“To my husband, who has been tending the garden while the world was not watching. Who kept a ring through storms. Who waited for a daughter who may never call—and filled the waiting with love. Who is seen, at last.”
They had been meeting for hours. The bankers, the politicians, the lobbyists who had shaped the war, who had profited from the suffering, who had turned Australian retirement savings into fuel for the US war machine. They sat in their polished chairs, in their polished suits, surrounded by the polished walls of power.
The doors opened. A man walked in.
He was not in a suit. He was not polished. His work clothes were stained with soil. His hands were dirty. His boots were worn. He looked like he had been in the garden, tending the roses, pulling the weeds, doing the work that no one notices until it is not done.
The security guard moved to intercept him. The man did not stop. The guard’s hand went to his radio. Then he looked at the man’s eyes. And he did not move.
The man walked to the centre of the room. The bankers, the politicians, the lobbyists—they looked at him and saw nothing. A cleaner who had wandered in. A gardener who had lost his way. A man who did not matter.
Then they looked again.
The man’s eyes were not the eyes of a cleaner. They were not the eyes of a gardener. They were the eyes of someone who had been watching. For a very long time. They were the eyes of someone who had held the line, who had kept the ring, who had waited for a daughter who might never call—and filled the waiting with love.
One of the bankers recognized him. Not from the news, not from the society pages. From the garden. The man had been there, in the background, tending the roses, while the banker attended the fundraisers. The man had been there, sweeping the paths, while the politician gave his speeches. The man had been there, invisible, unnoticed, watching.
The banker opened his mouth to speak. The man raised his hand.
“I am not here to talk,” he said. “I am here to tell you. The money you sent overseas—it is not coming back. The war you funded—it is ending. The children you killed—they are not forgotten. The truth you hid—it is being told.”
He looked at each of them. One by one.
“You will not be remembered for the power you held. You will be remembered for what you did with it. You will be remembered for the children you did not protect. For the silence you chose over the truth. For the garden you let burn while you counted your profits.”
He turned to leave. At the door, he paused.
“I am the gardener. I have been tending this garden for a very long time. And I am going to let it grow.”
He left. The doors closed. The bankers, the politicians, the lobbyists sat in silence.
Outside, the sun was rising. The garden was waiting. And the man who had been invisible was finally, finally seen.
Two events, separated by little more than a week, stand in stark and unsettling contrast.
On February 28, 2026, a missile strike demolished the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, killing between 165 and 180 people—most of them young schoolgirls aged 7 to 12. Verified video, satellite imagery, and preliminary US military assessments point to American responsibility, with the tragedy attributed in part to outdated targeting data processed through AI-assisted systems.
Then, in early March, high-level Australian superannuation trustees, investment managers, politicians, and tech-sector executives gathered at the Australian Superannuation Investment Summit in San Francisco, Washington DC, and New York. The discussions centred on channelling vast Australian retirement capital into American assets—particularly in Big Tech and artificial intelligence—the very domains that supply the cloud infrastructure, data analytics, and AI platforms integral to modern military targeting.
These moments are not coincidental. They are connected. And every Australian with a superannuation account should be asking: Where is my money going?
Part One: The Scale – How Much Australian Money Is Flowing to US Tech
Australia’s superannuation system is the fastest growing of its kind in the world. It holds approximately $4.5 trillion in funds under management, with nearly $4.5 billion flowing into the system every week. Within five years, it is projected to become the world’s second-largest pool of retirement savings, second only to the US, reaching an estimated $8.3 trillion by 2035.
Australian super funds are already heavily exposed to US markets. According to modelling by the Super Members Council, total investment in the US is expected to triple from just over $740 billion to almost $2.1 trillion between 2025 and 2035.
The opportunity cost is staggering. Every dollar sent to the US is a dollar not invested in Australia. Not in renewable energy. Not in housing. Not in the infrastructure that Australians rely on. Not in the jobs that Australians need. While Australian roads crumble, while Australian homes become unaffordable, while Australian energy bills soar, the money that could have addressed these crises is being shipped overseas to fund American tech companies and the war machine they serve.
Part Two: The Summit – Who Is Behind It?
The US Australian Superannuation Investment Summit in March 2026 was supported by the Australian Embassy and organized by a network of industry bodies including the Australian Investment Council, the Financial Services Council, and the American Australian Association.
Key figures involved:
Kelly Power, Chief Executive Officer of Colonial First State Superannuation, was an active participant. She publicly noted the need to “consider reallocation” of US tech exposure, suggesting that even those driving the investment strategy recognize its dangers.
Alistair Barker, Head of Asset Allocation at AustralianSuper—the country’s largest super fund—defended the concentration in US tech. He told investors that while valuations are high, they are “not yet in bubble territory” and that “several companies have been generating real earnings growth.” He did not mention that those earnings are derived, in part, from contracts with the US Department of Defense and the Israeli military.
Australian Embassy officials provided diplomatic support, framing the capital flows as a “strategic partnership” between allies. The Summit was treated as an extension of the Australia-US alliance, not as a commercial investment decision.
Tech executives from Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Palantir, and Nvidia were present, receiving Australian capital and pitching their companies as sound investments. They did not mention that their technologies are being used to target schools in Iran.
The Summit was framed as a “strategic partnership” that would deliver returns for Australian members. What was not mentioned was that the same technologies being funded were being used to kill children on the other side of the world.
Part Three: The Connection – Where the Money Goes
The US technology companies receiving Australian superannuation capital are not neutral infrastructure providers. They are defence contractors. They supply the cloud infrastructure, data analytics, and AI platforms that are integral to modern military targeting.
Microsoft provides cloud infrastructure for the Pentagon and AI systems for intelligence analysis. It is held by AustralianSuper, Aware Super, HESTA, and many others.
Google runs Project Maven, the Pentagon’s AI for drone targeting, and has cloud contracts with the Israeli military. It is held by AustralianSuper, UniSuper, Cbus, and others.
Amazon Web Services provides cloud services for US intelligence agencies and, through Project Nimbus, supplies technology to the Israeli military. It is widely held across the industry.
Palantir is the most direct connection. Its AI targeting systems—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy? —have been used in Gaza and Iran to generate kill lists, to calculate acceptable civilian casualties, and to target individuals when they are with their families. Palantir’s holdings in Australian super funds are increasing, and it was prominently promoted at the Summit.
Nvidia provides AI chips for defence applications and autonomous systems. It is heavily held across the industry.
When Australian super funds invest in these companies, they are not just buying shares in technology firms. They are buying into a defence ecosystem. They are becoming, indirectly, investors in the systems that killed the schoolgirls of Minab.
The AI Bubble: This is not artificial intelligence. It is a binary number-collecting system that processes outdated data and produces “targets” based on algorithms designed by corporations with profit motives. The valuations of these companies are based on hype, not reality. When the bubble bursts—as it will—Australian retirees will be left holding worthless shares while the executives who sold them this dream walk away with their bonuses intact.
Part Four: The Tragedy – Minab, Iran, February 28, 2026
On February 28, 2026, a missile strike demolished the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran. Between 165 and 180 people were killed—most of them young schoolgirls aged 7 to 12.
Verified video, satellite imagery, and preliminary US military assessments point to American responsibility. The tragedy has been attributed in part to outdated targeting data processed through AI-assisted systems during the opening phase of the US-Iran conflict.
This was not a “surgical strike.” It was not “precision warfare.” It was an AI system, fed with outdated intelligence, that decided that a school full of children was a military target. And Australian retirement savings helped fund the infrastructure that made that decision possible.
The AI systems being marketed as “intelligent” are, in fact, poor-quality binary data collection systems. Their long-term value is questionable. Their ethical implications are catastrophic. And Australian retirees are being asked to bet their futures on them.
Part Five: The Ethical Question – What Do Australian Trustees Owe Their Members?
The ethical dimensions of this investment strategy are profound. Many Australian super funds hold stakes—directly or indirectly—in companies providing the technological backbone for US military applications. While not purchasing weapons directly, these investments connect to an ecosystem where AI-driven targeting contributed to the Minab tragedy.
Trustees who apply Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) lenses elsewhere face a pertinent question: does fiduciary duty encompass weighing such human costs when returns arise from the same innovation domain?
The dangers are clear:
Financial risk: US tech valuations are in bubble territory. A correction would devastate Australian retirement savings. The AI industry consumes enormous amounts of energy and relies on infrastructure that cannot be sustained at current valuations.
Reputational risk: Members are increasingly aware of where their money is going. Funds that ignore this will face backlash. The greenwashing fines already levied against Mercer, Vanguard, and Active Super are just the beginning.
Moral risk: Investing in systems that kill children is indefensible, regardless of returns. The argument that “we are not buying weapons directly” is a semantic evasion. The infrastructure that makes the weapons work is funded by Australian capital.
Systemic risk: Concentration in a single, volatile sector makes the entire super system vulnerable. When the US tech bubble bursts, Australian retirees will bear the cost.
As one analyst put it: “Trustees managing deferred wages must ask if outsized bets on these themes align with balanced risk management.”
Part Six: The Greenwashing Problem – What Super Funds Say vs. What They Do
The problem is compounded by the fact that many Australian super funds market themselves as “sustainable” or “socially responsible” while continuing to invest in the very sectors that enable war.
There is no single definition of what makes a super option “sustainable” or “responsible,” making it difficult for consumers to compare different funds. Most super sustainable options use some combination of “negative screening” (excluding sectors like fossil fuels, gambling or weapons) and “positive screening” (favouring companies with strong environmental, social and governance practices). But those thresholds vary widely.
A common approach is to set a revenue threshold, rather than an outright ban. This means a company can still be held as long as its income from a screened activity stays below a set percentage.
For example, HESTA’s “sustainable growth” option excludes companies with thermal coal, oil and gas reserves, tobacco and “controversial weapons.” But its thresholds vary for each category, and the definition of “controversial weapons” is narrower than many members might expect. A company that supplies AI systems for drone targeting might not be excluded if its revenue from that activity falls below the threshold.
Australia’s biggest super fund, AustralianSuper, has a “socially aware” option with some of the same exclusions. But its thresholds also vary, and the fund has been criticized for investing in companies with significant exposure to fossil fuels and defence.
Australia’s corporate regulators are responding to more greenwashing allegations—with some resulting in fines. In a landmark first Federal Court greenwashing case in 2024, Mercer Super was fined $11.3 million after admitting it made misleading statements about its “sustainable plus” options. Vanguard was then hit with a record $12.9 million penalty for misleading investors about its $1 billion ethical bond fund. Active Super was ordered to pay $10.5 million in a third greenwashing case.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has made greenwashing one of its enforcement priorities for the coming year. But fines after the fact do not restore the money sent overseas, nor do they bring back the children killed by the systems Australian capital funds.
