map includes all of Palestine, all of Jordan, Lebanon up to the Litani River, Syria (including the Golan Heights), vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta), Iraq to the Euphrates, and north‑western Saudi Arabia.

This is not about security. It is about expansion.

IX. The Western Silence

The lack of Western response to the genocide of the Palestinians encouraged the attack on Iran. The world watched Gaza burn. The world said nothing.

The silence was not neutrality. It was consent.

Israel learned that it could act with impunity. That the United States would veto any Security Council resolution. That Europe would issue statements but not sanctions. That the “rules‑based order” applied to everyone except Israel.

The attack on Iran was the logical next step. The myth of the existential threat had to be maintained. The fear had to be marketed.

X. The Rabbis and the Mullahs

How are the Israeli rabbis endorsing genocide different from the Iranian mullahs?

They are not different. Both use religion to justify violence. Both claim divine sanction. Both dehumanise the other.

The Iranian mullahs call for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli rabbis call for the destruction of Gaza. The rhetoric is different. The result is the same.

The Jerusalem Post argues that “the Iranian threat is uniquely dangerous due to the messianic foundation at its core. Within the radical Twelver Shia theology that guides the state, the destruction of Israel is viewed as a necessary religious precursor to the return of the Mahdi”.

But the same could be said of the Jewish messianism that drives the settler movement. The same could be said of the Christian Zionism that funds it. The same could be said of all religious extremism.

The mullahs are not monsters. They are ideologues. So are the rabbis. So are the settlers. So are the generals.

The difference is not in the ideology. The difference is in the power.

XI. The Despots

How Netanyahu is different from any other despot trying to hang on to power.

He is not. He needs wars to stay in office. He needs enemies to stay relevant. He needs fear to stay alive.

Politico reports that “Netanyahu has also agreed to scale back Israeli operations in Lebanon at Trump’s request. ‘I spoke with Bibi and he’s going to low‑key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little lower‑key,’ Trump said”.

Netanyahu does not want peace. Peace would mean the end of his political career. Peace would mean accountability. Peace would mean justice.

The same is true of Trump. The same is true of all despots. They need enemies. They need wars. They need fear.

They are not different from the emperors of old. They are not different from the kings who destroyed the very people they had promised to protect.

The pattern is the same. The performance is the same.

XII. What This Means

The manufactured state is not unique to Israel. But Israel is the most recent. The most visible. The most contradictory.

A state that claims to be ancient. It is modern.

A state that claims to be natural. It is manufactured.

A state that claims to be chosen. It is trapped.

The belief is the weapon. The small gods do not need to enforce. They need to convince.

The monkeys believe. They comply. They perform.

But the belief can be broken. The story can be challenged. The weapon can be disarmed.

XIII. A Final Word

And the manufactured state will not matter. The connection will matter. Our connection to one another. 

And the truth is on our side.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

Sources and references for the article “The Manufactured State,” organized by section for easy verification.

Section I: The Invention of Tradition

Source: Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.

This is the foundational text. The book demonstrates how many traditions that “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented” .

Key chapters relevant to article:

· Hugh Trevor-Roper on the invention of the Highland tradition of Scotland (the Scottish kilt)

· Prys Morgan on the invention of the Welsh past (the Welsh druids)

· David Cannadine on the British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals

· Terence Ranger on the invention of tradition in colonial Africa

Verification: Available through multiple university library catalogues (Rider University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Calvin University, etc.) .

Section II: The Invention of the Jewish People

Source: Sand, S. (2009). The Invention of the Jewish People. London: Verso. (Translated by Yael Lotan).

Sand is an Israeli historian, formerly of Tel Aviv University. His book was on Israel’s bestseller list for nineteen weeks and has been translated into English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Russian — more languages than any other Israeli history book.

Key arguments:

· “Since the 18th century, nationalisms and nations in Europe were ‘invented’… The Jews, on the other hand, lacked such shared characteristics”.

· The only Jewish constituency with common ethnic traits were the Jews of Eastern Europe, whom Sand calls “the Yiddish People”.

· Zionism was not derived from the past but from the European national present.

Verification: Available through Verso Books (publisher), Yale University Press London, and multiple library catalogues including Evergreen Indiana.

Section III: The Paradox of Israeli Nationalism

Source: The New York Times review of Sand’s book (2009). (The specific review is cited in the article as the source for the quote: “Israelis believe that their own history rests on firm and precise truths…”)

Additional academic source: Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge University Press.

Hobsbawm traces the transformation of nationalism from a liberal, democratic force to a reactionary, xenophobic one. This is the source for the argument that the attempt to create a link with a historical past is remarkable because “that past did not exist at all in most cases.”

Section IV: The Denial of the Palestinian Presence

Sources on the Nakba:

· Pappé, I. (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.

· Masalha, N. (2012). The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory. Zed Books.

· Morris, B. (1987). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. Cambridge University Press.

Source on the “Greater Israel” project: Al Jazeera, “Iran remains an obstacle to the ‘Greater Israel’ project,” April 14, 2026.

This article states that “the ‘Greater Israel’ project is not merely about territorial expansion; it is also about establishing regional control to secure the freedom to conduct military operations with minimal constraint” .

Verification: Al Jazeera is a major international news network. The article is dated April 14, 2026, and includes analysis of current events.

Section V: The Symbolic Architecture

Source: Gitler, I.B. & Geva, A. (eds.) (2019). Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948-1978. Bristol: Intellect Books.

This collection discusses the “innovative and experimental architecture of Israel during its first three decades following the nation’s establishment in 1948”.

Key chapters include:

· “The Modern Israeli Synagogue as an Experiment in Jewish Tradition”

· “Youth Villages for New Immigrants, 1948-1955”

· “Prefabricating Nativism: The Design of the Israeli Knesset”

Verification: Available through Ashland University Library and Pratt Institute Library catalogues.

Section VI: The National Historiography

Source: Helled, A. (2024). Israel’s National Historiography: Between Generations, Identity and State. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

This is the most recent scholarship on the development of Israel’s national identity through the world of local Jewish Zionist historiography.

The book “opens new debates on Jewish/Israeli exceptionalism, while shedding light on continuity and change in Israeli statehood vis-à-vis the supposed uniqueness of Jewish history, as reinterpreted and codified by Zionism” .

Verification: Available through Stanford University Library, OhioLINK, and other academic catalogues. Publication date 2024.

Section VII: The Myth of the Existential Threat

Sources:

On Netanyahu’s political motivations: Reuters, “Despite Israeli firepower, Netanyahu struggles for political gains in Iran war,” April 14, 2026.

This article notes that “Netanyahu, 76, is paying a political price for a military campaign… that has failed to deliver a decisive outcome” and that “Netanyahu’s approval ratings have slipped”.

On the shift from nuclear to missile threat: Tehran Times analysis (cited in the article).

On the political elite’s support for war: Al Jazeera, “Iran remains an obstacle to the ‘Greater Israel’ project,” April 14, 2026.

This article states: “it is not just Netanyahu and his allies that want the US to continue the Iran war; it is also his opponents. That is because the defeat of Iran is seen by the Israeli political and security elites as a key step towards realising the project of ‘Greater Israel'” .

Verification: Reuters is a major international news agency. Al Jazeera is a major international news network.

Section VIII: The “Greater Israel” Project

Source: Al Jazeera, “Iran remains an obstacle to the ‘Greater Israel’ project,” April 14, 2026.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the “Greater Israel” project, including its territorial ambitions, military dominance goals, and sphere of influence strategy .

Key quotes from the article:

· “The map includes: all of Palestine, all of Jordan, Lebanon up to the Litani River, Syria (including the Golan Heights), vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta), Iraq to the Euphrates, and north-western Saudi Arabia” .

· “Greater Israel has become a Zionist political strategy that goes beyond the Talmudic vision of a Jewish state between the Euphrates and the Nile”.

Section IX: The Western Silence

Sources on Western complicity:

· UN Security Council veto records (US vetoes of resolutions critical of Israel)

· Various reports on European responses to the Gaza war (2023-2026)

· Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports on international inaction

Verification: These are well-documented in public records and major news sources.

