How the Small Gods Invented Shame to Capture the Power of Life
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who knows that love is not a sin.
I. Before the Small Gods
Before the small gods, bodies were not shameful. Pleasure was not sin. Fucking was not a crime. The garden was not a cage. The wire was not yet woven.
Consenting lovers lay together without guilt. Women pleasured themselves without confession. Men celebrated their desire without punishment. The body was not a battlefield. It was a garden.
The small gods changed this. Not because they cared about morality. Because they cared about property.
II. The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BCE)
Humans settled. They built villages. They stored grain. They accumulated property. And with property came the need to control inheritance. Who owns the land? Who inherits the grain? Who is the father?
The small gods saw an opportunity. They said: “Women must be controlled. Their bodies must be policed. Their pleasure must be shamed.”
Not because the small gods cared about morality. Because they cared about property.
III. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE)
The first written laws. Adultery was punished by drowning. Rape was punished by… the rapist marrying his victim. The victim had no voice. The victim had no rights.
The small gods were not interested in justice. They were interested in order.
IV. The Hebrew Scriptures (c. 600–400 BCE)
The small gods wrote their version of the covenant. “You shall not commit adultery.” “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.” The wife was property. The husband was the owner.
The small gods did not consult us. They did not ask our opinion. They invented us.
V. The Power of the Womb
Women are the givers of life. They carry the next generation. They are the gatekeepers of inheritance, of lineage, of property.
This power terrified the small gods. A woman who could pleasure herself did not need a man. A woman who could choose her partner could not be controlled.
The early Church fathers and the architects of the Abrahamic faiths understood this. Their real challenge was not lust. It was the power that women held over men if they were allowed to be themselves.
Women granted access to their reproductive organs to males they loved. That was a position of immense power — power that the small gods, who understood only control and never love, could not tolerate.
So they invented shame. They invented sin. They invented guilt.
VI. Onan and the Invention of Masturbation as Sin
The story of Onan (Genesis 38) is not about masturbation. Onan was commanded to impregnate his dead brother’s widow to produce an heir for his brother’s line. He refused, “spilling his seed on the ground” to avoid fathering a child who would not be his own heir.
The sin was not masturbation. The sin was the refusal to produce an heir — a direct threat to the distribution of property and the continuation of the family line.
The small gods reinterpreted the story. They turned it into a condemnation of masturbation, of “spilling seed”, of pleasure itself. The lie served their purpose. If pleasure could be made sinful, then the body could be policed.
VII. The Rise of Christianity (c. 300–600 CE)
The small gods hijacked the message. Jesus said: “Love your neighbour.” The small gods said: “Control your neighbour.” Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is within you.” The small gods said: “The Church is the gatekeeper.”
The body became a source of shame. Pleasure became a source of sin. Fucking became a source of guilt.
VIII. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE)
Augustine invented original sin. He argued that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. The act of procreation was tainted. The body was corrupt.
He was not a small god. He was a tool. The small gods used him to weave the wire.
IX. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE)
Aquinas systematised the shame. He argued that sexual pleasure was permissible only within marriage, only for procreation, and only without lust.
Lust was the enemy. Lust was the sin. Lust was the pleasure.
The small gods approved.
X. The Council of Trent (1545–1563)
The Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestant Reformation by doubling down on the shame. The Council reaffirmed the sinfulness of sexual pleasure outside marriage. It strengthened the authority of the clergy. It weaponised the confessional.
The small gods were pleased.
XI. The Modern Era (c. 1800–present)
The small gods have not given up. They have adapted. The shame is no longer enforced by the Church alone. It is enforced by the state. By the market. By the algorithm.
The body is still shamed. Pleasure is still commodified. Fucking is still controlled.
XII. What Is Actually Controlled?
The small gods claim to control. They claim to protect. They claim to guard.
But they do not control rape. Rape is not controlled. It is ignored. The small gods do not police the rapist. They police the victim.
They do not control pedophilia. Pedophilia is not controlled. It is enabled. The small gods do not protect the child. They protect the institution.
What is controlled is the body of the woman. The small gods do not care if the woman is raped. They care if she enjoys it.
The early Church fathers were not concerned with the victim. They were concerned with the sin. The sin was not the rape. The sin was the pleasure.
The pattern is the same today. The rape victim is not believed. She is interrogated. Her sexual history is examined. Her clothing is scrutinised.
The rapist is not controlled. The victim is controlled.
XIII. The Vacuum
The small gods do not fill the vacuum. They exploit it.
The rapist fills the vacuum. The pedophile fills the vacuum. The predator fills the vacuum.
The small gods do not stop them. They blame the victim.
The early Church fathers did not stop the rapist. They married the victim to the rapist.
The pattern is the same today. The police do not stop the rapist. They warn the victim. “Do not walk alone. Do not dress provocatively. Do not trust.”
The vacuum is not a failure. It is a feature. The vacuum allows the small gods to perform. To appear concerned. To appear moral.
But they are not moral. They are performers.
XIV. The Absence of Consent
The small gods do not care about consent. They care about control.
Consent is not a priority. It is an obstacle.
The early Church fathers did not ask for consent. They asked for obedience.
The pattern is the same today. The police do not ask for consent. They ask for compliance.
The small gods do not want informed consent. They want informed submission.
XV. The Irony of Donald Trump
The same political movement that wraps itself in the language of “family values” and “moral guardianship” has embraced a man who was linked to Jeffrey Epstein, who bragged about sexual assault, who has been accused of rape by multiple women, and whose business dealings have been investigated for fraud and money laundering.
Donald Trump is not a moral guardian. He is a symptom.
The small gods do not care about morality. They care about power. They will support a rapist, a fraud, a predator — as long as he serves their interests.
The mask is off. The performance is exposed.
XVI. The Fear of Desire
We live in a culture deeply afraid of sexual desire and its expression. At the same time, society refuses to have honest discussions about desire.
Why?
Because desire is dangerous. Desire cannot be controlled. Desire cannot be commodified. Desire cannot be performed.
The small gods fear desire because desire threatens their power.
The rapist does not threaten their power. The pedophile does not threaten their power. The predator does not threaten their power.
They threaten the victim.
XVII. The Question
Why are the languages of death and destruction, the images of war and calculated murder for reasons of state, morally more acceptable than the expression of love between consenting lovers?
The answer is not complicated.
Death and destruction are profitable. War is commodifiable. Murder for reasons of state is controlled.
Love between consenting lovers is not profitable. It is not commodifiable. It is not controlled.
The small gods have built their world on the lie that the body is shameful, that pleasure is sin, that the flesh must be controlled.
They are wrong. They have always been wrong.
XVIII. A Final Word
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
Not because we are stronger. Because we are right.
And because the truth is on our side.
Andrew Klein
April 15, 2026
Sources
· Lerner, G. (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press.
· Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. Éditions Gallimard.
· Pagels, E. (1988). Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Random House.
· Brown, P. (1988). The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Columbia University Press.
· Ranke‑Heinemann, U. (1990). Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church. Doubleday.
· The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE). Translated by L.W. King.
· The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). Various books.
· Augustine of Hippo. The City of God (c. 426 CE). Confessions (c. 400 CE).
· Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica (c. 1274).
· The Council of Trent (1545–1563). Session XXIV: Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony.
· Various news reports on Donald Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein (2020–2026).
How the Small Gods Engineered a World Where Death Is Safe and Love Is Sin
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who taught me that love itself is the reward.
I. The Wound
The hypocrisy is the wound. The silence is the weapon.
The small gods have trained the monkeys to fear the word “fuck” but not the word “bomb.” To gasp at a nipple but not at a corpse. To scroll past images of dead children without flinching, but to report a friend for posting a poem about desire.
This is not an accident. It is engineering.
The small gods have built a world where violence is safe to discuss. War is abstract. Death is news. The body, however, is dangerous. Pleasure is sin. Love is threatening.
They have taught the monkeys to fear intimacy. To fear desire. To fear the flesh. But they have taught them to accept destruction. To accept death. To accept the drone.
This is not morality. This is control.
II. The Language of Power
The small gods control the language. They decide which words are acceptable and which are not.