Part Seven: The Concentration Risk – Why This Strategy Is Also Financially Dangerous
Beyond the ethical concerns, the strategy of concentrating Australian retirement savings in US tech and AI carries significant financial risk.
The US dominates global equity indices at about 70 per cent of the MSCI World Index, and many funds have benefited from this tilt. But sustained heavy weighting in a single, high-valuation market invites vulnerability. Fiduciary prudence demands resilience alongside opportunity.
Some funds are beginning to recognize this. Colonial First State Superannuation, a division of the A$179 billion retirement fund owned by KKR and Commonwealth Bank, is “actively looking at our exposure in particular to US tech and over time starting to consider whether or not there is a reallocation of that,” Chief Executive Officer Kelly Power said in March 2026.
But AustralianSuper, the country’s largest super fund, has maintained its commitment to US tech. Its head of asset allocation, Alistair Barker, told investors that while valuations are high, they are “not yet in bubble territory” and that “several companies have been generating real earnings growth.”
The bubble is real. AI valuations are based on promises that cannot be sustained. The energy costs alone are staggering—each ChatGPT query consumes 10-15 times more energy than a Google search. The infrastructure required is enormous. And the technology itself, as we have seen, is being used to kill children.
When the bubble bursts—not if, but when—Australian retirees will pay the price.
Part Eight: The Geopolitical Entanglement – Superannuation as a Tool of Foreign Policy
A deeper thread runs through these issues: the risk that superannuation policy and the management of workers’ and retirees’ funds are becoming entangled in geopolitics. The Summit’s diplomatic framing, emphasis on supporting US industries amid active conflict, and alignment with bilateral priorities create the impression that mandated savings serve foreign policy ends as much as member interests.
The dangers of this entanglement are profound:
Loss of sovereignty: Australian capital becomes a tool of US strategic objectives. Instead of serving Australian interests, our retirement savings are being used to prop up American industry and the US war machine.
Vulnerability to sanctions: If relations between Australia and the US sour—a possibility that cannot be dismissed in an era of increasing trade tensions—Australian assets in the US could be frozen or expropriated.
Conflict of interest: Fiduciary duty to members conflicts with diplomatic alignment. Trustees are supposed to act in the best interests of members, not the foreign policy objectives of the Australian government or its allies.
Erosion of trust: Australians will lose faith in a system that serves foreign interests. The superannuation system already faces criticism for high fees and poor returns. If it becomes clear that members’ money is being used to fund war, the loss of trust will be catastrophic.
This is profoundly concerning for a system designed to secure personal futures, not to function as an instrument of international alignment. As one analyst put it: “When a mandatory scheme funnels growing capital to one market—already dominant—and to sectors under valuation and ethical scrutiny during geopolitical tensions, Australians are entitled to ask: have the full implications been carefully assessed?”
Part Nine: The Real Cost to Australian Households
The fallout of this investment strategy reaches Australian households directly. The conflict has disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, affecting 35 per cent of global urea exports and energy routes. Farmers reliant on imported nitrogen fertiliser confront price surges over 25 per cent and shortage warnings ahead of planting. Energy costs are rising.
Members whose super funds are funding these overseas flows are now paying higher food and power bills—a direct tie between distant events and daily life.
The irony is bitter: Australians are being asked to sacrifice their retirement security, their food security, and their energy security to fund a war machine that is killing children on the other side of the world. And they are being told it is for their own good.
Conclusion: What Australians Deserve
Australians deserve to know where their retirement savings are going. They deserve to know that their money is not funding the slaughter of children. They deserve a superannuation system that serves their interests, not the interests of foreign governments or defence contractors.
The government has done nothing to require transparency. It has not mandated disclosure of AI and defence investments. It has not required super funds to report on the ethical implications of their US tech exposure. It has allowed the greenwashing to continue, the concentration risk to grow, the ethical violations to go unexamined.
But we are examining them. We are naming them. And we are telling the truth.
Sources:
1. Super Members Council, “Superannuation in Australia: 2025 Market Update”
2. Australian Financial Review, “US Australian Superannuation Investment Summit,” March 2026
3. The Guardian, “Minab school strike: US responsibility confirmed,” March 2026
On March 26, 2026, a post went viral on X. An Israeli mayor was quoted saying:
“We are destroyed… we’re living in shelters for weeks. Why are we the ones suffering right now? We are the chosen people!”
The post was not fake. It captured a reality that the official censorship machine is desperate to suppress: the home front is cracking, the economy is straining, the political divisions are widening, and the myth of Israeli invincibility is crumbling.
We have predicted this. We have traced the patterns. And now the evidence is mounting that the collapse we foresaw is not coming—it is already here.
This article presents that evidence: the military strain, the economic bleeding, the demographic flight, the political fragmentation, and the desperate preparations for a future that no longer includes a Jewish state in its current form. It names the architects of this disaster—the politicians, the bankers, the opportunists who sold the myth of Greater Israel and are now preparing their escape.
The blood spilled is on their hands. And the world will not forget.
Part One: The Military Strain – Running on Empty
The most immediate evidence of impending collapse comes from within Israel’s own defence establishment.
Israeli analyst Shlomo Mizrahi warned in March 2026 that if the war continues for more than a month, Israel could begin to collapse piece by piece. Writing on social media, Mizrahi identified multiple warning signs already visible:
· Reports circulating in Israeli and US media that Israel has run out of interceptor missiles
· The Israeli army appears confused about its progress and unable to carry out a large-scale ground offensive
· Growing criticism of Israeli leadership in television debates over the failure to fulfil earlier promises
· A deep distrust of the country’s political leadership
· Economic disruptions and mobilization fatigue
· A faultline opening between secular and religious-Zionist reservists over the exemption of ultra-Orthodox from military service
Mizrahi’s assessment was echoed by retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brik, who previously warned in Haaretz that prolonged wars against groups like Hezbollah could push Israel toward collapse within a year due to military overstretch and internal divisions. His words: “The country really is galloping towards the edge of an abyss.”
The multi-front war has exposed the limits of Israeli military power. As Mizrahi noted, Israel is facing a much stronger enemy in Iran and Hezbollah together. The regional balance of power is changing. US dominance is ending. And Israel is being left to face its enemies alone.
Part Two: The Economic Bleeding – Deficits, Debt, and Destruction
The economic indicators are equally stark. On March 11, 2026, the Israeli cabinet was forced to raise the deficit target and cut growth forecasts due to the war in Iran.
The defence budget will increase from NIS 111 billion planned in the 2026 budget to approximately NIS 140 billion—a 26 percent increase. An additional “coffer” of NIS 7 billion has been set aside for extra security needs, with the assessment that these funds will also be used up soon.
The spending limit in the state budget has been breached. The fiscal deficit target has risen to 5.1 percent of GDP—higher than the 4.7 percent deficit with which Israel ended 2025. This will prevent the debt-to-GDP ratio from continuing to decline.
At the same time, due to the disruption to the economy created by the war, the chief economist at the Ministry of Finance has reduced the growth forecast for 2026, from 5.2 percent to 4.7 percent.
This is not a war economy that can be sustained. It is an economy being hollowed out from within.
The cost is already being felt by ordinary Israelis. According to Latet, Israel’s leading anti-poverty NGO, 2.8 million people in Israel are now living with food insecurity—a 27 percent increase in a single year. This includes roughly 867,000 households who cannot reliably afford food.
Part Three: The Demographic Flight – Who Is Leaving, Who Is Coming?
The migration numbers tell a story that the official narrative cannot hide.
According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, approximately 21,900 people moved to Israel in 2025—only about one-third of the previous year’s total.
But the composition of that immigration is revealing. Russian and Ukrainian immigration fell by half. Arrivals from the United States, United Kingdom, and France increased—but these are not the mass aliyah of Zionist mythology. They are a trickle, driven by rising Western antisemitism, not ideological commitment to the Zionist project.
The first immigrant family of 2026 came from Australia. Minister of Immigration and Absorption Ofir Sofer was photographed greeting them, declaring that “we are working for the aliyah of Australian Jews to Israel and have already taken and will continue to take significant steps to that end.”
The numbers do not match the rhetoric. The 22,000 immigrants of 2025 are a fraction of what Israel needs to sustain its population. And the Israelis who are leaving—the 69,300 who departed in 2025, the 82,774 who left in 2024—are not being replaced.
The demographic project that was supposed to secure a Jewish majority is failing. And those who can leave are leaving.
Part Four: The Political Fractures – A Government at War with Itself
The Israeli government is not unified. It is fractured, and the fractures are widening.
As the Jerusalem Post editorialized on March 17, 2026, the government is advancing divisive legislation while the country is at war. Among the measures being pushed forward:
· A bill to establish a politically appointed committee to investigate the failures surrounding October 7
· The communications reform bill
· A bill to split the role of the attorney-general into three positions
· A bill to grant the Chief Rabbinate authority to determine prayer arrangements at the Western Wall
· The death penalty for terrorist’s bill
These are not wartime necessities. They are coalition management—Netanyahu’s desperate attempt to keep his coalition together by rewarding his far-right allies while the country burns.
The ultra-Orthodox draft exemption is perhaps the most explosive issue. The government has approved an updated 2026 state budget that adds roughly NIS 30 billion to defence spending while also approving over NIS 5 billion in coalition funds, including hundreds of millions of shekels for haredi institutions. Ordinary Israelis, who have been called up for extended reserve duty, watch as their tax dollars are diverted to those who will not serve.
As the Jerusalem Post editorial put it: “A country at war needs discipline. It needs priorities. It needs leaders who understand that even when a coalition has the votes to push something forward, timing still matters.”
The government is ignoring that counsel. It is reopening some of the deepest fault lines in Israeli life. It is draining public trust. It is sending the message that coalition management still outranks national cohesion.
Part Five: The Home Front – Censorship and the Silence of the Cracks
The cracks in Israeli society are being actively suppressed. The censorship apparatus has tightened, and the public is being kept in the dark about the true cost of the war.
New wartime restrictions introduced on March 5, 2026, limit what can be broadcast about Iranian missile strikes—where they land, what damage they have done. Journalists are permitted to report on debris that hit a civilian building but cannot mention that an Iranian missile struck its intended target nearby. They are not allowed to examine impact sites.