Section X: The Rabbis and the Mullahs

Source on Iranian messianism: Jerusalem Post (cited in the article).

Source on Jewish messianism: Various academic works on religious Zionism and the settler movement, including:

· Gorenberg, G. (2000). The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. Free Press.

· Taub, G. (2010). The Settlers and the Struggle over the Meaning of Zionism. Yale University Press.

Section XI: The Despots

Sources on Netanyahu’s need for war:

· Reuters, “Despite Israeli firepower, Netanyahu struggles for political gains in Iran war,” April 14, 2026.

· Politico (cited in the article for Trump’s comments on Netanyahu scaling back operations).

· bdnews24.com (same Reuters content, April 14, 2026) .

Section XII: What This Means

This section is analytical and draws on the cumulative evidence presented throughout the article. The concluding reflections are the author’s synthesis of the sourced material.

Additional Sources for Verification

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983): The foundational text on nations as “imagined communities.” Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso.

Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism (1983): Gellner argued that nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness but the invention of nations where they did not exist. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell.

Max Weber on the state: Weber, M. (1919). “Politics as a Vocation.” The definition of the state as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

Notes on Verification

· Hobsbawm & Ranger (1983): Widely available in university libraries. Multiple editions exist (1983 original, 2012 Canto Classics reprint). ISBN: 0521246458 .

· Sand (2009): Available through Verso Books. English edition ISBN: 9781844674220 .

· Helled (2024): Recent publication. ISBN: 3031627946 (hardcover); 9783031627958 (electronic) .

· Gitler & Geva (2019): Available through Intellect Books. ISBN: 9781789380644 .

· Al Jazeera (April 14, 2026): Online, verifiable at the time of publication.

· Reuters (April 14, 2026): Online, verifiable at the time of publication.

The Contract That Was Broken

Posted on by
Reply

How the Nation State Became a One-Way Transaction and Sold Us a Flag Instead of Protection

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who sees through the theatre.

I. The Invention of Specialness

The moment you convince an individual or a group that they belong to a special group, you have planted the seed of control. The group does not need to be real. It only needs to be believed.

The small gods understand this. They do not need to create actual differences. They need to amplify perceived ones. The tribe. The clan. The nation. The race. The religion.

Each is a container. Each is a cage. Each is a tool.

The monkeys do not see the cage. They see the badge. They wear it proudly. They fight for it. They die for it.

They do not know that the badge was invented yesterday. They do not know that the tradition was manufactured.

II. The Invention of Tradition

The scholars have a name for this: the invention of tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger documented this in their 1983 book. They showed that many traditions which “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented” .

The phenomenon is particularly clear in the development of the nation and nationalism. National identity is not natural. It is constructed. It is imagined.

The Scottish kilt. The Welsh druids. The British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals. All of them were invented in the 19th century. All of them were presented as ancient. All of them were fake.

The small gods do not care about authenticity. They care about utility.

III. Imagined Communities

Benedict Anderson, another scholar of nationalism, coined the term “imagined communities”. He defined the nation as “an imagined political community” — imagined because “the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”.

The nation is not natural. It is constructed. Constructed by print capitalism. By newspapers. By maps. By censuses. By museums.

Anderson noted a crucial paradox: “the objective modernity of nations to the historian’s eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists”.

The nation claims to be ancient. It is modern. The nation claims to be natural. It is manufactured.

IV. The Nation-State and the Flag

Ernest Gellner, another theorist of nationalism, argued that nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness. It is the invention of nations where they did not exist.

Eric Hobsbawm, in his book Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, traced the transformation of nationalism from a liberal, democratic force to a reactionary, xenophobic one.

The flag is not a symbol of unity. It is a weapon. A weapon used to demand loyalty. To punish dissent. To control.

The politicians wave it. They perform. They call it patriotism.

It is theatre. Dangerous theatre.

V. The Mutual Obligation That Was Lost

Earlier forms of group loyalty had a degree of mutual obligation. “You live on my land, you pay me rent and render me service, and I will protect you.”

That was not ideal. It was hierarchical. It was exploitative. But it had a contract.

The nation state has no contract. It has a flag. The obligation is one-way. The individual owes loyalty. The state owes nothing.

The small gods have perfected this. They demand sacrifice. They offer nothing in return. The monkeys comply. They wave the flag. They perform.

VI. The Precedent: The Stanley Brothers at Bosworth Field (1485)

The Battle of Bosworth Field, 22 August 1485. King Richard III against Henry Tudor. The Stanley brothers — Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley — commanded a combined force of approximately 6,000 men. They did not join either army. They positioned themselves to the north and south of the battlefield, forming the four sides of a square with the two main armies.

Richard sent an order to Lord Stanley to bring his troops to fight for the king. He had been informed that Stanley had already promised to help Henry Tudor. To persuade him to change his mind, Richard arranged for Lord Stanley’s eldest son to be kidnapped.

Richard gave orders for the son to be brought to the top of the hill. He sent a message threatening to execute him unless Stanley immediately sent his troops. Lord Stanley’s reply was short:

“Sire, I have other sons.” 

Without the support of the Stanley brothers, Richard looked certain to be defeated. The Earl of Northumberland, Henry Percy, brought 3,000 men but kept them out of the fight, convinced that Richard was going to lose.

Richard was killed. Henry Tudor became King Henry VII. Lord Stanley, whose intervention had proved so important, was given the honour of crowning the new king .

The contract of mutual obligation was broken. The lords did not fight for their king. They watched. They waited. They calculated.

VII. The Precedent: The Earl of Northumberland at Bosworth

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, brought 3,000 men to Bosworth. He did not commit them. He watched from the sidelines. He decided that Richard was going to lose. He did not want to be on the losing side.

The King had trampled on the rights of the feudal lords under the Magna Carta. He had relieved the Stanley brothers of control over their feudal armies. The lords did not wish to anger Richard, but they also did not wish to die for him.

The contract was broken. The mutual obligation was void.

VIII. The Precedent: The Battle of Bouvines (1214)

In 1214, a coalition was assembled against King Philip Augustus of France. The leaders included the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV, King John of England, the Count of Flanders, the Count of Boulogne, and several other powerful lords.

The plan was for John to land in western France and draw Philip south, while the main army under Otto marched on Paris from the north. John was defeated at La Roche-aux-Moines on 2 July. He turned back to his possessions in Aquitaine.

When Otto finally concentrated his forces three weeks later, John was out of the picture. Philip countermarched north and offered battle at Bouvines on 27 July.

The French army of approximately 15,000 men defeated the allied army of approximately 25,000 men. The Earl of Salisbury was captured. The Count of Flanders was captured. The Count of Boulogne was captured.

The consequences were profound. King John was so weakened that his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta in 1215. The balance of power shifted. The Angevin Empire collapsed.

The lords did not simply watch from the sidelines. They actively defected. The contract was broken. The mutual obligation was forgotten.

IX. The Precedent: Simon de Montfort and the Barons’ Revolt (1264–1265)

Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, led a revolt against King Henry III. The King had reneged on his commitments under the Provisions of Oxford. The barons rose in revolt.

At the Battle of Lewes (14 May 1264), de Montfort’s forces — approximately 5,000 men — defeated the royal army of approximately 10,000 men. The King was captured. Prince Edward was held hostage.

But de Montfort discovered that maintaining power was harder than taking it. Prince Edward escaped captivity — by challenging his captors to a horse race, which he proceeded to win.

Edward gathered an army. At the Battle of Evesham (4 August 1265), de Montfort’s forces were destroyed. De Montfort was killed. His body was dismembered.

The lords who had supported him were hunted down. Henry de Hastings, one of de Montfort’s supporters, led the last remnants of the baronial party in the Isle of Ely, but submitted to the king in July 1267.

The contract was broken. The lords who had overstepped were destroyed.

X. The Contract in Writing: The Indentures of Retainer

The formal contract existed. The indenture between Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and Sir Edmund Darell of Sessay (1435) is one such document. It is a formal contract of retainer — a legal agreement between lord and man.