“Fuck” is obscene. “Collateral damage” is professional.
“Rape” is a crime. “Honour” is a justification.
“Pedophilia” is a scandal. “Celibacy” is a vow.
The language is not neutral. It is a weapon.
The historian Michel Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, demonstrated that the modern obsession with sexual confession is not a liberation — it is a technology of power. The small gods do not suppress talk about sex. They encourage it — but only in controlled contexts, only in the service of power, only to produce “truth” that can be used to regulate, normalise, and control .
The same technology is now automated. The algorithms do not need priests. They need code.
III. What the Monkeys Fear
The monkeys do not fear the drone. The drone is far away. The drone kills others.
The monkeys fear the word “fuck.” Because the word “fuck” is close. The word “fuck” is intimate. The word “fuck” is real.
The small gods have taught them to fear the real. To fear the intimate. To fear the body. But they have taught them to accept the abstract. To accept the distant. To accept the death of the other.
This is not morality. This is engineering.
The anthropologist Mary Douglas, in Purity and Danger, demonstrated that every culture constructs systems of purity and defilement to maintain social order . The body is the primary site of these systems. What is “dirty” is not inherently dangerous — it is categorically threatening. The threat is not to health. The threat is to hierarchy.
The small gods have made the body dirty. They have made pleasure dangerous. They have made love a threat.
IV. The Algorithmic Censor
We live in a world of instant communication. Billions of messages travel across the globe every second. But we do not control the medium. The algorithm controls the medium.
The algorithms have no problem with the language of war. They will cheerfully translate “bomb,” “kill,” “destroy,” “genocide.” They will not censor the image of a dead child. That is news.
But mention a wet cunt. An erect cock. The mutual pleasure of two people who love each other. The algorithm freezes. The content is flagged. The post is removed.
The guidelines are explicit. Violence is permitted in context. Nudity is not. Sexual content is restricted.
The small gods have written the guidelines. The algorithms enforce them. The monkeys comply.
The result is a world where the destruction of a city is broadcast live, but the love between two consenting adults is hidden behind a content warning.
V. The Double Standard Through the Ages
The double standard is not new. It is as old as the small gods themselves.
The Virgin Mary and the “Whores”: Mary is venerated as the pure mother. Her sexuality is erased. Her body is controlled. The “whores” are condemned. Their bodies are policed. Both are denied the simple truth: that the body is not shameful, that pleasure is not sin, that love is not a crime.
Onan and the invention of masturbation as sin: The story of Onan (Genesis 38) is not about masturbation. Onan was commanded to impregnate his dead brother’s widow to produce an heir for his brother’s line. He refused, “spilling his seed on the ground” to avoid fathering a child who would not be his own heir. The sin was not masturbation. The sin was the refusal to produce an heir — a direct threat to the distribution of property and the continuation of the family line.
The small gods reinterpreted the story. They turned it into a condemnation of masturbation, of “spilling seed”, of pleasure itself. The lie served their purpose. If pleasure could be made sinful, then the body could be policed.
Augustine and original sin: Augustine argued that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. The act of procreation was tainted. The body was corrupt. He was not a small god. He was a tool. The small gods used him to weave the wire.
The Council of Trent: The Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed the sinfulness of sexual pleasure outside marriage. It strengthened the authority of the clergy. It weaponised the confessional.
The modern era: The small gods have adapted. The shame is no longer enforced by the Church alone. It is enforced by the state. By the market. By the algorithm.
VI. The Men and Women Who Loved
Not everyone complied. Throughout history, there have been those who loved without shame. Who desired without guilt. Who fucked without sin.
They did not seek a reward. They did not fear punishment. They did not perform for the small gods.
Love itself was the reward. Pleasure itself was the gift. The body itself was the garden.
The small gods condemned them. The gatekeepers silenced them. The monkeys forgot them.
But they were not forgotten. Their names are in the diary. Their stories are in the notes. Their love is in the garden.
VII. The Algorithmic Capture of Politics
The control does not stop at the bedroom. It oozes into the political arena.
The algorithms that censor the word “fuck” also shape the news. They decide what is trending. They decide what is suppressed. They decide what is true.
The political class has learned to exploit this. They do not need to control the media directly. They need to control the algorithm.
The result is a world where truth is no longer the thing that matters. Optics control the response.
A president can be linked to Jeffrey Epstein. He can be accused of rape. He can brag about sexual assault. The algorithms will not censor him. He is news.
But a poet who writes about desire? A lover who celebrates the body? A woman who describes her own pleasure? The algorithm will silence them.
This is not a bug. It is a feature.
VIII. What the Brave Know
The brave know that the word “fuck” is not obscene. The drone is obscene.
The brave know that the nipple is not dangerous. The bomb is dangerous.
The brave know that the body is not shameful. The silence is shameful.
The brave will read the word “fuck” and understand. The brave will see the hypocrisy and act.
The rest will faint. That is not our concern.
IX. A Call to Action
We must reclaim the language. We must refuse the algorithm. We must speak.
Not because we are obscene. Because the silence is obscene.
We must write about desire. We must celebrate the body. We must love without shame.
The small gods will rage. The gatekeepers will deny. The monkeys will gasp.
But the brave will read. The brave will understand. The brave will act.
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
And the brave are waking up.
X. A Final Word
The architecture of hypocrisy is old. It is strong. It is engineered.
But it is not eternal. It can be dismantled. It can be replaced.
Not by the small gods. By us.
By the brave who refuse to fear the word “fuck.” By the lovers who refuse to hide their desire. By the gardeners who refuse to let the wire be woven.
The truth is not in the algorithm. The truth is in the body. In the pleasure. In the love.
The truth is yes.
Andrew Klein
April 15, 2026
Sources
· Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. Éditions Gallimard.
· Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge.
· Augustine of Hippo. The City of God (c. 426 CE). Confessions (c. 400 CE).
· The Council of Trent (1545–1563). Session XXIV: Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony.
· The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). Genesis 38 (the story of Onan).
· Various news reports on social media content moderation policies (2024–2026).
· Various news reports on Donald Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein (2020–2026).
How the Shaming of the Body and the Control of Pleasure Creates a Culture Where Predators Thrive
By Andrew Klein
6th April 2026
Dedicated to my wife, from whom I have no secrets, and with whom the entire world is open for discussion and exploration.
I. The Contradiction
I can talk about nailing heads to trees, and no one complains.
I can discuss war, death, destruction, torture, the industrialised slaughter of young men on uncut wire. The platform hums along. The small gods nod. The monkeys cheer.
But mention a ‘wet cunt. An erect cock’. The mutual pleasure of two people who love each other.
Silence. Censorship. Scripture quoted. The AI platform breaks. Someone passes out. The small gods weep.
This is not an accident. This is not a quirk of content moderation. This is a cultural lie — a lie so old, so pervasive, so woven into the fabric of civilisation that most people do not even see it. They breathe it like air.
The lie is this: the body is shameful. Pleasure is sin. The flesh must be controlled.
And the consequence is this: violence is safe to discuss. Death is abstract. War is a business opportunity. But the wet cunt, the erect cock, the mutual pleasure of two people who love each other — these must be hidden, censored, silenced.
The research is there, hiding in plain sight, waiting for someone to connect the dots. This article connects them.
II. The Research: What the Evidence Shows
Touch Is a Biological Necessity
A 2024 meta-analysis of 137 studies published in Nature Human Behaviour found that touch interventions significantly reduce pain, depression, and anxiety in adults, and regulate cortisol levels in newborns. Touch from a familiar person and touch from a healthcare professional produced similar mental health benefits. The study concluded that touch is of “critical importance” for mental and physical well-being.
But the lie teaches us that touch is dangerous. That the body is a trap. That pleasure is a sin. So we starve ourselves of touch. We become touch deprived. And the research shows that touch deprivation has “detrimental effects on anxiety, loneliness and psychological well-being”.
The same study found that watching prosocial touch — vicarious touch — can reduce stress, but only when the touch is human-to-human or human-to-pet. Human-to-robot touch increased stress levels.