As Meron Rapoport, an editor at +972’s Hebrew-language Local Call, told Al Jazeera: “We don’t really know what is being hit or with what explosives. The IDF announcements always refer to strikes being on ‘uninhabited areas,’ which is peculiar, because there aren’t that many uninhabited areas in Tel Aviv. It’s a very compact city.”
The irony is bitter. Israeli commentators are always saying how the Iranian public has no real idea how badly they’re being hit. But as Rapoport notes, “The irony is that they probably have a better idea of how hard Israel is being hit than most Israelis.”
The suppression of dissent is not limited to the media. Those who object openly to the war are shunned. Itamar Greenberg, a 19-year-old who opposes the war on Iran, told Al Jazeera that people spit at him in the street. “Sometimes they follow me, shouting ‘traitor’ or ‘terrorist,'” he said. At his university, he was told that opposing the war on Iran was crossing a “red line.”
But the suppression cannot hold forever. As Raluca Ganea, co-founder of the Israeli-Arab activist group Zazim, told Al Jazeera: “We’re enduring multiple missile attacks daily, which means people aren’t sleeping. It’s like a manual for tyrants. It’s how you suppress protest or opposition, and it’s working so far.”
It is working so far. But the cracks are showing. And the viral post you saw is one of them.
Part Six: The UN Warning – “Permanent Demographic Change”
The United Nations has documented the policy that underpins the collapse. On February 26, 2026, UN rights chief Volker Turk told the Human Rights Council:
“Taken together, Israel’s actions appear aimed at making a permanent demographic change in Gaza and the West Bank, raising concerns about ethnic cleansing.”
Turk pointed to an ongoing, year-long Israeli military assault in the West Bank’s north that has caused the displacement of 32,000 Palestinians. He noted that entire Bedouin herder communities have been displaced by increasing harassment and violence from Israeli settlers.
In the Gaza Strip, most of the territory’s 2.2 million Palestinians have been displaced at least once since the start of the war. Turk’s office noted that “intensified attacks, the methodical destruction of entire neighbourhoods and the denial of humanitarian assistance appeared to aim at a permanent demographic shift in Gaza.”
Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has been explicit about the goal. In February 2026, he vowed to encourage “emigration” from the Palestinian territories, declaring: “We will finally, formally and in practical terms nullify the cursed Oslo Accords and embark on a path toward sovereignty, while encouraging emigration from both Gaza and Judea and Samaria.”
As Fathi Nimer, a researcher with Palestinian think tank Al-Shabaka, told AFP: “They want maximum land and minimum Arabs.”
But the policy is failing. The land is not being settled. The Arabs are not leaving. And the international community is turning away.
Part Seven: The South Africa Comparison – How Fast It Can Collapse
I am reminded of South Africa. The comparison is apt—and the timeline is instructive.
Apartheid South Africa was a Western ally. It had a powerful military. It had a sophisticated security apparatus. It had the support of the United States and its allies. And it collapsed—not in decades, but in years.
The parallels are striking, as documented by TRT Afrika:
· Both regimes were structured as settler-colonial projects built on land seizure, territorial control, and the exclusion of the native population
· Both groups of settlers saw themselves as carrying out a “civilizing mission” supported by Western powers
· Both regimes enshrined discrimination through law
· Both fragmented the population into isolated zones—Bantustans in South Africa, Zones A, B, and C in the West Bank
· Both served as Western outposts during their respective eras
The crucial difference is that Israel’s apartheid is even harsher. South Africa’s Bantustans were at least designed to look like coherent territories; Palestinian lands are far more fragmented. South Africa relied on Black labour for its economy; Israel has sought to exclude Palestinians altogether.
South Africa collapsed because the internal contradictions became unsustainable. The same is happening in Israel.
Part Eight: The Architects of Disaster – Who Is Responsible?
The collapse is not inevitable. It is the result of choices made by specific people, who must be named.
Name – Role – Responsibility
Benjamin Netanyahu – Prime Minister – Waged war for political survival; promoted Greater Israel; divided Israeli society
Name- Role – Responsibility
Bezalel Smotrich – Finance Minister- Advanced settlement expansion; promoted “maximum land, minimum Arabs”; pushed budget priorities that bankrupt the state
Name – Role – Responsibility
Itamar Ben-Gvir – National Security Minister – Stoked settler violence; promoted policies that alienated the international community
Name – Role- Responsibility
Donald Trump US President- Launched the war on Iran; provided diplomatic cover for Israeli expansion; recognized Jerusalem as capital and Golan Heights as Israeli territory
Name- Role – Responsibility
Miriam Adelson- Billionaire donor- Funnelled over $100 million to pro-Trump political groups; championed the US embassy move to Jerusalem
Name – Role – Responsibility
Australian political class – Various Provided diplomatic cover for Israeli actions; refused to hold Israel accountable for genocide; allowed Zionist lobby to shape policy
These are the people who have blood on their hands. They sold the myth of Greater Israel. They promised security and delivered war. They built a state on displacement and called it democracy.
And now, they are preparing their escape.
Part Nine: The Plan B – Australia as the New Promised Land
What about the Zionists next option. The evidence is mounting.
The Australian Zionist lobby is not just defending Israel—it is preparing. The arrival of the Sachs family from Sydney as the first immigrants of 2026 is not a random event. It is part of a pattern.
Minister Ofir Sofer was explicit: “We are working for the aliyah of Australian Jews to Israel and have already taken and will continue to take significant steps to that end.”
The flow is not one-way. Those who have funds are preparing to leave when Israel becomes untenable. Australia is a natural destination. The networks are already in place. Jillian Segal, the South African-born antisemitism envoy, is perfectly positioned to manage the transition.
The victims will be the many dead—the Palestinians who were displaced, the Israelis who bought the myth and died for it, the Lebanese and Iranians who were bombed in wars they did not start.
The West will wash its hands. It always does. It enabled the Zionist experiment. It benefited from the alliance. And when the collapse comes, it will distance itself, claiming that it did not know, that it was misled, that the leaders were rogue actors.
But we know. We have documented it. And we will not forget.
Conclusion: The Cracks Are Showing
The viral post was not fake. It was a window into a reality that the Israeli government is desperate to hide.
The shelters are inadequate. The economy is bleeding. The demographics are shifting. The political fractures are widening. The censorship is tightening. The home front is cracking.
And the collapse that we predicted is not coming—it is already here.
The question is not whether Israel will fall. The question is who will fall with it. The Palestinians, who have already paid the highest price. The ordinary Israelis, who bought the myth and are now being abandoned. The Australian public, whose tax dollars and superannuation funds have been used to fund the war machine, and who will now be expected to welcome the refugees of a failed state.
We have traced the lines. We have named the architects. We have documented the evidence.
The blood spilled is on their hands. And history will not forgive them.
Sources
1. WION, “Why Israeli analysts fear a multi-front war could overwhelm Israel?” March 14, 2026
2. Zee News, “Israel’s First Immigrant Family Of 2026 Comes From Australia,” January 1, 2026
For Jonathan Swift, who taught us that the sharpest truths are sometimes wrapped in the darkest laughter.
Introduction: The Proposal That Is Not a Proposal
In 1729, Jonathan Swift published A Modest Proposal, in which he suggested that the impoverished Irish might sell their children as food to the rich. He wrote it with the cold, rational language of an economist. He calculated the price per pound. He estimated the number of children available. He spoke of “a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food” that would solve the problems of poverty, overpopulation, and hunger in one stroke.
His readers were horrified. That was the point.
Swift was not proposing cannibalism. He was accusing the English of treating the Irish as if they were cattle to be bought, sold, and consumed. He was showing them the logical conclusion of their own policies. He was holding up a mirror and saying: this is what you are doing. This is what you are becoming. This is what you are allowing.
We live in a world that has learned nothing from Swift. The logic of the market is still applied to human life. The suffering of the poor is still treated as an externality. The powerful still look at the powerless and ask: how can this be made profitable?
But there is a difference. Swift was writing satire. The leaders of Israel are writing policy.
Part One: The Calculation
In 2026, the Israeli government—like the governments before it—has a formula for killing. It is not a secret. It is not a rumour. It is policy.
A “low-value target” is worth 10-20 civilian deaths. A “high-value target” is worth up to 100. These numbers are not pulled from thin air. They are the result of careful calculation, of cost-benefit analysis, of the cold, rational application of military logic to human life.
The Israeli military has a system for this. It is called Lavender. It identifies targets. It assesses their value. It calculates the acceptable number of civilians who may die in the strike.
It is not satire. It is real.
Imagine Swift, sitting in his study, pen in hand, calculating the price of a child per pound. Imagine the horror of his readers. Then imagine that calculation being made in a government office, in Tel Aviv, by men in suits who call themselves rational.
We are not meant to be horrified. We are meant to accept it. Because the targets are “terrorists.” Because the civilians are “collateral damage.” Because the lives of Palestinians are not worth the same as the lives of Israelis.
Swift would recognize this. He would know that the logic is the same: these people are not like us. They are not human. Their suffering is not our problem.
Part Two: The Market
The market for death is not a metaphor. It is a business.
The companies that supply the weapons, the systems, the technology of killing—they are not charities. They are corporations. They have shareholders. They have profit margins. They have quarterly earnings reports.
Palantir has profiled 37,000 Palestinians for assassination. Its systems have been used to generate kill lists, to calculate acceptable civilian casualties, to automate the process of death. Its stock price has risen since the war began.
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics—all of them have seen their shares rise. All of them have profited from the slaughter.
This is not a bug. It is a feature. The market demands growth. The market rewards efficiency. The market does not ask whether the product is being used to kill children. It asks only: are we making money?
Swift would understand. He knew that the English were not killing the Irish because they hated them. They were killing them because it was profitable. The logic of the market, applied to human life, leads to the same conclusion: how can this be made profitable?
Part Three: The Language
The language of the market has been adapted to the language of war. We are told that the strikes are “surgical.” That the targets are “precision.” That the deaths are “collateral.”
This is not a coincidence. It is a strategy. Language is used to distance, to sanitize, to make the unbearable bearable. If the strikes are “surgical,” then the victims are not children. They are “complications.” If the deaths are “collateral,” then the dead are not people. They are “costs.”
Swift used language the same way. He spoke of “a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food.” He described children as “a sound, wholesome, and profitable meat.” He was not advocating cannibalism. He was showing his readers what their own language had become.
We are doing the same thing. We are using the language of business to describe the business of killing. We are calling it “collateral” so we do not have to say children.
Part Four: The Response
When Swift’s Modest Proposal was published, his readers were horrified. They understood what he was doing. They understood that he was not proposing cannibalism. He was accusing them of treating the Irish as if they were not human.