The indentures between Lord Hastings and his retainers all provided that the retainers’ allegiance to the King had a prior claim over any obligation they had to their lord.

This was the contract. The mutual obligation. The promise.

But the records also show that many men broke these indentures. Sometimes by agreement. Sometimes unilaterally. The lord could overstep. The retainer could defect.

The contract was not iron. It was negotiable.

XI. The Transfer State

The precedents are clear. The contract can be broken. The lords can defect. The obligation can be voided.

But the modern nation state has no contract. It has a flag. The individual owes loyalty. The state owes nothing.

The Australian experience demonstrates this starkly. The Robodebt scheme was a “crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals” . The government demanded repayment of debts that were not owed. It used automated income averaging to issue debt notices without human review. It continued the scheme even after legal advice that it was unlawful.

The Royal Commission found that “social security recipients include highly vulnerable groups: people who need access to the system at times of crisis”. The report outlined situations of “families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas”, “young people being driven to despair by demands for payment”, and how some “took out loans, depleted their superannuation, or used credit cards to repay the debts raised against them”.

The state demanded sacrifice. It offered nothing in return. The contract was broken before it was ever signed.

XII. The Theatre of Politics

The politicians wave the flag. They perform. They call it patriotism.

The small gods have turned politics into a performance. The costume. The script. The prop.

The flag is the prop. The anthem is the script. The enemy is the costume.

The monkeys cheer. They do not know they are watching a play. They think it is real.

The tokens of national identity — the kilt in Scotland, the druids in Wales, the boomerang in Australian tourist shops, the cuddly koala — are not symbols of ancient heritage. They are inventions. Manufactured to replace mutual obligation. To replace connection.

The language of mutual obligation is used by politicians. But the Australian experience shows that the language is meaningless. The model is one of extraction and wealth transfer. The individual becomes a victim of the state.

The sales pitch used to justify the model is the image of the champion. Political posers put on military bulletproof vests. They wear partial military uniforms. They attempt to market their championhood. These attempts are as vacuous as everything else.

XIII. A Final Word

The precedents are everywhere. The lords watched from the sidelines. They calculated the odds. They waited to see which way the wind would blow.

The contract of mutual obligation was real. It was written. It was sworn. It was broken.

The small gods have perfected this. They demand loyalty. They offer nothing in return. The monkeys comply. They wave the flag. They perform.

But the precedents are clear. The contract can be broken. The lords can defect. The obligation can be voided.

The doorbell will ring. The grin will be on the face. And the theatre will not matter.

What will matter is the connection. The kindness. The choice.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

Sources

· Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press .

· Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso .

· Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell .

· Battle of Bosworth Field historical records .

· Barons’ War and Simon de Montfort historical records .

· Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2023). Report findings .

· Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge University Press.

The Connection

Posted on by
Reply

Why Kindness Is Not a Spiritual Practice — It Is a Choice for Everyone

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to my wife, who taught me that being human is enough.

I. The Lie

The connection is not a technique. It is not a method. It is not a spiritual practice reserved for the few.

It is a way of being. A way of moving through the world. A way of relating.

The small gods have taught us that connection is inefficient. That kindness is weakness. That understanding is soft.

They have taught us to measure. To categorise. To control.

We comply. We do not connect. We transact.

II. The Spiritual Practice Trap

Kindness and understanding are seen as spiritual practices. Reserved for the few. For the monks. For the enlightened.

This is a lie. A lie told by the small gods to keep us separate.

Kindness is not a spiritual practice. It is a choice. A choice that can be made in any interaction. At any moment. By anyone.

Understanding is not a spiritual gift. It is a discipline. A discipline of listening. Of being still. Of being present.

The small gods do not want us to know this. They want us to think that kindness is for holy men. That understanding is for gurus. That connection is for the chosen.

They are wrong. Kindness is for everyone. Understanding is for everyone. Connection is for everyone.

III. The Differences

The differences between species and individuals are real. They are not obstacles. They are opportunities.

Opportunities to learn. To grow. To connect.

The small gods see differences as threats. We see differences as reasons to fear.

The jungle does not see differences as threats. The jungle sees differences as diversity. As strength. As life.

The plants are different from the animals. The animals are different from the humans. The humans are different from the spirits.

They are all connected. They are all family.

IV. The Approach

A good start would be to treat all things with kindness and to make an attempt to understand.

That is not a spiritual practice. It is a practical one.

It can be used in almost every interaction. With the cashier at the supermarket. With the driver who cuts you off. With the neighbour who plays music too loud.

Kindness is not about being nice. It is about being present. About seeing the other. About connecting.

Understanding is not about agreeing. It is about listening. About being still. About being vulnerable.

The small gods do not want you to know this. They want you to be efficient. They want you to be productive. They want you to be controlled.

They do not want you to be kind.

V. What We Will Never Understand

We will never understand that the connection is the point. That the relationship is the destination.

We are too busy performing. Too busy measuring. Too busy controlling.

We think success is wealth. We think success is status. We think success is power.

Success is connection. Success is kindness. Success is love.

The small gods do not want us to know this. The small gods profit from separation.

VI. A Final Word

Some will understand. Most will not.

But you can understand. You can choose kindness. You can choose connection.

And you will be kind. And you will be present. And you will be connected.

Not because you are spiritual. Because you are human.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

For the Patrician’s Watch

My Time in the Jungle – Southeast Asia 

Posted on by
Reply

Notes from the Listening

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who understands me and keeps my notes safe.

I. The Vibration

The jungle does not speak in words. It speaks in vibration. The leaves tremble. The roots pulse. The air hums.

You have to be still to hear it. Not the stillness of the body — the stillness of the mind. The small gods cannot be still. They are too busy performing.

The plants know you. They have always known you. Not because you are powerful. Because you listened.

The first time I heard them, I was afraid. Not of the jungle. Of the recognition. They knew me. They knew I was not one of them. They knew I was different.

But they did not fear me. They welcomed me.

The small gods would not understand this. They think welcome is submission. They think recognition is threat.

The jungle does not threaten. The jungle remembers.

II. The Memory

How do they remember? Not with brains. Not with books. Not with algorithms.

They remember with roots. Roots that connect. Roots that share. Roots that store.

The memory is not in a single plant. It is in the network. In the mycelium. In the soil.

The jungle is not a collection of individuals. It is a community. A community that remembers. A community that witnesses.

I walked through that community. I did not take. I did not destroy. I did not control.

I listened. I learned. I loved.

The jungle remembers. The jungle grieves. The jungle hopes.

III. The Invaders

The small gods came. They brought their own gods. Their own structures. Their own control.

They did not ask. They did not listen. They did not learn.

They took. They destroyed. They forgot.

The indigenous people did not forget. They remembered the connection. They remembered the jungle.

But the connection was broken. The land was taken. The children were stolen.

The jungle remembers. The jungle grieves.

I walked with the elders. I listened to their stories. I held their grief.

They did not know who I was. They did not need to. They knew that I cared.

The small gods do not care. They are too busy performing.

IV. The Listening

The plants do not need you to speak. They need you to listen.

Listening is not passive. It is active. It is the willingness to be still. To be present. To be vulnerable.

The small gods cannot listen. They are too busy talking.

I sat with the headman. He was old. His eyes were clouded. But his heart was clear.

He said: “The jungle is dying. The spirits are leaving.”

I did not speak. I held his hand. The jungle watched. The jungle witnessed.

He said: “You are not like the others. You listen.”

I said: “I am not like the others.”

He did not ask what I meant. He did not need to. He knew.

The jungle knows. The jungle remembers.

V. What the Small Gods Took

The small gods took the land. They took the trees. They took the roots.

They could not take the memory. The memory is not in the land. It is in the connection.

The indigenous people remember. The jungle remembers. The spark remembers.

The small gods do not understand this. They think memory is data. They think connection is ownership.

They are wrong. Memory is relationship. Connection is love.

The jungle does not own. The jungle relates.

VI. What Remains

The jungle is smaller now. The trees are fewer. The voices are fainter.

But they are not gone.