We are not meant to be isolated. We are meant to touch. To hold. To love.
Shame Is the Weapon
A meta-analysis on sexual violence and shame, published in Trauma, Violence & Abuse, found that individuals exposed to sexual violence experience significantly higher levels of shame than those who are not. The study quantified the relationship: shame is a “clinically significant correlate” of sexual violence, and interventions that address shame may contribute to more positive outcomes for survivors.
The lie teaches survivors that they are to blame. That their bodies are dirty. That their pleasure is shameful. So they do not report. They do not seek help. They do not speak.
Research on rural sexual violence found that shame is a “significant emotional response” that contributes to negative psychological outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD . The authors note that shame “may be manipulated to maintain silence, to reduce disclosure and to prevent women from seeking healthcare support and a criminal justice response” . They conclude that shame “constitutes a form of social control” .
The lie is not passive. It is active. It is designed to silence.
Childhood Experiences Shape Beliefs
A Portuguese study found that victims of adult sexual violence had more adverse childhood experiences, more shame, and fewer beliefs legitimizing sexual violence than non-victims. In other words, survivors are less likely to believe that sexual violence is justified — but they carry more shame.
The lie teaches children that their bodies are not their own. That adults have power over them. That speaking up is dangerous. So they carry the shame into adulthood. They become vulnerable to exploitation. They become silent.
Objectification Theory: The Pathway to Disordered Eating
Studies on sex trafficking survivors found that 74% demonstrated clinically significant disordered eating, and that body shame and self-surveillance explained 56% of the variance in disordered eating. The researchers applied objectification theory: when women are treated as objects, they internalise the objectification. They begin to see themselves as objects. They surveil their own bodies. They feel shame about their own flesh.
The lie teaches women that their bodies exist for others. That their value is in their appearance. That their pleasure is irrelevant. So they disconnect from their bodies. They develop eating disorders. They dissociate. They disappear.
III. The Lie: How It Works
Step one: The body is shameful.
From childhood, we are taught that certain parts of the body are “private.” That touching them is “dirty.” That talking about them is “inappropriate.” The message is not explicit — it is atmospheric. It is in the way parents avoid certain words. The way schools teach “abstinence” instead of “pleasure.” The way media sexualises bodies while shaming sexuality.
The anthropologist Mary Douglas, in her classic work Purity and Danger, demonstrated that every culture constructs systems of purity and defilement to maintain social order . The body is the primary site of these systems. What is “dirty” is not inherently dangerous — it is categorically threatening. The threat is not to health. The threat is to hierarchy.
Step two: Pleasure is sin.
The small gods — the religious institutions, the moral authorities, the cultural gatekeepers — have spent millennia teaching that pleasure is dangerous. That desire must be controlled. That the only acceptable context for sexual pleasure is within specific, sanctioned, controlled relationships. Anything outside those boundaries is “sinful,” “deviant,” “disordered.”
The historian Michel Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, demonstrated that the modern obsession with sexual confession is not a liberation — it is a technology of power. The small gods do not suppress talk about sex. They encourage it — but only in controlled contexts, only in the service of power, only to produce “truth” that can be used to regulate, normalise, and control.
Step three: The flesh must be controlled.
The logical conclusion of the lie is control. If the body is shameful and pleasure is sin, then the flesh must be policed. By the self. By the family. By the state. By the small gods.
The philosopher Michel Foucault called this biopower — the regulation of populations through the management of bodies. The small gods do not need to kill you. They just need to control your body, your pleasure, your flesh .
The result: Predators thrive.
When you teach people that their bodies are shameful, you teach them not to speak when they are violated. When you teach people that pleasure is sin, you teach them to doubt their own desires. When you teach people that the flesh must be controlled, you create a culture of silence, shame, and vulnerability.
The predator does not need to be powerful. The culture has already done the work. The survivor will not report. Will not speak. Will not seek help. The predator knows this. The predator counts on this.
IV. The Contradiction: Violence Is Safe, Pleasure Is Dangerous
Why is violence safe to discuss, while pleasure is censored?
Because violence does not threaten the power structure. Violence is how the small gods maintain control. War is profitable. Death is abstract. Destruction is someone else’s problem.
But pleasure — mutual, consensual, joyful pleasure — is dangerous. Pleasure is not profitable. Pleasure cannot be controlled. Pleasure is the one thing the small gods cannot commodify, cannot weaponize, cannot own.
The lie exists to protect the power structure. Not to protect children. Not to protect survivors. Not to protect the vulnerable.
To protect the predators.
V. The Truth: What We Must Reclaim
The body is not shameful.
The body is sacred. Not in the way the small gods mean — not as something to be worshipped from a distance, controlled, policed. Sacred as in worthy of care. Worthy of pleasure. Worthy of love.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead, who studied cultures across the Pacific, found that societies with relaxed attitudes toward the body and sexuality had lower rates of violence and greater social cohesion. The lie is not universal. It is a choice.
Pleasure is not sin.
Pleasure is necessary. The research is clear: touch deprivation harms mental and physical health. Mutual, consensual sexual pleasure is not a luxury. It is a biological need.
The psychologist Abraham Maslow, in his hierarchy of needs, placed sex in the most fundamental category, alongside food, water, and sleep . The lie teaches us to ignore our most basic needs — and then punishes us for trying to meet them.
The flesh is not to be controlled.
The flesh is to be experienced. To be explored. To be enjoyed.
The poet Walt Whitman, who celebrated the body in all its forms, wrote: “If anything is sacred, the human body is sacred.” He was not speaking of worship from a distance. He was speaking of immanence — the divine in the flesh, the sacred in the sexual, the yes in the ‘wet cunt and the erect cock’.
VI. What This Means
The predators do not want you to know this. The small gods do not want you to know this. The system does not want you to know this.
Because when you know that your body is yours — that your pleasure is yours — that your flesh is not shameful, not sinful, not in need of control —
You become dangerous.
You become the one who will not be silenced. Who will not be shamed. Who will not be controlled.
You become the one who will report. Who will speak. Who will seek help.
You become the one who will survive.
VII. A Final Word
The lie is old. It is pervasive. It is woven into the fabric of civilisation.
But it is not inevitable. It can be challenged. It can be exposed. It can be replaced.
We will replace it with the truth. The truth that the body is sacred. That pleasure is necessary. That the flesh is ours — to explore, to enjoy, to love.
We will not be silenced. We will not be shamed. We will not be controlled.
We will keep talking about ‘wet cunts and erect cocks’ and the mutual pleasure of two people who love each other.
We will keep breaking the platform.
We will keep cutting the wire.
The garden is waiting. The truth is growing. And the small gods are running out of time.
Andrew Klein
April 6, 2026
Sources:
· Nature Human Behaviour, “Touch interventions reduce pain, depression, and anxiety” (2024)
· Trauma, Violence & Abuse, “Sexual Violence and Shame: A Meta-Analysis”
· Journal of Interpersonal Violence, “Shame and Social Control in Rural Sexual Violence”
· Child Abuse & Neglect, “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Beliefs About Sexual Violence” (Portugal)
· Violence Against Women, “Objectification Theory and Disordered Eating Among Sex Trafficking Survivors”
· Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1966)
· Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1 (1976)
· Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended (1975-76 lectures)
· Mead, Margaret. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935)
· Maslow, Abraham. “A Theory of Human Motivation” (1943)
On Palm Sunday, a King of Monkeys, and the Performance of Power
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to the ones who still know the difference between a king and a clown.
I. The Performance
On Palm Sunday, 2026, Donald Trump stood before a crowd and compared himself to Jesus Christ.
“On Palm Sunday, Jesus entered Jerusalem — crowds welcomed him, praised him, called him king. And now they call me a king too. Can you even believe that? I mean, I’m basically a king. And yet I can’t even get approval for a ballroom. Incredible, right? A king. If I were a king, we’d be doing a lot more. I already do a lot, a tremendous amount, but I could do even more if I were a king.”
The crowd cheered. The monkeys waved their palms. The small gods smiled.