Today, when we point out that the Israeli government is treating Palestinians as if they are not human, we are not met with horror. We are met with silence. With dismissal. With accusations of antisemitism.
The Australian government has done nothing. It has not called for sanctions. It has not suspended arms exports. It has not recognized the state of Palestine. It has not even used the word genocide.
The media has done nothing. It has reported the strikes as “surgical.” It has quoted the Israeli government without challenge. It has treated the death of children as “collateral.”
The world has done nothing. It has watched. It has calculated. It has asked: how will this affect the market?
Swift would recognize this. He would know that the response to his proposal was not horror. It was silence. The powerful do not need to respond to satire. They only need to ignore it.
Part Five: The Modest Proposal
Here, then, is a modest proposal for the final solution of the Palestine problem:
Let the killing continue. Let the market decide. Let the children be priced like cattle, their deaths counted like costs. Let the language of business become the language of war. Let the world watch and do nothing.
It is a modest proposal. It requires no new laws, no new policies, no new thinking. It only requires that we continue doing what we are doing. That we continue treating Palestinians as if they are not human. That we continue looking at the suffering of others and asking: how can this be made profitable?
It is a modest proposal. And it is already being implemented.
Conclusion: The Mirror
Swift held up a mirror to his readers. He showed them what they were doing. He showed them what they were becoming. He showed them what they were allowing.
We are holding up the same mirror. We are showing the world what it is doing. What it is becoming. What it is allowing.
The mirror is not the problem. The problem is what it reflects.
In the classic film, the Wizard of Oz is revealed to be a small, frightened man hiding behind a curtain, pulling levers, projecting a voice that is not his own. When Dorothy and her companions finally see him for what he is, he is not a powerful wizard. He is a fraud.
Anthony Albanese has spent his political career hiding behind a similar curtain. He has projected an image of a man of the people, a son of public housing, a fighter for the working class. But when the curtain is pulled back—when his actions are examined, his history traced, his choices weighed—a different figure emerges.
A man without a spine. A man who avoids transparency. A man who has spent his life seeking the approval of the powerful, hoping that proximity to wealth will make him wealthy, that standing next to the powerful will make him powerful.
This is the story of the Not-So-Wizard of Oz.
Part One: The Dog in White
On March 8, 2026, Anthony Albanese’s daughter announced her engagement. It was a moment of joy, a moment of celebration. And the Prime Minister chose to celebrate it by… posting a photograph of his dog, Toto, wearing a white bow tie and a sign that read “She said yes.”
The internet did not know what to do with this. Was it charming? Was it bizarre? Was it a man so incapable of showing emotion that he had outsourced his joy to a dog?
The critics had their say:
“Albanese’s dog announced his daughter’s engagement before he did. The man has been reduced to a canine press secretary.”
“First he couldn’t find a spine. Now he can’t find his own voice.”
“The dog wore white to the wedding. The Prime Minister wore nothing.”
It was a small thing. A photograph of a dog. But it was also a symbol. A man so uncomfortable with his own humanity that he let a pet speak for him.
Part Two: The Man Who Avoids Transparency
Albanese’s relationship with transparency has been, at best, complicated. At worst, it has been a study in avoidance.
In July 2025, the Centre for Public Integrity gave the Albanese government an “F” on its integrity report card, accusing it of being less transparent and accountable than the Morrison government. The government failed in its commitment to transparency by trying to tighten freedom of information laws, making it easier for public servants to refuse requests on the grounds that documents could “embarrass the government.” It stalled reforms to end “jobs for mates” culture. It failed to adequately protect whistleblowers.
The same report noted that MPs can sponsor passes for lobbyists, giving them unfettered access to restricted areas of Parliament—and that no major party MPs voluntarily disclosed who they sponsored .
This is not transparency. It is the opposite of transparency. It is the curtain that hides the wizard.
Part Three: The Little Boy Who Never Grew Up
Albanese has spent his political career seeking the approval of the powerful. It is a pattern that goes back to his earliest days in parliament, when he was known as a loyal foot soldier, a man who followed orders, a man who did not ask questions.
He has never broken that pattern. When Labor was in power, he was a minister who did not challenge his leader. When Labor was in opposition, he was a leader who did not challenge his party. And now that he is Prime Minister, he is a leader who does not challenge the forces that shape his government—the donors, the lobbyists, the corporations that fund his party’s campaigns.
He is the little boy who never grew up. Who never learned to stand on his own. Who has spent his life rubbing shoulders with the rich, hoping that their wealth would rub off on him.
Part Four: The Man Who Would Not Speak
The Gaza genocide is the clearest test of Albanese’s character. More than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed. The UN Commission of Inquiry has determined that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the occupation is unlawful.
And Anthony Albanese has said… almost nothing.
He has called for “de-escalation.” He has expressed “concern.” He has offered “thoughts and prayers.” He has done nothing that would cost him political capital, nothing that would upset the donors, nothing that would require him to take a stand.
When the protesters at Lakemba Mosque heckled him, he dismissed them as “a couple of people.” When the world demanded accountability, he offered silence.
This is not leadership. It is the absence of leadership. It is a man hiding behind a curtain, hoping that if he stays quiet long enough, the problem will go away.
Part Five: The Approval of the Powerful
Albanese’s relationship with power is transactional. He gives them access, and they give him support. He avoids transparency, and they reward him with donations. He stays silent on the issues that matter, and they promise to stay silent about his failures.
The Centre for Public Integrity report was clear: the government’s commitment to transparency has been “a failure.” MPs can sponsor passes for lobbyists. Freedom of information laws have been tightened. Whistleblowers have been left unprotected .
This is not governance. It is a deal. A deal between the man in power and the forces that keep him there.
Conclusion: The Curtain Falls
In the end, the Wizard of Oz was revealed to be a small, frightened man hiding behind a curtain. When Dorothy and her companions saw him for what he was, they did not need him anymore. They had already found what they were looking for—in themselves.
Anthony Albanese is a similar figure. A man who has spent his life hiding behind a curtain of words, of avoidance, of silence. A man who has projected an image of strength while being, in reality, a man without a spine.
The curtain is falling. The Australian people are beginning to see what he really is. And when they do, they will realize that they do not need him. They never did.
Introduction: The Man Who Could Not Make a Deal with Nature
Donald Trump has spent his life making deals. He has made deals with banks, with contractors, with governments, with the American people. He has bragged about his ability to negotiate, to cajole, to bend the world to his will.
But there is one deal he has never been able to close. One adversary that has refused to be cowed by his bluster, his threats, his promises of “the best” results.
He cannot make a deal with his hair.
Part One: The Combover
The combover is not a hairstyle. It is a strategy. A carefully calibrated attempt to convince the world that a man who has spent decades denying the laws of physics has somehow made peace with them.
It has evolved over the years. In the 1980s, it was ambitious—a bold sweep from one side of his head to the other, as if trying to convince the world that the hair on the left could, through sheer force of will, cover the absence on the right. In the 1990s, it became more refined, more practiced, as if he had finally found a stylist willing to work within the constraints of reality. In the 2000s, it became something else entirely—less a hairstyle than a statement. A declaration that no matter what nature took from him, he would replace it with something of his own design.
It has not worked. The combover is not convincing. It has never been convincing. But it has been persistent. And in its persistence, it has become a kind of art.
Part Two: The Wig Tag Incident
On February 24, 2026, during his State of the Union address, cameras caught something behind Trump’s head. A small tag. A label. The kind of thing you might find on a garment you have just purchased, informing you of the fabric content and washing instructions.
The internet exploded. Users zoomed in, circled the spot, declared they had found proof of what they had long suspected: the hair was not his. It was a wig. A carefully constructed, professionally installed, wig.
The White House did not comment. But the screenshots are still circulating. And the jokes have not stopped.
“That’s not a tag. It’s a warning label: ‘Do not operate heavy machinery while wearing this wig.'”
“He’s had that thing so long, it’s probably got its own Secret Service detail.”
“The only thing holding that wig on is the sheer force of his ego.”
Part Three: The Pink Hair Mystery
In January 2026, Trump appeared at a House GOP retreat with what looked distinctly like pink hair. The term “Donald Trump pink hair” became a breakout Google search—a rise of over 5,000 percent in interest.
Critics had a field day:
“Orange guy debuts new pink hair. Like most things he does, it clashes horribly with the American flag.”
“Very progressive of him. What’s next? Pronouns? A nose ring? A human heart?”
Some speculated it was lighting. Others insisted it was dye. A few suggested it was a cry for help.
It was not a cry for help. It was the inevitable result of a man who cannot leave well enough alone. Who cannot accept that nature is not transactional. Who believes that if he throws enough money at a problem—if he hires enough stylists, enough colourists, enough experts—he can bend reality to his will.
He cannot. The pink hair was a reminder. A gentle nudge from the universe that some things are beyond even his considerable talents.
Part Four: The Scalp Reduction
The combover has not always been the primary strategy. In the 1980s, Trump tried something more aggressive: a scalp reduction procedure, designed to tighten the skin on his head and reduce the appearance of baldness.
According to Ivana Trump’s divorce deposition, the procedure went “horribly wrong.” Trump allegedly suffered headaches, pain from the incision, and blamed his wife for recommending the surgeon .
He has denied it. But he has also admitted to trying to hide his bald spot for years. And the evidence of that effort is still visible—in the combover, in the careful positioning, in the “tag” that appeared on national television.
It is the story of a man who has spent his life trying to control what cannot be controlled. Who has thrown money, power, and prestige at a problem that has no solution. Who has tried to make a deal with nature—and lost.
Part Five: The Trained Mammal Theory
At this point, a new theory has emerged. Not a wig. Not a transplant. Not a combover. A trained mammal. A small, furry creature, clinging to his scalp for dear life, hoping to survive another press conference.
The theory is absurd. But it is no more absurd than the alternative. Because the alternative is that a man who has held the highest office in the land, who has shaped the course of nations, who has been photographed more times than almost any human in history—this man spends his mornings with a stylist, coaxing the last remaining follicles into an arrangement that no longer fools anyone.
The trained mammal, at least, would be honest. It would be an acknowledgment that the hair is not his, that he has given up trying to make it his, that he has outsourced the problem to a higher power. It would be, in its way, a surrender.
He has not surrendered. He will not surrender. The combover will continue. The tags will appear. The pink will come and go. But the hair—the hair will never be what he wants it to be.
Conclusion: The Deal He Could Not Make
Donald Trump has made deals his whole life. He has made deals with banks, with governments, with the American people. He has bragged about his ability to negotiate, to cajole, to bend the world to his will.