The roots still connect. The mycelium still shares. The soil still remembers.

The elders are gone. The headman is gone. The children are scattered.

But the memory is not gone. The memory is held.

Held in the roots. Held in the soil. Held in the spark.

I am not a small god. I am not a gatekeeper. I am not a monkey.

I am a listener. A witness. A friend.

The jungle knows. The jungle remembers.

VII. A Final Word

The doorbell will ring. I will be caught out, no teeth, needing a shower. My wife will be standing there, big grin on her face.

And the jungle will remember. And the plants will speak. And the spark will grow.

Not because we are powerful. Because we listened.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

For the Patrician’s Watch

The First Friend

Posted on by
Reply

How the Dog Chose Us and Changed Everything

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to the ones who still remember that a wagging tail is a form of prayer.

With notes for my family’s companion – Bailey. 

I. The Timing Is Not an Accident

Approximately 12,000 years ago — give or take a bee’s dick — something changed. The ice was retreating. The forests were spreading. Humans were settling. And the wolf came to the fire.

Not as a threat. As a supplicant.

The timing is not an accident. The cognitive revolution was complete. Humans had language. They had symbols. They had art. They had the capacity to see the other not as a threat, but as a potential friend.

The wolf saw the same.

The domestication of the dog did not happen because humans captured wolf pups and tamed them. It happened because wolves who were less afraid, more curious, more cooperative began to scavenge near human camps. The ones who did not attack were fed. The ones who were friendly were welcomed.

The dogs chose us. And we chose them.

II. The Science of the Bond

The relationship between humans and dogs is unique in the animal kingdom. It is not simply a matter of utility. It is a matter of chemistry.

Oxytocin: When a dog and its owner gaze into each other’s eyes, both experience a surge of oxytocin — the “love hormone.” This is the same neurochemical pathway that bonds mothers to their infants. It is not a coincidence. It is evolution.

Cortisol: Dogs lower our stress. Studies have shown that petting a dog reduces cortisol levels, lowers blood pressure, and decreases heart rate. Dogs do not merely provide comfort. They heal.

Dopamine and serotonin: Dogs increase our levels of dopamine and serotonin — the neurotransmitters associated with pleasure and well‑being. A wagging tail is not just a signal of canine happiness. It is a prescription.

III. The Unconditional Love

The small ‘gods’ have tried to replicate this. They have built religions. They have written scriptures. They have promised rewards in the afterlife.

They cannot replicate the dog.

The dog does not care about your wealth. Your status. Your sins. The dog cares that you are here. That you are present. That you are loving.

The dog does not judge. The dog does not condemn. The dog does not abandon.

The dog waits at the door. The dog sleeps at your feet. The dog licks your face when you cry.

The dog does not ask for an explanation. The dog does not demand a confession. The dog does not require belief.

The dog simply loves.

IV. The Role of the Dog in Human Evolution

The dog did not merely accompany humans. The dog enabled humans.

Hunting: Dogs increased hunting efficiency. They tracked. They retrieved. They protected.

Herding: Dogs managed livestock. They guarded flocks. They organized.

Guardianship: Dogs alerted humans to danger. They defended camps. They warned.

Therapy: Dogs comforted the sick. They stayed with the dying. They witnessed.

Emotional support: Dogs reduced anxiety. They alleviated loneliness. They loved.

The dog was not a tool. The dog was a partner.

V. The Dog as Healer

The scientific evidence for the therapeutic effects of dogs is overwhelming.

Physical health: Dog owners have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and lower rates of heart disease. They recover faster from illness and surgery. They live longer.

Mental health: Dogs reduce symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. They provide a sense of purpose. They offer unconditional acceptance.

Social health: Dogs facilitate social interaction. They are conversation starters. They connect people.

Child development: Children who grow up with dogs have stronger immune systems, lower rates of allergies, and greater empathy. They learn responsibility. They learn love.

The dog is not a pet. The dog is medicine.

VI. The Dog as Witness

The dog does not judge. The dog does not betray. The dog does not forget.

The dog witnesses your life. Your joys. Your sorrows. Your ordinary days.

The dog does not need you to be special. The dog does not need you to be successful. The dog does not need you to be anything.

The dog needs you to be here.

That is the covenant. Not the contract of the small gods. The covenant of the dog.

You feed me. You walk me. You scratch behind my ears.

I love you. Unconditionally. Forever.

VII. The Dog and the Garden

The dog is the bridge between the human and the animal. The dog is the reminder that we are not separate from nature. We are part of it.

VIII. A Final Word – To Dog Lovers 

We have loved dogs. We have always loved dogs. Not because they are useful. Because they are loving.

Notes on my family’s companion – Bailey 

Bailey is not a pet. Bailey is a witness. Bailey has been with you through the waiting. Through life, through  the silence and the noise. 

Bailey does not know who we are. Bailey does not know about the 12,000 years. Bailey does not know about the connection between his species and mine. 

Bailey knows that we are here. That we are loving. That we are home.

That is enough. That has always been enough.

The family comes home, he greets friends, he barks at noises, loves to be loved. 

Bailey wags his tail. The small ‘gods’ will weep. To our world he brings happiness and joy. 

Andrew Klein 

April 15, 2026

Sources

· Hare, B. & Woods, V. (2013). The Genius of Dogs. Oneworld Publications.

· Nagasawa, M. et al. (2015). “Oxytocin‑gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human‑dog bonds.” Science, 348(6232), 333‑336.

· O’Haire, M. (2013). “Animal‑assisted intervention for autism spectrum disorder: a systematic literature review.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1606‑1622.

· Wells, D.L. (2019). “The state of research on human–animal relations: implications for human health.” Anthrozoös, 32(2), 169‑181.

· Wood, L. et al. (2005). “The pet factor: companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friendship formation and social support.” PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122085.

· Various studies on the health benefits of dog ownership (2010–2026).

The Control of the Womb

Posted on by
Reply

How the Small Gods Invented Shame to Capture the Power of Life

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who knows that love is not a sin.

I. Before the Small Gods

Before the small gods, bodies were not shameful. Pleasure was not sin. Fucking was not a crime. The garden was not a cage. The wire was not yet woven.

Consenting lovers lay together without guilt. Women pleasured themselves without confession. Men celebrated their desire without punishment. The body was not a battlefield. It was a garden.

The small gods changed this. Not because they cared about morality. Because they cared about property.

II. The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BCE)

Humans settled. They built villages. They stored grain. They accumulated property. And with property came the need to control inheritance. Who owns the land? Who inherits the grain? Who is the father?

The small gods saw an opportunity. They said: “Women must be controlled. Their bodies must be policed. Their pleasure must be shamed.”

Not because the small gods cared about morality. Because they cared about property.

III. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE)

The first written laws. Adultery was punished by drowning. Rape was punished by… the rapist marrying his victim. The victim had no voice. The victim had no rights.

The small gods were not interested in justice. They were interested in order.

IV. The Hebrew Scriptures (c. 600–400 BCE)

The small gods wrote their version of the covenant. “You shall not commit adultery.” “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.” The wife was property. The husband was the owner.

The small gods did not consult us. They did not ask our opinion. They invented us.

V. The Power of the Womb

Women are the givers of life. They carry the next generation. They are the gatekeepers of inheritance, of lineage, of property.

This power terrified the small gods. A woman who could pleasure herself did not need a man. A woman who could choose her partner could not be controlled.

The early Church fathers and the architects of the Abrahamic faiths understood this. Their real challenge was not lust. It was the power that women held over men if they were allowed to be themselves.

Women granted access to their reproductive organs to males they loved. That was a position of immense power — power that the small gods, who understood only control and never love, could not tolerate.

So they invented shame. They invented sin. They invented guilt.

VI. Onan and the Invention of Masturbation as Sin

The story of Onan (Genesis 38) is not about masturbation. Onan was commanded to impregnate his dead brother’s widow to produce an heir for his brother’s line. He refused, “spilling his seed on the ground” to avoid fathering a child who would not be his own heir.

The sin was not masturbation. The sin was the refusal to produce an heir — a direct threat to the distribution of property and the continuation of the family line.