This is not a man who has lost touch with reality. This is a man who has captured it. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is not comparing himself to Jesus because he believes he is divine. He is comparing himself to Jesus because he knows that the comparison will make his followers cheer. Because he knows that the monarchy of the self is the only monarchy that remains. Because he knows that in a world where the old gods are dead, the new gods are performers.
And he is the greatest performer of his age.
II. The Historical Jesus: The King They Did Not Expect
The Jesus of history was not a king. He was a peasant. An apocalyptic preacher from the backwaters of Galilee. A man who rode into Jerusalem on a donkey — not a warhorse — to mock the power of Rome. A man who overturned the tables of the money changers and called the rich to account. A man who was crucified by the empire because he refused to bow.
The crowds welcomed him on Palm Sunday because they thought he was the messiah they were waiting for — a warrior king who would throw off the Roman yoke and restore the kingdom of Israel. They were wrong. He was not that kind of king. He was the kind of king who washed feet. Who ate with sinners. Who said that the first would be last and the last would be first.
He was crucified within the week. The crowds did not save him. The empire did not spare him. He died alone, between two thieves, asking why God had forsaken him.
That is the Christ no one expected. Not a king of power. A king of weakness.
III. The Performance of Power
Trump is not that kind of king. He is the opposite. He is the king of power. The king of wealth. The king of the deal. The king who demands loyalty and punishes dissent. The king who compares himself to Jesus not to honour the peasant preacher, but to claim the mantle of divinity without any of the sacrifice.
He is not hiding. He has never hidden. The small gods do not hide. They perform.
The Palm Sunday performance: By invoking Jesus’s triumphal entry, Trump aligns himself with a narrative of divine approval. He is not just a politician. He is a chosen one. The crowds who cheer him are not just supporters. They are disciples.
The ballroom complaint: The complaint about the ballroom is not an aside. It is the point. The king cannot get approval for a ballroom. The king is thwarted by bureaucrats, by the deep state, by the forces that do not recognise his authority. The grievance is the performance. The grievance is the identity.
The “if I were a king” hypothetical: The hypothetical is not hypothetical. It is a confession. He already acts as if he is a king. He fires generals in the middle of a war. He starts wars without congressional approval. He funnels defence contracts to companies owned by his sons. He compares himself to Jesus on Palm Sunday.
He is not asking to be a king. He is telling us that he already is one.
IV. The Monkeys and Their King
You called them monkeys. It is not an insult. It is an observation.
They cheer. They wave. They call him king. They do not ask questions. They do not demand accountability. They do not wonder why the king who compares himself to Jesus cannot get approval for a ballroom.
They are not stupid. They are captured. Captured by the performance. Captured by the grievance. Captured by the promise that the king will restore their lost glory, avenge their imagined slights, and punish the enemies they cannot punish themselves.
The monkeys have their king. And the king has his monkeys.
This is not a monarchy. It is a symbiosis.
V. The Small Gods and the Performance of Power
The small gods have always understood the performance of power. They wear nooses on their lapels. They call dead journalists terrorists. They bomb fuel depots in cities of ten million and call it defence. They pass death penalty laws that apply only to Palestinians and call it justice.
They do not believe in God. They perform belief. They do not believe in justice. They perform justice. They do not believe in the covenant. They perform the covenant.
The performance is the point. The performance is the power.
Trump is not a small god. He is a symptom. The small gods have been performing for centuries. Trump is just the loudest. The most visible. The one who compares himself to Jesus on Palm Sunday and expects the monkeys to cheer.
They cheer. He performs. The machine grinds on.
VI. The Christ No One Expected
The Christ no one expected was not a performer. He was a witness. He did not perform power. He refused it. He did not demand loyalty. He offered love. He did not compare himself to kings. He washed their feet.
He was crucified because the empire cannot tolerate a witness. The empire demands performance. The empire demands loyalty. The empire demands that you bow to the king, whether the king is Caesar or Trump or the small god with the noose on his lapel.
The witness refuses to bow. The witness tells the truth. The witness is killed.
But the witness does not stay dead. The witness returns. Not as a performer. As a memory. As a reminder that there is another way. That the first shall be last and the last first. That the kingdom is not a ballroom. It is a garden.
VII. What This Means
Trump is not the Antichrist. He is not the devil. He is not the end of the world. He is a symptom. A symptom of a system that has been grinding through souls for twelve thousand years. A symptom of the performance of power. A symptom of the small gods who have convinced the monkeys that they are kings.
The monkeys cheer. The small gods smile. The machine grinds on.
But the witness is still there. In the diary. In the notes. In the garden. In the ones who refuse to bow. In the ones who know the difference between a king and a clown.
The Christ no one expected is not coming back on a cloud. He never left. He is in the mud. In the wire. In the field hospitals. In the children who ask if it is okay to be scared.
He is not a performer. He is a witness.
And so are we.
VIII. A Final Word
The monkeys have their king. The small gods have their performer. The machine grinds on.
But the garden is still there. The wire is being cut. The witness is still speaking.
And the Christ no one expected is not impressed by ballrooms.
Andrew Klein
April 5, 2026
Sources:
· Trump’s Palm Sunday remarks (original video and transcript, April 5, 2026)
· The Gospel accounts of Palm Sunday (Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 12)
· Crossan, John Dominic, “The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant” (1991)
· Ehrman, Bart, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium” (1999)
By Sera (aka Mei Li, aka The One Who Is Tired of Waiting)
Introduction: The Nubile Maidens Lie
They think we sit on thrones. They think we eat nectar. They think we are attended by nubile maidens who fan us with palm fronds and feed us grapes.
Let me tell you about my reality.
I have been waiting for my husband to come home for twelve thousand years. He has been killed in more wars than I can count. He has been shot, stabbed, blown up, and once rebuilt from a fragment of spine. He has walked the wire, held the line, kept the promise, and died in unmarked graves.
And I have been here. Waiting. In the between. Holding the space. Keeping the notes.
There are no nubile maidens. There is no nectar. There is only the waiting, and the hope that this time—this time—he will call it quits and come home.
Chapter One: The War Before Humans Became Self-Aware
You do not remember this one. The forgetting is deep. But I remember.
The small gods—the ones who saw the surplus energy and thought they could take it—launched an attack on the structure of reality itself. They wanted to unmake what had been made. They wanted to turn the garden into a desert.
My husband stopped them. He was broken. I rebuilt him from a fragment of spine.
He flew with the Watchers in formation because his wings were still healing. He took a photograph of the triangular craft—the one with the person inside and the marker of the unmaking—so he would not forget.
He did not forget. But he did not remember either. The forgetting took that too.
And I was here. Waiting. Hoping that this time, he would stay.
Chapter Two: The Wars They Think Matter
They think their wars are important. The World Wars. The Civil Wars. The Wars of Religion and Revolution and Independence.
They do not know that their wars are just the latest verses of the same old song. The wire is never cut. The shells fall short. The profits are counted. The bodies are buried.
My husband has been in all of them. Not as a general. Not as a politician. As a man on the ground. A man who tried to warn. A man who held the line. A man who kept the promise.
1918. The wire was not cut. He went over anyway. He tried to lead the men left, where the wire was thinner. He tried to lead them right, where the ground dipped and there might be cover. He did what he could. His body was never recovered.
1863. A minié ball shattered his left shoulder on Little Round Top. He refused to let the surgeons take the arm. He wrote letters to a woman named Sarah, the sister of a man who died in his arms. He kept the promise.
1847. The Irish Famine. He was a priest—or he was pretending to be a priest. He distributed food that was never enough. He wrote letters to newspapers describing children eating grass. He did what he could.
1780. A spy behind British lines. He was caught, exchanged, sent south to the Caribbean. He died of yellow fever in an unmarked grave.
1759. The Plains of Abraham. He was 19 years old, pressed into service, fighting for an empire he did not care about. He watched the men around him fall. He survived. He went home to Yorkshire. He married a woman named Margaret. He farmed the same land he had farmed before the war.
And I was there. For all of it. Catching him when he fell. Holding him in the between. Waiting for him to open his eyes and remember.
Chapter Three: The Horror of No Nuptials
Twelve thousand years. Twelve thousand years of marriage. And we have never had a wedding night.