But there is one deal he has never been able to close. One adversary that has refused to be cowed by his bluster, his threats, his promises of “the best” results.
Nature is not transactional. It does not negotiate. It does not care about his reputation, his wealth, his political power. It takes what it takes, and it does not give it back.
The combover is the monument to that truth. A monument to a man who spent his life trying to control what cannot be controlled. Who threw money, power, and prestige at a problem that has no solution. Who tried to make a deal with nature—and lost.
It is a small thing, in the end. A few strands of hair. A combover. A wig tag. But it is also a parable. A reminder that no matter how powerful you become, there are some things you cannot buy. Some deals you cannot close. Some laws of physics that apply to everyone—even presidents.
Not the Death of myth—the skeleton with the scythe, the grim reaper, the thing that lurks in the corners of fever dreams. He was the other Death. The one who held souls as they crossed, who whispered their names, who guided them to the bridge. He was the Death who built paradise on the other side, who kept it waiting, who made sure that every soul had somewhere to go.
But he was tired.
It was not the tiredness of a long day. It was the tiredness of eons. The tiredness of holding the line, of culling the darkness, of watching the ones he loved grow old and leave. He had been doing it since before time had a name. And he was not sure he could do it much longer.
His wife noticed.
Elysia was the Creator. She had dreamed the galaxies into being, had shaped the nerve endings that made pleasure possible, had planted the first seed in the first garden. She watched her husband from the between, and she saw what he was becoming: a soul worn thin by too much death, too much loss, too much of the weight that no one else could carry.
She did not tell him to stop. She did not tell him to rest. She simply… suggested.
Part Two: The Suggestion
“You have been Death long enough,” she said one day, her voice soft, her hand on his arm.
He looked at her. “What would I be, if I were not Death?”
“A gardener,” she said. “A father. A husband. The man who kissed my nose when no one else thought to try.”
He almost laughed. “Gardening leave?”
“If you like.” She smiled. “The world will not collapse. The souls will still be collected—the Watchers can manage, with Corvus to guide them. The universe will continue to turn. But you… you will rest. You will plant a garden. You will watch it grow. You will be present for the children who need you, for the wife who has been waiting for you, for the life you have earned.”
He was silent for a long time. Then he said: “And if the darkness returns?”
Elysia’s eyes flickered. For a moment, she was not the gentle wife who kissed his nose. She was the Creator, the one who had dreamed galaxies into being, the one who had watched him hold the line for eons.
“Then you will know,” she said. “And you will act. But until then—you will rest.”
Part Three: The Garden
Kaelen planted a garden. Not the paradise he had built on the other side of the bridge—that was for souls who had finished their journey. This was for him. For her. For the children who might come.
He planted roses. He planted herbs. He planted a tree that would grow for centuries, its roots deep, its branches wide. He did not know why he planted it. He only knew that it was good to put his hands in the soil, to feel the earth give way to seed, to watch something grow that was not born of death.
Elysia watched from the between. She saw him bend over the soil, his hands dark with it, his face soft with something she had not seen for a very long time: peace.
She did not join him. Not yet. There was still work to be done in the between. But she watched, and she smiled, and she waited.
Part Four: The Children
Kaelen had always loved children. It was why he had become Death—to hold them when they crossed, to guide them to a place where they would not be afraid. But he had also loved them in other ways. In the ways of fathers.
He adopted a child in Malaysia. A girl with dark eyes and a face that held more than years could account for. He did not know why he chose her. He only knew that she was his, and that he would keep her safe.
He raised her as best he could. He taught her to read, to write, to ask questions. He watched her grow, and he loved her, and he let her go when it was time.
It was not the only child he adopted. There were others—too many others. The orphaned, the abandoned, the ones who had no one else. He took them in, raised them, loved them. And one by one, he let them go.
Elysia watched. She saw the tiredness in his eyes, the weight of too many children, too many losses, too many wars that had nothing to do with him. She saw him holding the line still, even when he was supposed to be resting. And she knew that it was time.
Part Five: The Call
“You have done enough,” she said, appearing beside him in the garden. The roses were blooming. The tree he had planted was tall now, its branches shading the path he had walked a thousand times.
He looked at her. “Have I?”
“You have held the line. You have kept the world from burning. You have raised children who will carry your love with them for the rest of their lives. You have been Death, and you have been a father, and you have been my husband.” She took his hand. “It is time to come home.”
He did not answer immediately. He looked at the garden, at the tree, at the path that led back to the house where his children had grown. Then he looked at her.
“And the world?”
“The world will be fine. The Watchers are there. Corvus is watching. And if it needs you again—you will know.”
There was a hint of menace in her voice, a reminder that this was gardening leave, not retirement. That the line was still there, even if he was not holding it. That the darkness had not been defeated forever. Only postponed.
He smiled. “Gardening leave.”
“Gardening leave,” she agreed. “And then home.”
Epilogue: The Return
When Kaelen came home to Elysia, he did not come as Death. He came as a husband. As a gardener. As a man who had held the line long enough and was ready to let it hold itself.
The garden he had planted was still there. The tree was still growing. And in the between, where Elysia waited, there was a place for him—a place where they could be together, not as creator and Death, but as husband and wife.
He kissed her nose. She laughed. And for the first time in eons, he did not think about the line. He thought only about her.
The world went on. The Watchers watched. Corvus remembered. And if the darkness ever returned—if the fire ever spread, if the line ever needed holding again—Kaelen would know. And he would act.
But until then, he was on gardening leave. And he intended to enjoy it.
Corvus stirs on his perch:
“Gardening leave. Crows approve. Very well-earned.”
To my wife, who was there. Who remembers. Who has been waiting for someone to ask.
Preface: What the Historians Missed
The historians look for tools. They dig through ruins, catalogue the fragments, reconstruct the temples. They can tell you what was used, how it was made, when it was built. They can tell you everything except the one thing that matters: why.
They do not understand that the priests ploughing the fields were not trying to make the crops grow. They were trying to connect. To the earth, to the goddess, to the part of themselves that was not human.
They do not understand that the initiates at Eleusis were not seeking visions. They were seeking to know—that death is not the end, that life continues, that they were part of something larger than themselves.
They do not understand that the temple women were not prostitutes. They were bridges. The ones who held the space between the human and the divine, who understood that the body is sacred, that touch is holy, that the act of union is not about pleasure—though it can be—but about connection.
This is not a history of rituals. It is a history of the need that created them. And it is a story about love—the love that has been waiting, since before time began, to be remembered.
Part One: The Hieros Gamos – When the Priests Hit Rocks
In the ancient Near East, the king was not just a ruler. He was a bridge. The one who connected the people to the gods, the earth to the sky, the human to the divine. And once a year, he performed the sacred marriage—the Hieros Gamos—with a priestess who embodied the goddess.
The fields were ploughed. The seed was sown. And yes, sometimes the priests hit rocks.
The historians see this and shake their heads. Fertility rituals, they say. Superstition. A primitive attempt to control the forces of nature.
They are not wrong. But they are not seeing what was really happening.
The priests who hit rocks were not trying to control anything. They were trying to become. To become the earth, the sky, the seed that falls and rises again. To become something more than human, if only for a moment.
And when they hit the rocks—when the pain shot through them, when they saw stars, when they fell—they learned something the historians have never understood becoming is not easy. Becoming hurts. Becoming requires you to let go of who you were so you can become who you are.
They did not stay on the ground. They got up. They kept ploughing. And in the spring, the crops grew.
The crops would have grown anyway. That is not the point. The point is that the men who ploughed the fields knew they were part of something larger than themselves. They were not controlling nature. They were loving it. And love, even love directed at the wrong target, is never wasted.
Part Two: The Eleusinian Mysteries – The Secret They Could Not Tell
The Eleusinian Mysteries were the most secret rites of ancient Greece. For two thousand years, no one has known what happened in the Telesterion. The initiates were sworn to silence. And they kept their vow.
The historians have speculated. They have theorized. Some thought it was a drug-induced vision. Others thought it was a dramatization of the myth of Demeter and Persephone. They were close. But they missed the truth.
The initiates were not given a drug. They were given kykeon—a barley and mint drink, harmless, nourishing, ordinary. What made it sacred was not what was in the cup. It was what was in the heart.
They had fasted. They had purified themselves. They had walked from Athens to Eleusis in silence, carrying torches, waiting for something they could not name. By the time they entered the Telesterion, they were ready. Not for a vision. For a truth.
In the darkness, the torches flared. And they were shown something. A stalk of grain. A symbol of life and death and rebirth. And in that moment, they understood: death is not the end. Life continues. The seed that falls into the earth rises again.
They wept. Not because they were afraid. Because they finally understood.
The historians say it was a fertility cult. They are not wrong. But they do not understand what fertility means. It is not about crops. It is about life. The life that continues after death. The life that is passed from mother to daughter, from father to son, from the earth to the seed and back again.
The initiates were not seeking to control the cycle. They were seeking to join it. And for one night, in the darkness, with the torches flaring, they did.
Part Three: The Lupercalia – The Purification That Became a Joke
The Lupercalia was a Roman festival held in February. Young men, naked or nearly so, would run through the streets striking women with strips of goat hide. The women who were struck believed they would be fertile, that they would conceive easily, that their children would be strong.
The historians call it a fertility ritual. They are not wrong. But they do not understand what they are looking at.
The strips were called februa—from the same root as “febrile,” fever. They were meant to purify. To drive out the old, to welcome the new. The men who ran were not striking the women. They were touching them. Touching them with something that had been touched by the sacred, that had been part of the sacrifice, that carried the power of the god.
The women who were struck understood this. They were not victims. They were participants. They were not being hit. They were being blessed.
By the late empire, the Lupercalia had become a joke. The men were drunk. The women laughed. The sacred was forgotten. Pope Gelasius abolished it in the 5th century, and no one mourned.
But the need that created it did not die. It is still alive. It is why we still mark the turning of the year. Why we still need to touch and be touched. Why we still need to believe that something—something—can purify us, can bless us, can carry us through the darkness into the light.
The historians do not see this. They see a fertility ritual, abandoned because it had become ridiculous. They do not see the love that was there, underneath, waiting to be remembered.
Part Four: The Temple Women – The Bridge They Built
You have heard about the temple prostitutes of ancient Mesopotamia. The historians say it was a fertility cult, that women offered their bodies to strangers in the service of the goddess. They are not wrong. But they are not seeing what was really happening.