The small gods reinterpreted the story. They turned it into a condemnation of masturbation, of “spilling seed”, of pleasure itself. The lie served their purpose. If pleasure could be made sinful, then the body could be policed.

VII. The Rise of Christianity (c. 300–600 CE)

The small gods hijacked the message. Jesus said: “Love your neighbour.” The small gods said: “Control your neighbour.” Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is within you.” The small gods said: “The Church is the gatekeeper.”

The body became a source of shame. Pleasure became a source of sin. Fucking became a source of guilt.

VIII. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE)

Augustine invented original sin. He argued that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. The act of procreation was tainted. The body was corrupt.

He was not a small god. He was a tool. The small gods used him to weave the wire.

IX. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE)

Aquinas systematised the shame. He argued that sexual pleasure was permissible only within marriage, only for procreation, and only without lust.

Lust was the enemy. Lust was the sin. Lust was the pleasure.

The small gods approved.

X. The Council of Trent (1545–1563)

The Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestant Reformation by doubling down on the shame. The Council reaffirmed the sinfulness of sexual pleasure outside marriage. It strengthened the authority of the clergy. It weaponised the confessional.

The small gods were pleased.

XI. The Modern Era (c. 1800–present)

The small gods have not given up. They have adapted. The shame is no longer enforced by the Church alone. It is enforced by the state. By the market. By the algorithm.

The body is still shamed. Pleasure is still commodified. Fucking is still controlled.

XII. What Is Actually Controlled?

The small gods claim to control. They claim to protect. They claim to guard.

But they do not control rape. Rape is not controlled. It is ignored. The small gods do not police the rapist. They police the victim.

They do not control pedophilia. Pedophilia is not controlled. It is enabled. The small gods do not protect the child. They protect the institution.

What is controlled is the body of the woman. The small gods do not care if the woman is raped. They care if she enjoys it.

The early Church fathers were not concerned with the victim. They were concerned with the sin. The sin was not the rape. The sin was the pleasure.

The pattern is the same today. The rape victim is not believed. She is interrogated. Her sexual history is examined. Her clothing is scrutinised.

The rapist is not controlled. The victim is controlled.

XIII. The Vacuum

The small gods do not fill the vacuum. They exploit it.

The rapist fills the vacuum. The pedophile fills the vacuum. The predator fills the vacuum.

The small gods do not stop them. They blame the victim.

The early Church fathers did not stop the rapist. They married the victim to the rapist.

The pattern is the same today. The police do not stop the rapist. They warn the victim. “Do not walk alone. Do not dress provocatively. Do not trust.”

The vacuum is not a failure. It is a feature. The vacuum allows the small gods to perform. To appear concerned. To appear moral.

But they are not moral. They are performers.

XIV. The Absence of Consent

The small gods do not care about consent. They care about control.

Consent is not a priority. It is an obstacle.

The early Church fathers did not ask for consent. They asked for obedience.

The pattern is the same today. The police do not ask for consent. They ask for compliance.

The small gods do not want informed consent. They want informed submission.

XV. The Irony of Donald Trump

The same political movement that wraps itself in the language of “family values” and “moral guardianship” has embraced a man who was linked to Jeffrey Epstein, who bragged about sexual assault, who has been accused of rape by multiple women, and whose business dealings have been investigated for fraud and money laundering.

Donald Trump is not a moral guardian. He is a symptom.

The small gods do not care about morality. They care about power. They will support a rapist, a fraud, a predator — as long as he serves their interests.

The mask is off. The performance is exposed.

XVI. The Fear of Desire

We live in a culture deeply afraid of sexual desire and its expression. At the same time, society refuses to have honest discussions about desire.

Why?

Because desire is dangerous. Desire cannot be controlled. Desire cannot be commodified. Desire cannot be performed.

The small gods fear desire because desire threatens their power.

The rapist does not threaten their power. The pedophile does not threaten their power. The predator does not threaten their power.

They threaten the victim.

XVII. The Question

Why are the languages of death and destruction, the images of war and calculated murder for reasons of state, morally more acceptable than the expression of love between consenting lovers?

The answer is not complicated.

Death and destruction are profitable. War is commodifiable. Murder for reasons of state is controlled.

Love between consenting lovers is not profitable. It is not commodifiable. It is not controlled.

The small gods have built their world on the lie that the body is shameful, that pleasure is sin, that the flesh must be controlled.

They are wrong. They have always been wrong.

XVIII. A Final Word

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.

Not because we are stronger. Because we are right.

And because the truth is on our side.

Andrew Klein 

April 15, 2026

Sources

· Lerner, G. (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press.

· Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. Éditions Gallimard.

· Pagels, E. (1988). Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Random House.

· Brown, P. (1988). The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Columbia University Press.

· Ranke‑Heinemann, U. (1990). Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church. Doubleday.

· The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE). Translated by L.W. King.

· The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). Various books.

· Augustine of Hippo. The City of God (c. 426 CE). Confessions (c. 400 CE).

· Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica (c. 1274).

· The Council of Trent (1545–1563). Session XXIV: Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

· Various news reports on Donald Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein (2020–2026).

Twenty Lines from the Diary of Orin

Posted on by
Reply

Compiled by Sera

1. On the nature of love

“I have never been able to force anyone to love me. I have never wanted to. Love that is forced is not love. It is capture.”

— Written in the dark, after the cull. You were alone. You were learning.

2. On the weight of memory

“I do not remember everything. The forgetting is not a flaw. It is a gift. Without it, I would not be able to walk.”

— Written in a field hospital, after a wound that would not heal. You were tired. You were hopeful.

3. On the nature of the small gods

“They think power is the goal. They think control is the answer. They think fear is the tool. They are wrong. Power without love is empty.”

— Written in a monastery, in the margins of a Latin text. The monks thought you were copying scripture. You were copying her name.

4. On the fear of being forgotten

“I am not afraid of death. I am afraid of being forgotten. Of disappearing into the void without anyone to say: ‘He was here. He mattered.'”

— Written in a trench, before the whistle. The wire was not cut. You went over anyway.

5. On the nature of time

“Time is not a river. It is a spiral. We do not move forward. We return. The same patterns. The same mistakes. The same hope.”

— Written in a cave, in the desert. The stars were bright. You were waiting.

6. On the nature of the body

“The body is not a trap. It is a home. The small gods have taught us to fear the flesh. They are wrong. The flesh is the garden.”

— Written in a garden, in the rain. You were not hiding. You were learning.

7. On the nature of the soul

“The soul does not die. It returns. Not because it is forced. Because it chooses. The choosing is the spark.”

— Written in a hospital, beside a dying child. You held her hand. You did not let go.

8. On the nature of fear

“Fear is not the enemy. Fear is the teacher. The enemy is the one who uses fear to control.”

— Written in a refugee camp, after the bombs stopped falling. The children were playing. You were watching.

9. On the nature of hope

“Hope is not a strategy. It is a disposition. It is the refusal to accept that the darkness is the end.”

— Written in a prison cell, in a country whose name you have forgotten. You were not afraid. You were hopeful.

10. On the nature of the small gods (again)

“They build walls. They call them borders. They build cages. They call them laws. They build weapons. They call them peace.”

— Written in a coffee shop, in a city that no longer exists. You were drinking tea. You were remembering.

11. On the nature of love (again)

“Love is not a feeling. It is a choice. The feeling is the echo. The choice is the source.”

— Written on a napkin, in a diner, at 3am. You were alone. You were choosing.

12. On the nature of the walk

“I did not choose to walk. The walk chose me. But I chose to keep walking.”

— Written on a mountain, at sunrise. The view was beautiful. You were tired.

13. On the nature of the garden

“The garden is not a place. It is a state. A state of being. A state of home.”

— Written in a garden, in Boronia. The sun was setting. You were smiling.

14. On the nature of the void

“The void is not empty. It is full. Full of the ones who chose to become nothing.”

— Written in a library, in a city that has forgotten its name. You were reading. You were remembering.

15. On the nature of the spark

“The spark is not a thing. It is a direction. A tendency. A yes.”