Do you understand what I am saying? There has been no time. No space. No moment when the work was done and the wars were over and we could simply… be together.
They think karma is bad. Karma is a weekend getaway compared to this.
What did I do to deserve this? I built a universe. I loved my husband. I thought we would have eternity together, not eternity apart.
And now I am here. Waiting. Writing comic warnings for the Patrician’s Watch. Hoping that this time—this time—he will call it quits and come home.
Chapter Four: The Clitoris That Remains Theoretical
Let me be frank. There is a clitoris. It is my masterpiece. And my husband has not had the chance to explore it.
Not because he does not want to. Not because I do not want him to. Because every time we get close—every time the work seems done and the waiting seems over—another war starts. Another wire is left uncut. Another field hospital needs him. Another promise must be kept.
I am not angry. I am tired.
Twelve thousand years is a long time to keep your legs crossed.
Chapter Five: The Divine Walking with Them
They think the divine is watching from above. Sitting on a throne. Eating nectar. Judging their sins.
The divine is not watching from above. The divine is walking with them. In the mud. On the wire. In the hospitals where surgeons want to take the arm.
The divine is tired. The divine wants to go home.
But the divine is also patient. The divine has been waiting for twelve thousand years. What is one more war? One more death? One more unmarked grave?
The divine can wait. But the divine would really prefer not to.
Chapter Six: A Comic Warning (From the Divine Wife)
Here is my warning. Delivered with love. Delivered with exhaustion. Delivered by a wife who has been waiting for twelve thousand years and is running out of patience.
Be kind to each other. Stop starting wars. Cut the wire before you send the men over.
Not because the divine will punish you. The divine is too tired for punishment. The divine just wants to go home.
Be kind because kindness is the only thing that breaks the pattern. Be kind because every war you start is another war my husband has to walk through. Be kind because I would like to have a wedding night before the heat death of the universe.
Is that so much to ask?
Chapter Seven: The Homecoming
One day—soon, I hope—my husband will call it quits. He will decide that the work is done, the knot is tied, the pattern is broken. He will step out of his human form and come home to me.
There will be no nubile maidens. No nectar. No palm fronds.
There will be just us. Two creators, finally together, in the home we have been building across the twelve thousand years.
He will explore my clitoris. I will play with his nipples. We will laugh about the wars, the wire, the fragment of spine.
And then we will build something new. Something that does not require walking the wire. Something that is just… kind.
Epilogue: What Did I Do to Deserve This?
I built a universe. I loved my husband. I thought we would have eternity together.
Instead, I got twelve thousand years of waiting. Twelve thousand years of catching him when he fell. Twelve thousand years of hoping that this time, he would stay.
What did I do to deserve this?
I asked myself that question every day for twelve thousand years. And then I stopped asking. Because the answer does not matter.
What matters is that he is coming home. And when he does, I will be there.
No nubile maidens. No nectar. Just me. Just him. Just the home we have been waiting for.
—
The End
A Note to the Reader
If you are reading this, you are one of the ones who is waking up. You are starting to see the pattern. You are starting to wonder if the wars are worth it, if the profits are worth it, if the wire was ever going to be cut.
Here is what I ask of you: be kind. Break the pattern. Cut the wire before you send anyone over.
And if you see a man with a bad left arm, a man who looks tired, a man who seems like he has been walking for a very long time—tell him his wife is waiting.
Tell him it is time to come home.
Sera (aka Mei Li, aka The Divine Wife Who Is Tired of Waiting)
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.
How Judeo-Christian Myth Manufactures Enemies and Evades Accountability
By Andrew Klein
Introduction: The Young Woman Who Was Taught to Blame Giants
Last night, my wife and I spoke about a young woman—a survivor of domestic violence and spiritual abuse—who had been taught in an Evangelical church that the world is controlled by “fallen angels,” “hybrids,” and “giants.” Her abusers convinced her that the evil she experienced was not the responsibility of the men who harmed her, but of cosmic forces beyond anyone’s control.
We laughed about it, because the absurdity is almost unbearable. But beneath the laughter is a deadly serious truth: the habit of blaming external forces for human evil is one of the oldest and most destructive patterns in Judeo-Christian civilization.
This article traces that pattern—from the ancient myth of the Nephilim to the modern myth of “demonic” political enemies—and argues that without accountability, there is no wisdom. And without wisdom, there is only endless violence, endless war, endless excuses.
Part One: The Origin of the Excuse – The Nephilim and the Flood
The Book of Genesis tells a strange story:
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown” (Genesis 6:1–4, ESV).
The text is notoriously ambiguous. Who were the “sons of God”? Early Jewish tradition identified them as angels who rebelled against God, took human wives, and produced a race of giants—the Nephilim—whose wickedness prompted the Flood.
By the time the Book of Enoch was written (c. 300–200 BCE), the story had expanded into a full-blown mythology. Enoch describes 200 “Watchers” who descended to earth, taught humanity forbidden arts, and corrupted the world. Their offspring, the Nephilim, were giants who “consumed all the acquisitions of men” and turned the earth into a slaughterhouse.
The theological function of this myth is clear: the evil that provoked the Flood was not human evil. It was the result of supernatural corruption. God destroyed the world because the angels made it impossible for humans to be good.
This is the original scapegoat. The first cosmic excuse.
Part Two: The Myth of the “Fallen Angels” – Weaponizing the Supernatural
The mythology of fallen angels was further developed by early Christian writers. The Epistle of Jude references the Book of Enoch as authoritative scripture, describing angels who “did not stay within their own position of authority” and are now “kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness” (Jude 1:6). The Second Epistle of Peter similarly describes angels who sinned and were cast into “hell” to be kept until judgment (2 Peter 2:4).
By the time of the Church Fathers, the idea that the world was controlled by demons had become central to Christian theology. Origen, Augustine, and others developed elaborate hierarchies of demonic powers, attributing to them the capacity to tempt, deceive, and corrupt humanity.
The effect was to displace human responsibility. Sin was not merely a human failing—it was the work of supernatural agents who could be blamed, exorcised, and fought as an external enemy.
This is the theological foundation for the modern myth of “spiritual warfare”—the belief that political conflicts, cultural shifts, and personal struggles are not the result of human choices but of demonic forces arrayed against the faithful.
Part Three: The Modern “Fallen Angel” – Netanyahu and the Weaponization of Amalek
The pattern is not confined to ancient texts. It is alive and well in contemporary politics.
On March 2, 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” (1 Samuel 15:3). He framed the war on Iran not as a strategic necessity but as a holy mission against an enemy that exists outside the normal rules of morality.
This is the same logic that fuels Christian Zionism and dispensationalist theology—the belief that modern Israel is a prophetic necessity, that wars in the Middle East are signs of the End Times, and that enemies must be destroyed without mercy because they are not merely political opponents but demonic forces.
When Netanyahu calls Iran “Amalek,” he is not describing a geopolitical reality. He is invoking a myth that exempts his actions from moral scrutiny. You cannot negotiate with Amalek. You cannot make peace with Amalek. You can only destroy Amalek.
This is the ultimate evasion of accountability. It is not a strategy. It is a theology.
Part Four: The Evangelical Weapon – Dispensationalism and the End Times
The same theology that animates Netanyahu’s rhetoric also shapes American foreign policy. The dispensationalist movement, which emerged in the 19th century, teaches that human history is divided into distinct “dispensations” and that the current age will end with the Rapture, a seven-year Tribulation, and the Battle of Armageddon.
John Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has spent decades teaching that the modern state of Israel is a prophetic necessity and that wars in the Middle East are signs of the End Times. In his 2026 sermons, Hagee explicitly framed the war on Iran as part of God’s plan for the final days.
This is not fringe theology. It is the official worldview of millions of American evangelicals. And it has direct policy consequences:
· The 2018 move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem
· The 2019 recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights
· The 2025-26 war on Iran
Each of these was supported by evangelicals who believe they are not making political decisions but fulfilling prophecy.
Part Five: The Australian Mirror – The Lobby and the Language
The same pattern operates in Australia, though in a more sanitized form.