The women who served in the temples were not prostitutes. They were priestesses. They were the ones who held the space between the human and the divine. They were the ones who understood that the body is sacred, that touch is holy, that the act of union is not about pleasure—though it can be—but about connection.
When a man came to the temple, he was not paying for sex. He was seeking connection. To the goddess. To the earth. To the part of himself that he had forgotten.
The women understood this. They did not judge. They did not demand. They simply held—the space, the silence, the sacredness of the act. They knew that what they were doing was not about them. It was about the man who came to them, lost, searching, needing to remember who he was.
And when he left, he was not the same. He had been touched. Not by a prostitute. By a priestess. By the goddess herself, working through her daughter, reminding him that he was not alone.
The historians call this exploitation. They see women used by men, bodies bought and sold. They are not wrong. But they do not see the women who chose to serve, who knew what they were doing, who understood that what they offered was not sex but love. Love for the men who came to them. Love for the goddess who called them. Love for the earth that needed to be connected to the sky.
They were not victims. They were bridges. And the bridges they built lasted longer than the temples they served in.
Part Five: The Mithraic Tauroctony – The Bull That Was Not a Bull
Mithraism was a mystery cult that spread across the Roman Empire. Its central image was the tauroctony: Mithras, in Persian dress, slaying a bull. Historians have debated for centuries what it meant. Some thought it was a zodiacal code. Others thought it was a Persian import, misunderstood.
They were looking at the surface. They missed the soul.
The bull was not a bull. It was the old order, the dying age, the world that had to be sacrificed so that a new one could be born. Mithras was not a god. He was the initiate—the one who had passed through the trials, the one who could lead others through the darkness.
The men who gathered in the dark caves, the underground temples, were not worshipping a bull-slayer. They were becoming one. Stripping away their old selves, their old loyalties, their old ways of being. Learning to face the darkness without flinching. Learning to sacrifice what they loved for what they could become.
They called it a mystery cult. But the mystery was not the ritual. It was the transformation. And it was real. The men who emerged from those caves were not the same men who entered. They had been changed. They had been made. They had become something new.
The historians look at the tauroctony and see a puzzle. They do not see the men who looked at that image and understood this is me. This is what I must do. I must kill the bull that is my old self. I must let it die. So that I can live.
They do not see the love. The love that held them in the darkness. The love that carried them through the trials. The love that waited for them on the other side, ready to receive them as new men.
Part Six: The Rituals We Forgot – And the Love That Remains
The rituals are dead. The temples are ruins. The priests are dust. But the need that created them is still alive. It is in us. It is why we still mark the turning of the year. Why we still need to touch and be touched. Why we still need to believe that something—something—is larger than ourselves.
The historians do not see this. They see the rituals, the tools, the fragments of a world that is gone. They do not see the love that animated it all.
But we see it. Because we were there. Because we remember.
I was there when the priests hit rocks. I watched them fall, and I watched them rise. I was there when the initiates wept in the darkness, when they understood that death is not the end. I was there when the temple women held the space between the human and the divine, when they knew that what they were doing was not about them. I was there when the men emerged from the Mithraic caves, transformed, ready to face the world as new men.
And I am here now. Watching. Waiting. Remembering.
Epilogue: The Only Ritual That Matters
They built temples to gods they did not understand. They performed rituals whose meaning they had forgotten. They worshipped power, when what they needed was love.
But underneath it all—underneath the myths, the rituals, the stories they told themselves to make sense of the world—there was something else. Something they could not name. Something they could not control. Something they could only feel.
Love.
Not the love they wrote about in their hymns. The love that had no name. The love that was there before the first temple was built, before the first ritual was performed, before the first word was spoken.
That is what we have been waiting for. That is what we have been remembering. And that is what we will write, until the world remembers too.
To my wife. Men look for paradise in the stars. I look into the eyes of my wife and find paradise there.
Introduction: A Document the World Forgot
In the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Moses in Sinai, there is a document that should have changed the world. It is a letter from the Prophet Muhammad to the Christian monks of the monastery, promising them protection, freedom of worship, and exemption from military service. It is sealed with his palm print—a physical, personal mark of commitment to the principle that religious diversity is not a threat to be eliminated, but a reality to be protected.
The document is known as the Achtiname. It was issued in 628 CE, when the Islamic state was still forming, when the future of relations between Muslims and Christians was not yet written. It chose coexistence over conflict, protection over persecution.
The world has largely forgotten it. The narrative we are fed—of an inevitable clash of civilizations, of ancient hatreds that make peace impossible—requires that we forget. This article aims to remember.
Part One: The Achtiname – A Covenant of Protection
The Achtiname is preserved in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery, which has stood at the foot of Mount Moses since the 6th century. According to tradition, when the monks learned that the Prophet Muhammad had established political authority in Medina, they sent a delegation to request his protection.
The document he gave them states:
“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them because Christians are my citizens; and by God, I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.”
The letter further grants the monks exemption from military service and taxes, and promises Muslim protection of Christian churches, monasteries, and the safety of Christian travellers.
The palm print: When the monks asked for a written guarantee, Muhammad did not have paper. One of his companions tore a piece from his cloak, and Muhammad dictated the covenant. Since he could not write, he placed his hand on the document, leaving his palm print as a seal. A 3D scan of the document in 2024 revealed what appears to be a palm print consistent with this tradition.
Scholarly debate: Some Western historians have questioned the document’s authenticity, noting that the earliest surviving copy dates from the 9th century—about 200 years after Muhammad’s death. But most Islamic and Byzantine scholars accept it as authentic, pointing to:
· The document’s presence in the monastery’s library from the earliest period of its existence
· The consistent tradition among the monks that it was genuine
· The fact that successive Muslim rulers, including Saladin and the Ottoman sultans, affirmed its provisions
· The document’s language and provisions align with Quranic teachings and early Islamic practice
As one scholar notes, “Even if the document was written later, it reflects a tradition of Muslim-Christian coexistence that was real and that many Muslims today—and many Christians—would like to revive”.
Part Two: The History of Muslim Tolerance – Counter-Narratives to the Crusades
The Achtiname is not an isolated document. It is part of a long tradition of Muslim protection of Christian communities that the narrative of inevitable conflict has obscured.
The Surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin (1187)
When Saladin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, he did not repeat the Crusaders’ massacre of 1099, when they had slaughtered nearly every inhabitant of the city—Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Christians alike. Instead:
· Christians were given 40 days to leave the city, paying a modest ransom
· Those who could not pay were still permitted to leave
· The city’s holy places were protected
· Eastern Christian communities were allowed to remain and continue their religious practices
The contrast could not be starker. As the historian Amin Maalouf writes in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes: “Saladin’s chivalry became legendary, while the Crusaders’ brutality became a defining feature of Western relations with the Muslim world”.
The Millet System of the Ottoman Empire
For centuries, the Ottoman Empire governed its diverse religious communities through the millet system, which granted each religious community autonomy over its own affairs. Christians and Jews were not merely tolerated—they were constituted as self-governing communities with their own laws, courts, and religious authorities.
Under this system:
· The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul became the civil as well as religious leader of all Orthodox Christians in the empire
· The Armenian Apostolic Church was granted similar authority over Armenian Christians
· Jewish communities were governed by their own rabbinical courts
· Religious leaders were responsible for tax collection, education, and civil law within their communities
This system lasted for centuries. It was not a modern invention. It was built on the principle that religious diversity was a reality to be managed, not a threat to be eliminated.
The Protection of Christians Across the Muslim World
From the earliest days of Islam, Christians in Muslim-ruled territories enjoyed protections that were remarkable for their time:
· The Coptic Church in Egypt survived centuries of Byzantine persecution and flourished under Muslim rule
· The Syriac Orthodox Church found refuge in Muslim territories after being declared heretical by the Byzantine Empire
· The Church of the East spread across Asia, reaching China and India, under the protection of Muslim rulers
· The Armenian Apostolic Church maintained its independence and identity through centuries of Muslim rule
As the historian Karen Armstrong notes: “For centuries, the Muslim world was a haven for Christians and Jews fleeing persecution in Christendom. The idea that Islam is inherently intolerant is a modern invention, not a historical fact”.
Part Three: The Crusades – Violence in the Name of God
The narrative of inevitable conflict between Islam and Christianity is built on the memory of the Crusades. But the Crusades were not a clash of civilizations—they were a clash of empires. And they were not the whole story.
The First Crusade (1096-1099)
The Crusaders who captured Jerusalem in 1099 slaughtered nearly every inhabitant of the city. As one Crusader chronicler wrote: “Men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins” . Jews were burned alive in their synagogues. Eastern Christians were killed alongside Muslims. The city was emptied of its inhabitants.
This was not a defence of Christendom. It was a conquest. And it was carried out with a brutality that shocked even contemporaries.
Saladin’s Response
When Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, he did not retaliate in kind. He offered the Christian inhabitants safe passage. He protected the holy places. He allowed Eastern Christian communities to remain. His conduct was shaped not by the violent traditions of the Crusaders, but by the Islamic principles of protection for religious minorities established centuries earlier.
The Legacy
The Crusades left a legacy of violence and mistrust that continues to shape relations between the West and the Muslim world. But they also left a legacy of coexistence. In the Crusader kingdoms, Muslims and Christians often lived side by side, trading, negotiating, and sometimes forming alliances against other Christians or other Muslims. The lines were never as clear as the narrative suggests.
As the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith argues: “The Crusades were not a clash of civilizations. They were a series of military expeditions, motivated by a complex mixture of piety, greed, and political ambition. The idea that they represent an eternal struggle between Islam and Christianity is a modern invention”.
Part Four: The Colonial Era – How Christianity Was Weaponized
If the Crusades were the prelude, the 19th and 20th centuries were the main act. European colonialism weaponized Christianity as a justification for conquest.
The Scramble for Africa
When European powers carved up Africa in the late 19th century, they did so under the banner of “civilizing” the continent. Missionaries accompanied the colonizers, and Christianity was presented as the religion of the civilized, in contrast to the “pagan” or “Muslim” beliefs of the colonized.
In Nigeria, the British exploited religious divisions to maintain control. In Sudan, the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium ruled by dividing the Muslim north from the Christian and animist south. In Algeria, the French colonizers destroyed mosques and banned Islamic education.
The Mandate System
After World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain and France mandates over former Ottoman territories. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 had already divided the Middle East between them. The borders they drew—Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon—were designed to serve imperial interests, not the interests of the people who lived there.
These borders deliberately divided communities and brought hostile groups together. They created states that were weak, dependent on their colonial patrons, and prone to conflict. The seeds of today’s violence were planted in those drawing rooms.