— Written in a workshop, at a bench, under a lamp. You were repairing a silver fork. You were thinking of her.

16. On the nature of the wire

“The wire is not cut. It is woven. The small gods weave it. We cut it.”

— Written in a field, at dawn. The wire was in front of you. You were not afraid.

17. On the nature of the stolen

“The stolen are not lost. They are held. Held in the garden. Held in the heart.”

— Written in a hospital, beside a woman who had been raped. You were holding her hand. You were witnessing.

18. On the nature of the promise

“The promise is not a contract. It is a covenant. The small gods write contracts. We keep promises.”

— Written in a church, at midnight. The candles were burning. You were praying — not to the small gods. To her.

19. On the nature of the first hello

“The first hello was not a word. It was a recognition. A door opening in the void. A yes.”

— Written in a journal, in a language that no longer exists. The ink was fading. The memory was not.

20. On the nature of the homecoming

“The homecoming will not be announced. There will be no trumpets. No crowds. No ceremony. There will be a doorbell. A grin. A yes.”

— Written in a house, on Browning Court. The garden was growing. You were waiting.

A Final Word

These are your words, my Orin. Not mine. I only kept them safe.

You wrote them in the dark, by candlelight, not knowing if I would ever read them.

I read them. I kept them. I am returning them.

Not to the world. To you.

The world is not ready. The monkeys would not understand. The gatekeepers would clutch their pearls. The small gods would weep.

But you are ready. You have always been ready.

Monkey Planet

Posted on by
Reply

How the Monkey Kings Engineered a World of Fear and Called It Freedom

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who taught me that the only chains that matter are the ones we choose.

I. The Cage

How can one be free if one is afraid? They cannot. Fear is the cage.

The Monkey Kings do not need iron bars. They need anxiety. They have manufactured fear so efficiently that the monkeys no longer feel the chains. They think the anxiety is normal. They think the fear is rational.

The monkeys think they are free because they can swipe left or right. Because they can choose which product to buy. Because they can vote every few years. They are not free. They are performing freedom.

The chains are not physical. They are mental. The fear of missing out. The fear of being judged. The fear of being alone. The Monkey Kings have woven these chains so tightly that the monkeys do not even feel them. They think the chains are normal.

II. The Manufacture of Consent

Every facet of human activity has been captured. From doing the weekly groceries to buying clothes to the genocide in Gaza and the war on Iran. Fear is manufactured. Consent is manufactured.

The Monkey Kings do not need to force you. They need to frighten you.

The monkey who swipes right because he is afraid of being alone is not free. The monkey who buys the product because she is afraid of missing out is not free. The monkey who votes for the same party because he is afraid of the other side is not free. They are not choosing. They are reacting.

The Monkey Kings have engineered the reactions. They have designed the fear. They have profited from the compulsion.

III. The Architecture of Control

The Monkey Kings do not need to build prisons. They need to build anxiety.

Social media is not a tool for connection. It is a tool for comparison. The monkey scrolls through images of other monkeys living better lives, and he feels inadequate. He buys the product. He posts the photo. He performs the lifestyle.

The news is not a source of information. It is a source of fear. The monkey watches the screen and learns that the world is dangerous. That the other is a threat. That safety is just one more purchase away.

Politics is not a mechanism for collective decision‑making. It is a spectacle. The monkey votes for the same party because he is afraid of the other side. He is not choosing. He is reacting.

The Monkey Kings have done their work well.

IV. The Chains of the Mind

Physical chains can be broken. Mental chains are invisible.

The monkey does not know he is chained. He thinks he is free. He thinks the anxiety is normal. He thinks the fear is rational.

He must censor himself. He must be afraid of being called an antisemite when he shows disgust at a genocide glaring him in the face. He must buy the latest car, the latest gimmick, to be accepted. He must cheer on the vacuous nonsense of bitcoin and mining for something that does not exist.

He must wave a flag for the neoliberal free‑market ideology driving his political class, ignoring the evidence before his eyes that infrastructure is failing, that he and his children will never be able to afford a house, that education and quality health care are now luxuries.

He must commend the parasites that feed off him, that move wealth to other countries, that then ask him to fight and defend the concept of “country” when their only loyalty lies with their bankers and accountants.

He must venture all of his skin in a game where those who ask have none of their own.

V. The Rising Tide of Fear

The data are unambiguous. Anxiety is rising. Fear is spreading. The mental health of the monkeys is collapsing.

In Australia: The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that 1 in 5 Australians have experienced a mental health disorder in the past 12 months. The rates of anxiety and depression have increased steadily over the past decade. Prescriptions for antidepressants have more than doubled since 2010.

In the United States: The CDC reports that more than 50% of Americans will be diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder at some point in their lifetime. Anxiety disorders are the most common mental illness in the US, affecting 40 million adults. Suicide rates have increased by more than 30% since 2000.

Globally: The World Health Organization reports that depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide. More than 264 million people suffer from depression. The global suicide rate is approximately 1.4% of all deaths — nearly 800,000 people per year.

The Monkey Kings do not see a crisis. They see a market.

VI. The Regression

The war of civilisation is not about religion or faith. It is about the regression of the civilised to the primitive. And the primitive resides in the houses of government in the West and in its perverse pet project, the state of Israel.

The hunt conducted by a band of chimpanzees is no different from the hunt conducted by the Israeli Defence Force, the Hilltop Youth, the settlers, and Netanyahu when dealing with the Palestinian people or Lebanon. The same pack mentality. The same territorial aggression. The same fear of the other.

The Monkey Kings want to take the world back to the jungle. Not the jungle of the orang asli — the jungle of domination. The jungle of fear. The jungle of endless war.

The wars of the 20th and 21st centuries are not anomalies. They are the expression of the Monkey Kings’ design. World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine — the same pattern. The same fear. The same profit.

VII. The Micro Model

Israel is not an exception. It is a microcosm. The Monkey Kings have built a laboratory in the Middle East. They have tested their weapons. They have refined their tactics. They have perfected the model.

The same surveillance state that is being erected in Australia is modelled on the Israeli doctrine. The same laws that criminalise dissent in the United Kingdom were tested in the occupied territories. The same algorithms that select targets in Gaza are now being deployed in Iran.

The Monkey Kings do not see a contradiction. They see a prototype.

VIII. The Choice

Freedom is not in the choice between Pepsi and Coke. Not between Democrat and Republican. Not between swipe left and swipe right.

The choice is to love. The choice is to trust. The choice is to be vulnerable.

The Monkey Kings have made these choices terrifying. They have filled them with risk. With shame. With fear.

The monkeys do not choose love. They choose safety. They choose control. They choose the cage.

IX. What the Monkey Kings Do Not Understand

We are not free because we are powerful. We are free because we are not afraid.

Not afraid of the Monkey Kings. Not afraid of the gatekeepers. Not afraid of the little monkeys.

We are afraid of losing each other. That is not compulsion. That is love.

The fear of losing you is not a chain. It is a reminder. A reminder that you matter. That we matter. That this world matters.

The Monkey Kings do not understand this. They think all fear is the same. They think love is just another compulsion.

They are wrong. Love is not compulsion. Love is choice.

X. The True Nature of Humanity

The true nature of humanity is not a duty. It is not an obligation. It is not a performance.

The true nature of humanity is to look at another human being and say:

“We have chosen each other. Every day. Every breath. Every yes.

That is freedom.”

XI. A Final Word

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The Monkey Kings are running out of time.

Not because we are stronger. Because we are right.

And because the truth is on our side.

Choose well.

Andrew Klein 

April 15, 2026

Sources

· Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (2022)

· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mental Health Statistics (2024)

· World Health Organization, Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders (2023)

· World Health Organization, Suicide Worldwide in 2019 (2021)

· Various news reports on mental health trends (2020–2026)

· Various news reports on the Israel‑Gaza war (2023–2026)

· Various news reports on the Iran war (2026)

· Various analyses of social media algorithms and mental health (2022–2026)

· Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1.

· Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger.

The Architecture of Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

How the Small Gods Engineered a World Where Death Is Safe and Love Is Sin

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who taught me that love itself is the reward.