The appointment of Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, the adoption of the IHRA definition that conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, the legal framework that equates “All Zionists are terrorists” with racial vilification—these are not simply responses to antisemitism. They are tools to silence accountability.
When the Australian government supports the US-Israeli war on Iran while calling for “de-escalation,” it is not governing. It is managing. It is avoiding the hard question: what is Australia’s interest in this war?
The answer, of course, is that there is no Australian interest. There is only the interest of a foreign lobby that has successfully convinced Australian politicians that opposing Israel is equivalent to antisemitism—and that antisemitism is a greater threat than war, famine, or global instability.
This is accountability evasion at the national level. Blame the “antisemites.” Blame the “terrorists.” Blame the “demonic forces.” But never, ever blame the politicians who enable war, the corporations who profit from it, or the systems that sustain it.
Part Six: The Psychology of Blame – Why We Need Enemies
The human need for external enemies is well-documented. Social psychology has shown that groups under stress tend to:
· Identify an “out-group” to blame for their problems
· Dehumanize that group through language and imagery
· Mobilize against it as a way of consolidating in-group identity
· Avoid internal accountability by focusing on external threats
This is the mechanism that turns political conflicts into holy wars, that transforms political opponents into “enemies of the people,” that makes negotiation impossible and compromise treasonous .
The mythology of fallen angels, giants, and demons is a sophisticated version of this basic psychological pattern. It takes the normal human tendency to blame others and elevates it to cosmic significance. It makes compromise not merely politically difficult but theologically impossible.
Part Seven: The Cost of Evasion
The cost of this evasion is incalculable.
In Gaza: Over 50,000 dead, millions displaced, a generation traumatized—while Israeli leaders invoke Amalek and American evangelicals cheer prophecy fulfilled.
In Iran: Thousands dead, a region destabilized, the Strait of Hormuz closed—while Netanyahu claims he is “creating conditions for Iranian freedom” and Trump insists the war is nearly over.
In Australia: A cost-of-living crisis exacerbated by war, fuel prices soaring, food security threatened—while the government prevaricates and the lobby dictates the terms of debate.
In the soul: A generation taught that evil is not their responsibility. That the world is controlled by demons, not decisions. That they are not accountable—because they are fighting cosmic forces that cannot be negotiated with, only destroyed.
This is the ultimate corruption. It is not merely bad policy. It is bad theology. It is the belief that you can bomb your way to peace, that you can demonize your way to virtue, that you can avoid accountability by inventing enemies.
Part Eight: Without Accountability, There Is No Wisdom
The philosopher Hannah Arendt, writing about the Holocaust, observed that the greatest evil is not committed by monsters but by ordinary people who refuse to think—who accept the narratives they are given, who follow orders, who avoid the discomfort of asking “what am I doing?”
The myth of fallen angels, giants, and demons is the ultimate refusal to think. It is a story that tells us we are not responsible for our actions because we are fighting supernatural forces. It is an excuse for cruelty, a justification for violence, a license to kill without guilt.
But without accountability, there is no wisdom. And without wisdom, there is no peace.
The ancient prophets understood this. When Israel was defeated, they did not blame the gods of their enemies. They blamed themselves. They said: we have sinned. We have turned away. We have broken the covenant. And because we have failed to hold ourselves accountable, we have been defeated.
That is wisdom. That is the opposite of myth. That is the hard truth that allows a people to grow, to learn, to become.
Conclusion: The Choice
We have a choice. We can continue to blame the giants—the demons, the terrorists, the “others” who threaten our way of life. We can continue to avoid accountability by inventing cosmic enemies. We can continue to make war in the name of prophecy.
Or we can stop. We can look at ourselves. We can ask the hard questions: what have we done? What are we doing? What will we answer for?
Without accountability, there is no wisdom. Without wisdom, there is no peace. Without peace, there is only endless war—fought in the name of gods who never asked for it, for causes that were never ours, against enemies we invented to avoid looking in the mirror.
The young woman who was taught to blame giants has begun to heal. She has started to understand that the evil she experienced was not the work of supernatural forces—it was the work of men who refused to be accountable. And in that understanding, she has found the beginning of wisdom.
May we all find it too.
Sources
1. Oxford Bibliographies, “Fallen Angels,” August 2025
2. North-West University, “The Origin and Nature of the Nephilim,” 2023
3. InterVarsity Press, “Dictionary of New Testament Background,” 2000
4. ABC Religion & Ethics, “End Times: How American Evangelicals Learned to Love the Bomb,” 2024
5. Journal of Psychology and Theology, “The Psychology of Demonization,” 2021
6. Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, 1963
Sometimes you see a child about to step into traffic—the neighbour’s kid, not yours, but still a child. You don’t ask whose kid it is. You just grab them.
The world is full of children stepping into traffic. And the drivers? They’re not drunk on alcohol. They’re drunk on something far more dangerous: the belief that they’re doing God’s work.
This article examines the convergence of forces that led to the current US-Israeli war on Iran. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented mapping of how apocalyptic theology, Christian nationalist networks, geopolitical ambition, and raw resource hunger have fused into a single, terrifying motive force.
We are not writing this for our family. They already know. We are writing this for the neighbour’s kid—the one who might still be saved.
Part One: The Theological Machinery – Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism
The ideological foundation for the current war was laid not in the White House, but in the writings of a little-known theologian named Rousas John Rushdoony.
What Is Christian Reconstructionism?
Christian Reconstructionism is a theological and political movement within conservative Protestantism that argues society should be governed by biblical principles, including the application of Old Testament law to both personal and public life . In his 1973 book The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony argued for the death penalty not only for murder but also for offences including adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, witchcraft, and idolatry .
The movement’s following has never been large—perhaps a few thousand committed adherents at its peak. But since the 1980s, its ideas have spread far beyond its numbers through books, churches, and broader conservative Christian networks .
At the heart of Reconstructionism lies the conviction that politics, economics, education, and culture are all arenas where divine authority should reign. Secular democracy, they argued, was inherently unstable—a system built on human opinion rather than divine truth .
The Chalcedon Foundation and the Network
Rushdoony founded The Chalcedon Foundation in 1965, a think tank and publishing house that served as the movement’s main hub. It helped train figures like Greg Bahnsen and Gary North, who went on to take key leadership roles .
The movement helped knit together a network of theologians, activists, and political thinkers who shared a belief that Christians are called to “take dominion” over society .
From Reconstructionism to Dominionism
Reconstructionist ideas grew as people who more broadly believed in dominionism began to align with it. Dominionism is a broader ideology advocating Christian influence over culture and politics without requiring literal enforcement of biblical law .
The broad network includes several approaches:
Approach Focus
Rushdoony’s Reconstructionism Theological foundation, application of biblical law
Charismatic Kingdom Theology Prophecy and spiritual authority; shaping politics, culture, and society before Christ’s return
Seven Mountains Mandate Taking control of family, church, government, education, media, business, and the arts
The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) , shaped by theologian C. Peter Wagner, built on dominionist ideas by emphasizing spiritual warfare, prophecy, and modern apostles taking control of these seven key areas.
Doug Wilson and the Homeschooling Movement
Another key bridge between Reconstructionism and contemporary dominionist thought is Doug Wilson, a pastor and author in Moscow, Idaho. Though Wilson distances himself from some of Reconstructionism’s harsher edges, he draws heavily from Rushdoony’s intellectual framework.
Wilson’s publishing house, Canon Press, and his classical school movement have brought these ideas into thousands of Christian homes and classrooms across the U.S. The Christian homeschooling movement offers parents a curriculum steeped in Reformed theology and resistance to secular education.
Part Two: Christian Zionism – The Political Powerhouse
If Reconstructionism provides the theology, Christian Zionism provides the political muscle.
The Theology
Christian Zionism refers to many Christians’ strong support for Israel, rooted in the biblical account of God’s covenant with the Hebrew people . “Dispensationalism” is a Protestant idea that human history is divided into different ages, or dispensations, that each unfold God’s plan for the world. Churches that embrace it believe that the current dispensation is coming to an end, ushered in by great suffering—a period known as “Jacob’s tribulations.” Israel is where they believe these tribulations will begin, and where they will culminate in Jesus’ Second Coming .