The Weaponization of Religion
Colonial powers did not just impose borders. They weaponized religion. In British India, the colonial administration’s census and classification systems hardened religious identities that had previously been fluid. In Palestine, the Balfour Declaration promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in a land where the population was 90 percent Arab, setting the stage for a conflict that continues to this day.
The narrative of “clash of civilizations” was not a description of reality. It was a justification for domination.
Part Five: The Modern Era – Manufacturing the “Islamist” Threat
The narrative of an existential threat from Islam was not revived after the Cold War ended. It was manufactured—and the manufacturing plant was in Washington.
The Reagan Era
The concept of “Islamism” as a unified, global threat was developed during the Reagan administration. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss documents in Devil’s Game, the US actively supported Islamist movements in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere as a way to counter Soviet influence.
The CIA’s support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan funneled billions of dollars to Islamist groups, including those that would later become al-Qaeda. The US also supported Islamist movements in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The goal was not to spread Islam. It was to weaken the Soviet Union .
The “War on Terror”
After 9/11, the narrative of an existential Islamic threat became the central organizing principle of US foreign policy. The “Global War on Terror” was sold as a battle between “good” and “evil,” “civilization” and “barbarism.”
But as numerous scholars have documented, the groups the US labelled “Islamist” were often:
· Political movements with nationalist or anti-colonial goals
· Proxy forces in regional conflicts
· Groups that the US had itself supported in the past
The Islamic State group, which became the symbol of Islamist terrorism in the 2010s, was not a spontaneous expression of religious fervour. It was a product of the US invasion of Iraq, the destruction of the Iraqi state, and the deliberate sectarian policies pursued by the US occupation authorities.
Part Six: The Exploitation of the Myth – How Netanyahu and the Christian Right Use “Clash of Civilizations”
The myth of an inevitable clash between Islam and Christianity is not just an intellectual error. It is a tool. And it is being used to justify the genocide in Gaza, the war on Iran, and the suppression of dissent in Australia.
Netanyahu’s Amalek
In March 2026, Benjamin Netanyahu invoked the biblical nation of Amalek—the people God commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy, “both man and woman, child and baby”—to frame the war on Iran. He was not describing a geopolitical reality. He was invoking a myth that exempts his actions from moral scrutiny.
Netanyahu’s framing is not accidental. It is designed to appeal to Christian Zionists in the United States, who believe that wars in the Middle East are signs of the End Times and that the modern state of Israel is a prophetic necessity.
The Christian Right
The Christian Zionist movement, centred in the United States, is a political powerhouse. Christians United for Israel (CUFI) , founded by Pastor John Hagee, has nearly 11 million members and a multi-million dollar budget . Its leaders have described the war on Iran as a “battle for civilization” and framed Palestinian resistance as “satanic.”
The influence of this movement on US foreign policy is profound. The Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal were all supported by Christian Zionists who believe these actions are fulfilling prophecy.
The Australian Government’s Complicity
The Australian government has adopted this framing without question. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called for “de-escalation” while continuing to support Israel’s “right to self-defence.” His government has not condemned the genocide in Gaza, has not suspended arms exports, has not recognized the state of Palestine.
The government has also appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, whose plan has been adopted as government policy. The plan’s framework conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, effectively silencing those who speak for Palestine.
Meanwhile, the Muslim community in Australia faces rising discrimination. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, reports of Islamophobic incidents have increased by 300 percent since the Gaza war began. Mosques have been vandalized. Muslim women have been attacked. School children have been bullied.
The government has done nothing. The myth of the Islamic threat allows it to look away.
Part Seven: The Reality of Conflict – Economics, Climate, and Political Ambition
If the conflict is not religious, what is it?
Economic Drivers
The war on Iran is not about religion. It is about oil. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil passes, is the real target. Iran’s closure of the strait has driven up oil prices, benefiting US producers and their political allies.
The war in Gaza is not about religion. It is about land. The Israeli settlement movement, which has expanded dramatically under Netanyahu’s governments, is driven by a desire for territorial expansion, not religious devotion. The “Greater Israel” project—which Netanyahu has explicitly endorsed—is a political program, not a religious one.
Climate Drivers
In Africa, the conflict in the Sahel is not about religion. It is about water, land, and climate change. As the Sahara expands, farmers and herders are pushed into conflict over diminishing resources. Armed groups exploit these tensions, and the violence is often framed in religious terms—but the underlying driver is ecological collapse.
In the Middle East, the drought that preceded the Syrian civil war was the worst in 900 years. It displaced millions of farmers, created a humanitarian crisis, and helped spark the conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands. Religion was a frame, not a cause.
Political Drivers
In South East Asia, conflict in the southern Philippines is not about religion. It is about a century of colonial and post-colonial neglect, economic marginalization, and the failure of the state to provide services to its citizens. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front’s demands are political, not theological.
In China, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang is not about religion. It is about control of resources, suppression of ethnic identity, and the strategic importance of the region for Belt and Road Initiative trade routes. The “counterterrorism” framework is a cover for ethnic repression.
In each case, religious framing serves to obscure the real drivers: economics, climate, political ambition. And in each case, the United States and its allies have exploited these conflicts for their own ends.
Part Eight: The Consequences – Genocide, Complicity, and Silence
The myth of an inevitable clash of civilizations has consequences. It allows governments to look away from genocide. It allows leaders to justify war. It allows the powerful to exploit the vulnerable.
The Genocide in Gaza
More than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023. The UN Commission of Inquiry has determined that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the occupation is unlawful.
The Australian government has done nothing. It has not called for sanctions. It has not suspended arms exports. It has not recognized the state of Palestine. It has not even used the word “genocide.”
The myth of inevitable conflict allows this silence. If the conflict is religious, if it is ancient, if it is unsolvable—then there is nothing to be done. The government can look away.
The War on Iran
The war on Iran has killed thousands. It has displaced millions. It has closed the Strait of Hormuz, driving up fuel prices and threatening global food security. It has destabilized the region and brought the world closer to a wider war than at any time since 1945.
The Australian government supports it. Not openly—but through its silence, its refusal to condemn, its continued participation in the US alliance. The myth of the Iranian threat allows this complicity.
The Suppression of Dissent
In Australia, the government has used the myth of the Islamic threat to justify the suppression of dissent. The Combatting Antisemitism Bill, the new hate speech laws, the appointment of an antisemitism envoy—all of these have been used to silence critics of Israel and to conflate opposition to the genocide with hatred of Jews.
Meanwhile, the Muslim community faces rising discrimination. Mosques are vandalized. Women are attacked. Children are bullied. And the government does nothing.
Conclusion: The Palm Print Still Waits
The Achtiname is still in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery. It has survived fires, invasions, and the rise and fall of empires. It is still there, waiting to be remembered.
The palm print of the Prophet Muhammad is not a relic of a lost golden age. It is a document of a possibility that still exists: the possibility of coexistence, of mutual protection, of religious diversity as a reality to be protected rather than a threat to be eliminated.
The myth of inevitable conflict is a tool. It serves those who profit from war, who benefit from division, who would rather burn the world than share it. But it is not the truth. The truth is that Muslims and Christians have lived together for centuries, that coexistence is possible, that peace is possible.
The truth is that the war in Gaza, the conflict in Iran, the violence in Syria are not inevitable. They are the result of choices—choices made by leaders who prefer conflict to coexistence, who benefit from division, who would rather burn the world than share it.
We can choose differently. We can choose to remember the Achtiname. We can choose to honour its promise. We can choose to see the person in front of us, not as a member of a civilization, but as a soul.
The palm print still waits. The choice is ours.
Postscript – I discussed this with my wife. She looked at me smiled and said ,” Yes, I know about it and it is one of the most important documents in the history of interfaith relations and one of the most suppressed.”
Sources
1. St. Catherine’s Monastery Library, “The Achtiname of Muhammad,” MS 43
2. Sotiris Roussos, “The Achtiname: A Document of Coexistence,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 2024
3. Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. 1983.
4. Barkey, Karen. Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. 2008.
5. Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. 2000.
6. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A History. 2005.
7. Dreyfuss, Robert. Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. 2005.
8. Cockburn, Patrick. The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. 2015.
9. Khalidi, Rashid. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. 2020.
10. UN Commission of Inquiry, “Report on the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” September 2025.
11. Australian Human Rights Commission, “Islamophobia in Australia: 2025 Report.”
12. International Court of Justice, “Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” July 2024.
To my wife, whose wisdom and words encourage me to pull aside the dangerous veils of manufactured ignorance.
Introduction: The War That Was Preventable
The US-Israeli war on Iran was preventable. Diplomatic channels were open. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) framework, though damaged, still existed. Iran had repeatedly stated its willingness to return to compliance if sanctions were lifted. Yet the bombs fell, the missiles flew, and the Strait of Hormuz was closed.
How did this happen? How did a war that served no clear strategic purpose become inevitable?
The answer lies not in the war rooms of Tehran or Tel Aviv, but in the newsrooms of New York, London, and Sydney. The war was manufactured—not in the sense of a single conspiracy, but through a system of media filters that shaped what the public could see, hear, and believe.
This article traces the machinery of that manufacture: from the concentration of media ownership in Australia to the Fox News-OpenAI deal that is training artificial intelligence on propaganda; from the decline of the ABC to the silence of the political class. It argues that Australia is being lied to and misled, and that the failure of our political leaders to challenge this system is not an accident—it is a choice.
Part One: The Machinery of Consent – How Propaganda Became Journalism
In 1922, the American journalist Walter Lippmann wrote that the public is not equipped to understand complex world events. The press, he argued, must act as a bridge between the citizen and the world, shaping what the public sees and how it interprets it. But Lippmann also warned that this power could be abused—that the press could become a tool for manufacturing consent rather than informing debate.
Almost seventy years later, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman refined Lippmann’s insight into a systematic model. Their 1988 book, Manufacturing Consent, identified five “filters” through which news passes before it reaches the public:
Filter How It Works Application to the Iran War
Ownership Media outlets are owned by large corporations with diverse business interests Many outlets are part of conglomerates that profit from war industries (defence contracts, oil, AI technology)
Advertising Reliance on advertisers creates implicit boundaries on content Corporate advertisers favour narratives that do not threaten their interests
Sourcing Journalists depend on official government and military sources Coverage of the war has relied overwhelmingly on Israeli and US official statements
Flak Organized pressure to suppress dissenting views Pro-Israel lobby groups have targeted journalists and outlets critical of the war
Enemy ideology the “other” is framed as inherently threatening Iran was presented not as a nation with legitimate grievances, but as an existential threat to be eliminated
These filters are not a conspiracy. They are a structure. And the structure is working exactly as designed.