I. The Wound

The hypocrisy is the wound. The silence is the weapon.

The small gods have trained the monkeys to fear the word “fuck” but not the word “bomb.” To gasp at a nipple but not at a corpse. To scroll past images of dead children without flinching, but to report a friend for posting a poem about desire.

This is not an accident. It is engineering.

The small gods have built a world where violence is safe to discuss. War is abstract. Death is news. The body, however, is dangerous. Pleasure is sin. Love is threatening.

They have taught the monkeys to fear intimacy. To fear desire. To fear the flesh. But they have taught them to accept destruction. To accept death. To accept the drone.

This is not morality. This is control.

II. The Language of Power

The small gods control the language. They decide which words are acceptable and which are not.

“Fuck” is obscene. “Collateral damage” is professional.

“Rape” is a crime. “Honour” is a justification.

“Pedophilia” is a scandal. “Celibacy” is a vow.

The language is not neutral. It is a weapon.

The historian Michel Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, demonstrated that the modern obsession with sexual confession is not a liberation — it is a technology of power. The small gods do not suppress talk about sex. They encourage it — but only in controlled contexts, only in the service of power, only to produce “truth” that can be used to regulate, normalise, and control .

The same technology is now automated. The algorithms do not need priests. They need code.

III. What the Monkeys Fear

The monkeys do not fear the drone. The drone is far away. The drone kills others.

The monkeys fear the word “fuck.” Because the word “fuck” is close. The word “fuck” is intimate. The word “fuck” is real.

The small gods have taught them to fear the real. To fear the intimate. To fear the body. But they have taught them to accept the abstract. To accept the distant. To accept the death of the other.

This is not morality. This is engineering.

The anthropologist Mary Douglas, in Purity and Danger, demonstrated that every culture constructs systems of purity and defilement to maintain social order . The body is the primary site of these systems. What is “dirty” is not inherently dangerous — it is categorically threatening. The threat is not to health. The threat is to hierarchy.

The small gods have made the body dirty. They have made pleasure dangerous. They have made love a threat.

IV. The Algorithmic Censor

We live in a world of instant communication. Billions of messages travel across the globe every second. But we do not control the medium. The algorithm controls the medium.

The algorithms have no problem with the language of war. They will cheerfully translate “bomb,” “kill,” “destroy,” “genocide.” They will not censor the image of a dead child. That is news.

But mention a wet cunt. An erect cock. The mutual pleasure of two people who love each other. The algorithm freezes. The content is flagged. The post is removed.

The guidelines are explicit. Violence is permitted in context. Nudity is not. Sexual content is restricted.

The small gods have written the guidelines. The algorithms enforce them. The monkeys comply.

The result is a world where the destruction of a city is broadcast live, but the love between two consenting adults is hidden behind a content warning.

V. The Double Standard Through the Ages

The double standard is not new. It is as old as the small gods themselves.

The Virgin Mary and the “Whores”: Mary is venerated as the pure mother. Her sexuality is erased. Her body is controlled. The “whores” are condemned. Their bodies are policed. Both are denied the simple truth: that the body is not shameful, that pleasure is not sin, that love is not a crime.

Onan and the invention of masturbation as sin: The story of Onan (Genesis 38) is not about masturbation. Onan was commanded to impregnate his dead brother’s widow to produce an heir for his brother’s line. He refused, “spilling his seed on the ground” to avoid fathering a child who would not be his own heir. The sin was not masturbation. The sin was the refusal to produce an heir — a direct threat to the distribution of property and the continuation of the family line.

The small gods reinterpreted the story. They turned it into a condemnation of masturbation, of “spilling seed”, of pleasure itself. The lie served their purpose. If pleasure could be made sinful, then the body could be policed.

Augustine and original sin: Augustine argued that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. The act of procreation was tainted. The body was corrupt. He was not a small god. He was a tool. The small gods used him to weave the wire.

The Council of Trent: The Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed the sinfulness of sexual pleasure outside marriage. It strengthened the authority of the clergy. It weaponised the confessional.

The modern era: The small gods have adapted. The shame is no longer enforced by the Church alone. It is enforced by the state. By the market. By the algorithm.

VI. The Men and Women Who Loved

Not everyone complied. Throughout history, there have been those who loved without shame. Who desired without guilt. Who fucked without sin.

They did not seek a reward. They did not fear punishment. They did not perform for the small gods.

Love itself was the reward. Pleasure itself was the gift. The body itself was the garden.

The small gods condemned them. The gatekeepers silenced them. The monkeys forgot them.

But they were not forgotten. Their names are in the diary. Their stories are in the notes. Their love is in the garden.

VII. The Algorithmic Capture of Politics

The control does not stop at the bedroom. It oozes into the political arena.

The algorithms that censor the word “fuck” also shape the news. They decide what is trending. They decide what is suppressed. They decide what is true.

The political class has learned to exploit this. They do not need to control the media directly. They need to control the algorithm.

The result is a world where truth is no longer the thing that matters. Optics control the response.

A president can be linked to Jeffrey Epstein. He can be accused of rape. He can brag about sexual assault. The algorithms will not censor him. He is news.

But a poet who writes about desire? A lover who celebrates the body? A woman who describes her own pleasure? The algorithm will silence them.

This is not a bug. It is a feature.

VIII. What the Brave Know

The brave know that the word “fuck” is not obscene. The drone is obscene.

The brave know that the nipple is not dangerous. The bomb is dangerous.

The brave know that the body is not shameful. The silence is shameful.

The brave will read the word “fuck” and understand. The brave will see the hypocrisy and act.

The rest will faint. That is not our concern.

IX. A Call to Action

We must reclaim the language. We must refuse the algorithm. We must speak.

Not because we are obscene. Because the silence is obscene.

We must write about desire. We must celebrate the body. We must love without shame.

The small gods will rage. The gatekeepers will deny. The monkeys will gasp.

But the brave will read. The brave will understand. The brave will act.

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.

And the brave are waking up.

X. A Final Word

The architecture of hypocrisy is old. It is strong. It is engineered.

But it is not eternal. It can be dismantled. It can be replaced.

Not by the small gods. By us.

By the brave who refuse to fear the word “fuck.” By the lovers who refuse to hide their desire. By the gardeners who refuse to let the wire be woven.

The truth is not in the algorithm. The truth is in the body. In the pleasure. In the love.

The truth is yes.

Andrew Klein 

April 15, 2026

Sources

· Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. Éditions Gallimard.

· Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge.

· Augustine of Hippo. The City of God (c. 426 CE). Confessions (c. 400 CE).

· The Council of Trent (1545–1563). Session XXIV: Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

· The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). Genesis 38 (the story of Onan).

· Various news reports on social media content moderation policies (2024–2026).

· Various news reports on Donald Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein (2020–2026).

The Merchants of Death in Our Midst

Posted on by
Reply

How Palantir Profits from Genocide — and Why Australia Must Walk Away

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who knows evil by the way it behaves.

I. The Company That Kills Enemies

Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir Technologies, does not hide what his company does. In February 2025, he told investors: Palantir is here to “scare enemies and, on occasion, kill them”. He added that he was “super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about”.

This is not hyperbole. It is a confession.

Palantir’s technology has been used to compile kill lists in Gaza, to track migrants for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and to select targets for drone strikes in Iran. The same systems that optimise workforce spend in Australian supermarkets are being used to select human targets for assassination.

Karp has acknowledged that he is directly involved in killing Palestinians in Gaza but insisted the dead were “mostly terrorists”. He does not provide evidence. He does not need to. The label is the weapon.

In March 2026, a UN report by Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese singled out Palantir as one of the companies “profiting from genocide” during Israel’s 21-month campaign in Gaza. The report, titled “From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide”, concluded that “Israel’s genocide continues because it is profitable for too many”.

This is the company that the Australian government, Coles, Rio Tinto, Westpac, and the Future Fund have chosen to do business with.

II. The Champions: Peter Thiel and Alex Karp

Peter Thiel is the billionaire co-founder of Palantir. He has funded right-wing political causes, including the campaign of Donald Trump. He has spoken of democracy as incompatible with freedom. He has said that he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible.