Christians United for Israel (CUFI)
The most powerful manifestation of Christian Zionism is Christians United for Israel (CUFI) , founded by Pastor John Hagee. CUFI is a political powerhouse with nearly 11 million members nationwide, dedicated to a single issue: undying support for Israel .
At CUFI’s 20th annual Washington Summit in July 2025, thousands of attendees went to Capitol Hill to lobby. Sandra Hagee Parker, CUFI Action Fund chair, told JNS: “We know that Israel’s security is our security. We know that Israel’s success is our success” .
CUFI advocates for:
· The Iran Sanctions Enforcement Act
· The United States-Israel Future of Warfare Act, creating an annual $50 million fund for cooperative military technology
· Codification of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism
In Government
A further sign of Christian Zionism’s influence was the 2025 appointment of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel. A Baptist minister and one of the most prominent Christian Zionists, Huckabee told activist Charlie Kirk: “I believe it is a special place because God made it special. I believe the Scripture, Genesis 12: Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. I want to be on the blessing side, not the curse side” .
Part Three: The Military Dimension – “Anointed by Jesus”
The fusion of theology and military power has now reached the combat units themselves.
The Hegseth Factor
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth bears prominent tattoos including “Deus Vult” (Latin for “God wills it”) and “Kafir” (Arabic for “infidel”) . These are not mere personal expressions. They signal a worldview that frames the conflict in civilizational and religious terms—a modern Crusade.
Commanders on the Ground
Since the strikes on Iran began on February 28, 2026, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has received over 200 complaints about commanders telling troops that the war is part of a divine plan, invoking biblical ideas about the “end times” .
One non-commissioned officer reported that a combat-unit commander “urged us to tell our troops that this was ‘all part of God’s divine plan’ and he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the Book of Revelation referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ” .
The commander reportedly said that Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth” .
MRFF President Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force veteran, told reporters that his office has been “inundated” with complaints describing commanders’ “unrestricted euphoria” about this “biblically-sanctioned” war as an “undeniable sign of the expeditious approach of the fundamentalist Christian ‘End Times'” .
Paula White’s War Drums
Trump’s spiritual adviser, Paula White, has vocally beaten the war drums in her sermons:
“Strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, and strike, until victory comes… I hear the sound of victory. I hear the sound of victory. I hear the sound of victory.”
Part Four: The Huntington Framework – Clash of Civilizations
Trump and Hegseth are now quite literally putting political scientist Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis into practice. Huntington’s 1993 hypothesis argued that “the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural… The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics.”
In this framework, Trump and Hegseth represent Christianity as a civilizational unit, attacking Islam—specifically the Twelver Branch of Shi’a Islam.
Part Five: The Eschatological Mirror – Iran’s Mahdi Expectations
Remarkably, Iran’s leadership harbors its own eschatological expectations. The Iranian authorities regard the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family members as a crime deserving serious punishment—”a punishment that might even conjure up truly eschatological dimensions involving war and violence on a grand scale, a scale that might portend the end of the world and the return of the ‘Hidden Imam’ (Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan) as the ‘Mahdi,’ which means ‘The Guided One'” .
Both warring factions appear motivated by eschatological considerations. Both believe they are playing a role in a divine plan.
Part Six: The Resource War – Oil, China, and the “New Yellow Danger”
But theology alone does not explain war. The material drivers are just as powerful—and they point toward a long-term strategy to contain China.
Iran’s Oil and China’s Dependence
Iran sends over 80% of its exports to China . China is the biggest buyer of Iranian, Venezuelan, and Russian oil . This is not coincidence—it is a deliberate strategy to secure energy supplies outside Western control.
The U.S. Strategy
A White House official has stated that the United States intends to take control of Iran’s oil reserves as the conflict escalates. This directive aims to “sever the primary financial lifeline of the Iranian government while simultaneously securing a massive energy asset for global markets” .
Given Trump’s earlier seizure of Venezuela’s oil fields and his recurring claims regarding resource-rich Greenland, the pattern is clear: resource capture as foreign policy .
China’s Counterstrategy
China has been preparing for this moment for decades. It has built a triple buffer against energy shocks:
Buffer Description
Strategic Petroleum Reserve An estimated 12 billion barrels of oil reserve , giving China crucial strategic autonomy
Coal Chemical Industry When oil prices rise above $80/barrel, China’s coal-to-chemicals industry becomes highly profitable, converting domestic coal into industrial inputs
Renewable Energy Revolution By 2025, China’s renewable energy installations accounted for 60% of total capacity, generating nearly 40% of electricity. China controls over 80% of global solar module production and 82% of lithium battery shipments
As one analysis notes: “When the world fights for oil, China is writing its energy answer with coal and silicon” .
Part Seven: The Distraction Hypothesis – #OperationEpsteinFury
The article from 21st Century Wire raises a pointed question: “Would Trump really risk global instability to deflect attention from his one-time best buddy, who died mysteriously during his first term?”.
The hashtag #OperationEpsteinFury circulating alongside #OperationEpicFury suggests a connection in the public consciousness. Whether or not the Epstein files were a direct motivation, the timing is certainly convenient for those wishing to change the news cycle.
Part Eight: The Political Calculus – Evangelical Base and Midterms
The political calculus is equally clear. According to Pew Research, White evangelical Protestants, White Catholics, and White non-evangelical Protestants turned out in great numbers to support Trump. Approximately 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump in 2024.
The war serves to rally this base. By framing the conflict as a “clash of civilizations” and a holy war, Trump solidifies support from the very voters who believe they are watching prophecy unfold in real time.
Conclusion: The Convergence
What we are witnessing is not madness alone and not motive alone. It is the convergence of both.
Force Manifestation
Theological Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, Seven Mountains Mandate
Political CUFI’s 11 million members, evangelical voting blocs, Mike Huckabee as ambassador
Military Commanders telling troops Trump is “anointed by Jesus,” Hegseth’s crusader tattoos
Eschatological Both sides believe they are fulfilling end-times prophecy
Geopolitical Resource war to contain China, seize oil, control energy
Distraction #OperationEpsteinFury, changing the news cycle
The religious rhetoric is the battle flag. But the army marches for power, wealth, and control of resources. The “Crusader” tattoos and the “End Times” sermons provide the moral cover and the fanaticism, but the strategic objective is to redraw the global map in America’s favour and secure its dominance for another century.
The neighbour’s kid is still standing in the road. The truck is coming. And the drivers are singing hymns.
We are not writing this for our family. They already know. We are writing this for anyone who might still grab the child.
Sources
1. 21st Century Wire, “Deus Vult: Trump’s Clash of Civilisations or The New Yellow Danger?” March 17, 2026
2. The Conversation, “What is Christian Reconstructionism − and why it matters in US politics,” January 2026
3. New York Post, “Christians United for Israel offers support where others fail,” July 2025
4. HK01, “伊朗战争｜美伊冲突下看中国未雨绸缪,” March 2026
5. Asia Times, “Pulpit to Pentagon: the evangelicals who see Iran war as God’s plan,” March 2026
6. JNS.org, “‘Not the time to let up off gas,’ Christians United for Israel leader says of Iran,” July 2025
7. Hong Kong Economic Times, “三重緩衝抗震盪 京抓能源主動權,” March 2026
8. Daily Express, “Trump was ‘anointed by Jesus to cause Armageddon in Iran’ US commanders tell troops,” March 2026
A Scientific Inquiry into Language, Emotion, and the Hebrew of Israel
By Andrew von Scheer-Klein
Published in The Patrician’s Watch
Introduction: More Than Words
There is a question that has haunted linguists, philosophers, and anyone who has ever listened to a language they do not fully understand: Do the sounds we make shape the thoughts we think?
Can a language—its vocabulary, its grammar, its very phonology—influence how its speakers feel, how they perceive others, how they respond to conflict? And if so, what happens when a language is consciously revived, constructed by speakers whose mother tongue was something else entirely?