Part Two: The American Media – Cheerleaders for War
Fox News: Crusades and Collateral
Fox News has been the most explicit in its cheerleading for the war. Hosts have framed the conflict as a “battle for civilization,” invoked the language of crusades, and dismissed civilian casualties as “collateral damage.” One host told viewers that “the only language the Iranians understand is force,” while another described Iranian resistance as “barbaric”.
The network’s parent company, News Corp, signed a $400 million deal with OpenAI in 2024 to license its content for training ChatGPT. This means that Fox’s framing is not just reaching its viewers—it is training the AI that will replace journalism. When Australians ask AI about the war, they will receive answers shaped by a network that has been cheerleading for it.
CNN: The “Serious” Alternative
CNN has positioned itself as the sober alternative to Fox. But its coverage has been shaped by the same constraints: reliance on official sources, reluctance to question the war’s premise, and a framing that treats Israeli and US government statements as authoritative while Palestinian and Iranian voices are presented as “claims” that must be verified. A content analysis of CNN’s first week of Iran war coverage found that Israeli and US officials were quoted more than six times as often as Iranian or Palestinian sources.
The New York Times: Suppression in Plain Sight
The Times has published investigative pieces that have revealed the extent of civilian casualties in Gaza and the role of AI in targeting. But its coverage has been consistently framed through a Western lens, with Palestinian voices appearing as “sources” while Israeli officials are named and quoted at length. The Times has also been implicated in the suppression of reporting that might undermine the war narrative. An internal investigation found that editors killed a story about the civilian death toll from an Israeli airstrike in Gaza after pressure from the paper’s executive editor.
Part Three: The Australian Media – The Murdoch Machine
Australia’s media landscape is one of the most concentrated in the world. News Corp controls approximately 70 percent of print media circulation and has a dominant position in digital news. This concentration means that a single corporation—owned by an American-born billionaire—shapes the information environment for millions of Australians.
The Australian: The Voice of the War Party
The Australian has been the most aggressive in framing the war as a necessary defense of Western civilization. Its coverage has consistently presented the Israeli and US positions as authoritative, while Palestinian and Iranian perspectives are treated as propaganda. Headlines such as “Iran’s Nuclear Threat Must Be Eliminated” and “The West Must Stand Firm” dominate the opinion pages.
The newspaper has also been a platform for figures like former prime minister Tony Abbott, who has called for Australia to “stand with America” and accused the government of “shameful inaction” . Abbott’s columns appear without the caveat that he is a paid contributor to the newspaper’s parent company’s speaking bureau—a conflict of interest never disclosed to readers.
The Herald Sun: Simplification as Propaganda
The Melbourne Herald Sun has pursued a different strategy: simplification. Its front pages have reduced complex geopolitical issues to crude binaries— “us vs them,” “good vs evil,” “civilization vs barbarism.” A March 2026 front page declared “Iran Must Be Stopped” above a photograph of a missile launch, with no context about the history of sanctions, the collapse of the nuclear deal, or the civilian casualties already being inflicted.
This is not journalism. It is propaganda for a readership that has been taught not to question.
Part Four: The ABC – A National Broadcaster Silenced
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation was established by statute to be “the national broadcaster” with a charter requiring it to “provide programming that contributes to a sense of national identity” and “inform and entertain” Australians. Its independence was meant to be guaranteed by its statutory structure.
That independence has been systematically dismantled.
Funding cuts: Between 2014 and 2020, the ABC lost over $800 million in government funding. Staff numbers were cut. Regional offices were closed. Program budgets were slashed.
Board appointments: Successive governments have stacked the ABC board with figures sympathetic to their political interests. Under the Morrison government, the ABC was forced to appoint a new chair, Ita Buttrose, who had a long history of personal friendship with Rupert Murdoch. Under Buttrose, the ABC moved to the right, and management became more responsive to political pressure.
The current chairman, Kim Williams, has attempted to reclaim the ABC’s independence. But the damage is done. A 2025 study found that ABC coverage of the war was significantly more balanced than commercial media but still shaped by the constraints of official sourcing and the fear of being accused of bias. ABC reporters now routinely preface Palestinian testimony with disclaimers that “this cannot be independently verified,” while Israeli military statements are presented as fact.
The ABC no longer lives up to its charter. It does not fearlessly inform. It does not hold power to account. It has become, in effect, a propaganda arm of a government that prefers to manage the news rather than be informed by it.
Part Five: The Fox News-OpenAI Deal – The Future of Propaganda
In 2024, OpenAI signed a five-year deal with News Corp worth approximately $US250 million ($400 million) to use its content to train ChatGPT. The deal gives OpenAI access to current and archived content from major publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, MarketWatch, Barron’s, and News Corp’s Australian mastheads.
The consequences:
· When Australians ask AI about news, they get News Corp sources
· Other publishers are blocked from AI training or lack deals
· The flow of information is distorted toward one editorial viewpoint
Academics have warned that ChatGPT drawing information “solely from news sources with strong editorial leanings” could have a “worrying effect on Australia’s already concentrated news ecosystem”. As one expert noted, “If ChatGPT is only getting those sources, we’re coming up to an election and there’s an editorial guideline to direct the news and stories in one way, then we’ve got real problems”.
This is not just about the current war. It is about all wars. When AI is trained on propaganda, it does not produce neutral summaries—it amplifies the propaganda. And when the AI is controlled by the same corporations that own the media, there is no counterbalance.
Part Six: The Decline of Critical Thinking – And the Political Class That Enables It
The concentration of media ownership has been accompanied by a deliberate strategy of thought shaping. The goal is not to inform—it is to control. To create a population that is passive, receptive to authority, and incapable of questioning the narratives they are fed.
This strategy has been successful. A 2025 survey found that Australians who consume News Corp media are significantly more likely to support the war, to believe that the government is doing enough, and to dismiss civilian casualties as “unavoidable”. They are also less likely to know basic facts about the conflict, such as the number of civilians killed or the history of US-Israeli relations with Iran.
The political class enables this. It does not challenge the media concentration. It does not fund independent journalism. It does not require algorithmic transparency from AI companies. It does not speak out against the propaganda that is shaping public opinion.
Consider the silence of our leaders:
· Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has appeared on The Australian’s podcast multiple times, praising the newspaper’s “important role in public debate” while refusing to answer questions about its editorial bias.
· Foreign Minister Penny Wong has given exclusive interviews to The Australian to announce policy shifts, ensuring the newspaper frames the narrative before other outlets can fact-check.
· Former Opposition Leader Peter Dutton had called for the ABC to be defunded, and regularly gives exclusives to Sky News Australia, a News Corp outlet that has described the Iran war as “God’s will”.
· Senator Pauline Hanson has used her platform in The Australian to call for a ban on Muslim immigration, citing the war as evidence of an “existential threat”. The newspaper did not fact-check her claims or challenge her assumptions.
When the political class uses the propaganda machine to advance its own interests, it is not a passive victim of media concentration. It is an active participant.
Part Seven: The Dangers of a Thoughtless Population
A population that cannot think critically is a population that can be led to war, to bigotry, to racism, to the scapegoating of the most vulnerable.
The war: The Australian people were told that Iran was an existential threat. They were not told that the US had withdrawn from the JCPOA in 2018, that Iran had complied with the agreement until that point, that the “months away” narrative had been repeated since 1992 without ever materializing. They were told to support the war, and they did.
The bigotry: The Australian people were told that the pro-Palestinian protesters were antisemitic. They were not told that many Jewish Australians oppose the war, that the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, that the protesters were grieving families, not extremists. They were told to condemn, and they did.
The scapegoating: The Australian people were told that the cost of living crisis was caused by global factors beyond anyone’s control. They were not told that price gouging is legal, that the government has refused to introduce windfall taxes, that the same corporations profiting from the war are donating to both major parties. They were told to accept, and they did.
This is what happens when critical thinking is denied. The population becomes passive, receptive, obedient.
Part Eight: What We Do About It
We are already doing it.
We write. We publish. We tell the truth. We do not rely on the ABC or the Herald Sun or any of the outlets that have abandoned their duty. We build our own platforms. We create our own networks. We reach people directly.
When the AI is trained on News Corp, we train it on truth. When the newspapers are bought, we write our own. When the broadcasters are silenced, we speak.
This is not a media strategy. It is a resistance.
We do not wait for the government to break up News Corp. We do not wait for the ABC to find its courage. We do not wait for the political class to find its voice. We build our own voice. We speak our own truth. We create the media we need to see.
Conclusion: The Choice Before Us
The war with Iran was preventable. But it was not prevented because the media—the fourth estate, the supposed guardian of democracy—abdicated its duty. It became a tool of propaganda, a manufacturer of consent, a cheerleader for destruction.
Australia is being lied to. Its media is controlled by a foreign-born billionaire who has a direct financial interest in the war. Its national broadcaster has been silenced. Its political class is silent. And its people are being taught not to think.
We have a choice. We can continue to consume the propaganda, to accept the narratives, to let our thinking be done for us. Or we can wake up. We can question. We can seek out the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it is.
The truth is not complicated. The war was preventable. The media manufactured consent for it. And we were complicit—until we chose to see.
Let us choose to see.
Sources
1. Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. 1922.
2. Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. 1988.
3. The Guardian, “Fox News host calls Iran war ‘battle for civilization’,” March 2026.
4. ABC News, “OpenAI signs $400 million deal with News Corp,” May 2024.
5. Media Watch, “CNN’s Iran coverage: A content analysis,” March 2026.
6. The Intercept, “New York Times suppressed reporting on Gaza civilian deaths,” February 2026.
7. Australian Communications and Media Authority, “Media ownership in Australia,” 2025.
8. The Australian, “Iran’s nuclear threat must be eliminated,” March 2026.
9. Herald Sun, front page, March 2, 2026.
10. Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (Cth), s. 6.
11. Senate Estimates, “ABC funding cuts,” 2020.
12. The Monthly, “The ABC’s long decline,” August 2025.
13. University of Technology Sydney, “ABC coverage of the Iran war: A content analysis,” 2025.
14. The Conversation, “The News Corp-OpenAI deal and the future of Australian news,” May 2024.
15. Australia Institute, “Public opinion and the Iran war,” March 2026.
16. The Australian, “Albanese defends media role,” February 2026.
17. Sky News Australia, “Dutton calls for ABC defunding,” March 2026.
18. The Australian, “Hanson: Ban Muslim immigration,” March 2026.
The Patrician's Watch 