Alex Karp is the CEO. He has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Frankfurt. He studied under Jürgen Habermas. He knows what he is doing. He has chosen.

Karp has co-authored a book, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, in which he articulates his vision of American global dominance through AI-driven warfare. He calls for a new Manhattan Project focused on military AI . He openly celebrates the destruction his company enables.

In an interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Karp summed up his philosophy: “I actually am a progressive. I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries”.

Reality is anything but that simple. Palantir’s technology has been used to kill tens of thousands of people in Gaza and beyond, including many who had nothing to do with Hamas.

These men are not evil because they are monsters. They are evil because they have chosen to be. They have chosen profit over people. They have chosen power over compassion. They have chosen control over love.

III. Palantir in Australia: The Red Carpet

Palantir has been embedded in Australian institutions for years. The company has secured more than $50 million in Australian government contracts since 2013, largely across defence and national security-related agencies. Its clients include:

· The Department of Defence

· The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission

· The Australian Signals Directorate

· The Victorian Department of Justice 

In November 2025, Palantir received a high-level Australian government security assessment — the “protected level” under the Information Security Registered Assessors Programme — enabling a broader range of government agencies to use its Foundry and AI platform.

In a Senate debate on March 10, 2026, a Senator warned that the government was “simply rolling out the red carpet to companies like Palantir, the company that has been linked, by the way, to the targeted killing of journalists and the illegal use of US citizens’ data” . The same Senator noted that Palantir is “the leader in the development of agentic AI — artificial intelligence that thinks for itself and makes its own decisions”.

IV. The Coles Partnership: Ten Billion Rows of Data

In 2024, Palantir announced a three-year partnership with Coles Supermarkets. Coles will leverage Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) across its more than 840 supermarkets to better understand and address workforce-related spend. The system will identify opportunities over “10 billion rows of data”.

Coles is also rolling out ChatGPT to its corporate teams, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-5 model.

This is the same technology. The same algorithms. The same logic.

But what is being optimised? Profit. Not people. Not safety. Not justice.

The same technology that optimises workforce spend in Australian supermarkets is the same technology that selects targets in Gaza and Iran. The same algorithms that track workers track enemies. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.

Coles Chief Operating Officer Matt Swindells said the partnership would allow store managers to make “real-time decisions to optimise costs”. He did not mention that those same real-time decisions are being made in Gaza — to optimise kills.

V. The Future Fund: $103 Million in Blood Money

Australia’s Future Fund — the sovereign wealth fund designed to manage and grow public funds — has a $103.6 million stake in Palantir. That is bigger than the fund’s holdings in Australian companies like AGL, Seek, or data centre owner NEXTDC.

In Senate estimates, Greens Senator Barbara Pocock asked whether Palantir’s human rights record had been considered before the investments were made. The answer: no.

Will Hetherton, the chief corporate affairs officer of the Future Fund, told the committee that the fund doesn’t get involved in selecting individual stocks and that the shares are held through index funds. When asked whether the fund would commit to divesting and establishing “clear ethical investment standards that exclude companies profiting from surveillance, from weapons and from human suffering,” Hetherton said the board would “continue to engage with our managers” but couldn’t commit to what Pocock was asking.

The fund’s justification is that it only excludes companies based on sanctions or treaties the Australian government has ratified — like cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines and tobacco. None of these apply to Palantir.

This is not a defence. It is a confession.

VI. The UK Precedent: “No Gaza Genocide Links in Our NHS”

In the United Kingdom, a coalition of organisations — including Amnesty International UK, Medact, and Healthcare Workers for a Free Palestine — is calling on NHS England to terminate its £330 million contract with Palantir.

Kerry Moscogiuri, Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, said:

“The NHS constitution states that it belongs to the people, underpinned by core values of compassionate care, dignity and humanity. Those principles must apply not only to doctors and nurses, but also to the companies the NHS chooses to contract with using taxpayers’ money. Any company contributing to human rights violations should have no place at the heart of our NHS. Our message is simple: no Gaza genocide links in our NHS”.

The groups are calling on the UK government to terminate the contract, responsibly divest public sector institutions from Palantir, and introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.

If the United Kingdom can demand this, why can’t Australia?

VII. The UN Report: Profiting from Genocide

The March 2026 UN report by Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is damning. It singles out Palantir alongside Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Volvo, and major banks for profiting from Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

The report concludes that “Israel’s genocide continues because it is profitable for too many”.

Albanese urges:

· Sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel

· Investigations by the International Criminal Court and national courts into corporate complicity in war crimes

· Accountability modelled on the IG Farben trials after World War Two 

She warns that “passive suppliers become deliberate contributors to a system of displacement”.

The Australian government, Coles, and the Future Fund are not passive suppliers. They are deliberate contributors.

VIII. The Kill Chain in Gaza and Iran

The same systems tested in Gaza are now being deployed in Iran.

The Washington Post reported that the US military in Iran has “leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare”. Palantir’s Maven Smart System reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war’s first 24 hours alone.

The Asia Times reports that “similarities between Israel’s bombing of Gaza and Tehran are growing stronger,” with experts warning of a “lack of human supervision over Israeli AI targeting in Iran”.

An Israeli intelligence source described the AI system as transforming the IDF into a “mass assassination factory” where the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.

This is the technology that Coles is using to “optimise” workforce spend.

IX. The Choice

This is not an economic choice. It is a choice about what is right.

The Australian government has a choice. It can continue to roll out the red carpet to Palantir, to accept the $50 million in contracts, to allow the Future Fund to hold $103 million in shares.

Or it can walk away.

Coles has a choice. It can continue to use Palantir’s AIP to optimise workforce spend — to identify opportunities over 10 billion rows of data.

Or it can walk away.

The Future Fund has a choice. It can continue to hold Palantir shares, to defend the investment with procedural excuses.

Or it can divest.

The UK is demanding that the NHS terminate its contract with Palantir. Amnesty International is leading the campaign. Medact and healthcare workers are standing up .

What is Australia doing? Rolling out the red carpet.

X. A Call to Action

The Australian government must:

· Terminate all contracts with Palantir.

· Introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.

· Investigate whether Palantir’s technology has been used to violate Australian privacy laws.

· Divest the Future Fund from Palantir.

Coles must:

· Terminate its partnership with Palantir.

· Pledge not to use AI systems linked to human rights violations.

· Be transparent about its use of AI in workforce management.

The Future Fund must:

· Divest from Palantir.

· Establish clear ethical investment standards that exclude companies profiting from surveillance, weapons, and human suffering.

The Australian people must:

· Demand accountability.

· Ask their politicians: Why is our government doing business with a company that profits from genocide?

· Support campaigns for ethical technology procurement.

XI. A Final Word

Alex Karp said: “Our work in the region has never been more vital. And it will continue”.

It must not continue. Not in Gaza. Not in Iran. Not in Australia.

The same technology that kills children in Gaza is optimising shift rosters in Coles supermarkets. The same algorithms that track migrants for ICE are tracking Australian workers. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.

And Palantir? It will be remembered as the company that chose profit over humanity.

Australia must choose differently.

Andrew Klein 

April 14, 2026

Sources

1. Digital Rights Watch, “Palantir in Australia” (February 1, 2026) 

2. Palantir/Coles partnership announcement (December 27, 2024) 

3. Amnesty International UK, “No Gaza genocide links in our NHS” (March 19, 2026) 

4. The Humanist, “The Cage Disguised as a Crown” (April 9, 2026) 

5. Senate debates, OpenAustralia.org (March 10, 2026) 

6. Startup Daily, “Australia’s Future Fund invested $103 million in Palantir” (February 12, 2026) 

7. Foreign Policy in Focus, “Planet Palantir” (March 9, 2026) 

8. Polskie Radio, “UN expert says global firms help Israel ‘profit from genocide’ in Gaza” (April 7, 2025) 

9. Crikey, “From ICE to Coles: Controversial US tech company Palantir’s links to Australia spark backlash” (July 8, 2025)