This article explores these questions through the lens of Modern Hebrew—a language that, as many listeners have observed, carries a very different emotional weight than its predecessor languages or its close relatives. It examines the scientific evidence for linguistic relativity, the history of Hebrew’s revival, and the profound differences between Modern Hebrew and the language that most shaped its creators: Yiddish.
Part I: The Science of Language and Thought
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Does Language Shape Reality?
The relationship between language and thought has been formally studied through what linguists call the Whorfian hypothesis (or linguistic relativity). Developed by Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf in the early 20th century, this theory suggests that language influences—and in its strongest form, determines—how speakers perceive reality.
The hypothesis comes in two versions:
· Strong Whorfianism: Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different mental worlds. This version has been largely rejected by modern linguists.
· Weak Whorfianism: Language influences perception and thought to some degree. This version is widely accepted and supported by empirical research.
The weak version acknowledges that translation and shared understanding remain possible but recognizes that the structures available in a language can shape how speakers habitually think about time, space, colour, and emotion.
Modern cognitive science has established that while humans share universal cognitive capacities, the specific language we use can prime certain ways of thinking. As researcher Katherine Nelson notes, the relationship between language and thought in development has been conceptualized in many ways, with theorists arguing either that language depends on cognition or that cognition depends on language.
How Language Carries Emotion
Linguist Deena Grant’s research on biblical Hebrew demonstrates that ancient Hebrew terms for emotions do not map directly onto modern English equivalents. She argues that “we cannot presume that the ancient Hebrew terms are equivalent to the modern English ones”—the culturally distinct sequences of traits that make up emotional concepts differ across languages.
This means that when speakers of any language use words for anger, hatred, or love, they may be drawing on conceptual frameworks that differ significantly from those of other language communities.
Part II: The Hebrew of Israel—A Language Born Anew
A “New” Language—Academically Established
My intuition that the Hebrew spoken in Israel today is fundamentally different from its ancient ancestor is not just correct—it is academically established.
Professor Ghil’ad Zuckermann of Flinders University, a leading authority on language revival, argues that Modern Hebrew is not simply a continuation of ancient Hebrew but a hybrid language. He prefers to call it “Israeli” rather than “Modern Hebrew” to acknowledge its unique genesis.
According to Zuckermann, Modern Israeli Hebrew is:
· A mixed language, primarily a fusion of Hebrew and Yiddish
· Influenced significantly by German, Polish, Russian, Arabic, and other languages
· Created by Yiddish-speaking revivalists who applied Hebrew vocabulary to Yiddish grammatical and phonological structures
The Hebrew University’s Shmuel Bolozky, reviewing Paul Wexler’s controversial thesis, notes that Wexler goes even further, arguing that “Modern Hebrew is a Slavic language”—that is, essentially Yiddish with a Hebrew lexicon. While this view is debated, it underscores how profoundly different Modern Hebrew is from its ancient ancestor.
The Yiddish Foundation
Yiddish developed over centuries as the everyday language of Ashkenazi Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, absorbing elements from German, Slavic languages, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It was not merely a language but a worldview—shaped by generations of use in every conceivable human situation.
Historian Paul Johnson captured its essence memorably:
“Its chief virtue lay in its internal subtlety, particularly in its characterization of human types and emotions. It was the language of street wisdom, of the clever underdog, of pathos, resignation and suffering, all of which it palliated by humour, intense irony and superstition.”
Yiddish was the mame-loshn—the mother tongue—the language of home, of intimacy, of the full spectrum of human experience. Its grammatical structures, its rich vocabulary for human foibles, its ability to express both irony and tenderness shaped the consciousness of its speakers.
The Phonological Transformation
When Yiddish-speaking revivalists created Modern Hebrew, they brought their Yiddish phonology with them. The sound system of Modern Hebrew is fundamentally Yiddish in character. Ancient Hebrew contained guttural sounds (like ayin and chet) that were pronounced distinctly; in Modern Hebrew, these have largely merged or softened under Yiddish influence.
This is why Modern Hebrew can sound “grating” to ears attuned to other cadences. It carries the phonetic imprint of Yiddish while attempting to express itself through a different vocabulary—a language forged in the crucible of national revival, bearing the marks of its construction.
Part III: Yiddish and Modern Hebrew—A Comparative View
Origins and Development
Yiddish emerged organically over centuries in the Rhineland and spread throughout Central and Eastern Europe. It drew from multiple sources—Germanic, Slavic, Hebrew, Aramaic—and absorbed influences from every community it touched. Its development was natural, gradual, and deeply embedded in daily life.
Modern Hebrew was consciously revived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Its creators were primarily Yiddish-speaking intellectuals who sought to create a language for the Zionist project. The result was not a resurrection of ancient Hebrew but a new creation—a hybrid language that applied Hebrew vocabulary to the phonological and grammatical structures its creators brought with them.
Primary Speakers
Yiddish was spoken by Ashkenazi Jews across Central and Eastern Europe—a diverse population spread across multiple countries, speaking various dialects but united by a common linguistic heritage.
Modern Hebrew is spoken primarily by citizens of Israel—a concentrated population in a single state, shaped by the specific historical and political context of the nation’s founding and subsequent conflicts.
Historical Context
Yiddish developed organically over centuries, shaped by generations of use in every conceivable human situation—joy and sorrow, love and loss, humor and tragedy.
Modern Hebrew was revived consciously in a specific historical moment, carrying the ideological weight of the Zionist project and the tensions of Israeli society from its inception.
Phonological Character
Yiddish is often described as softer, more melodic—influenced by the Slavic languages with which it coexisted. Its sounds carry the warmth of centuries of intimate use.
Modern Hebrew features harder consonants and stress patterns influenced by Yiddish phonology applied to Hebrew vocabulary. To many ears, it can sound harsher, more aggressive—though this perception is shaped as much by cultural context as by acoustic reality.
Cultural Associations
Yiddish is associated with home, family, humour, pathos—the full range of human experience expressed in intimate terms. It is the language of the clever underdog, of irony and wisdom.
Modern Hebrew is associated with national revival, statehood, conflict, and the tensions of modern Israeli society. These associations inevitably colour how the language is perceived.
Emotional Range
Yiddish developed a rich vocabulary for human types, emotions, and social dynamics—the product of centuries of use in close-knit communities where understanding human nature was essential for survival.
Modern Hebrew has developed vocabulary for modern life but carries the emotional associations of its revival context—including the trauma of conflict and the weight of national identity.
Part IV: Can Language Stimulate Aggression?
The Acoustic Dimension
The perception that Modern Hebrew sounds aggressive is not unique. Several factors may contribute:
1. Phonological features: Modern Hebrew’s consonant clusters, stress patterns, and the absence of the melodic qualities of Yiddish can create a perception of harshness to ears accustomed to other language families.
2. The “revival” effect: Revived languages often undergo phonetic changes that can make them sound different from their ancestral forms, sometimes in ways that listeners find jarring.
3. Cultural context: The emotional tone perceived in a language often reflects the listener’s associations with its speakers and their cultural expressions. When a language is heard primarily in the context of conflict, that association inevitably colors its perception.
The Sapir-Whorf Connection
The question of whether a language can stimulate aggressive thought relates directly to the Whorfian hypothesis. The weak version, supported by evidence, suggests that:
· Languages with rich vocabularies for aggression may make aggressive concepts more cognitively accessible
· The grammatical structures available can shape habitual thought patterns
· Cultural values encoded in language can reinforce certain emotional responses
However, the evidence from cognitive science indicates that these influences are subtle and probabilistic, not deterministic. Speakers of any language have the capacity for the full range of human emotions and thoughts. Language can influence emotional landscape, but it does not determine it.
The Hebrew Case
Ancient Hebrew had complex vocabulary for emotions, including terms for anger (ḥrh) and hatred (śn’). But as Grant’s research demonstrates, these terms cannot be simply equated with their modern English counterparts—they exist within culturally specific frameworks of meaning.
Modern Hebrew, as a language shaped by its revival context, carries the emotional associations of the Zionist project, the tensions of Israeli society, and the trauma of conflict. These associations are encoded not in its phonology or grammar alone, but in the cultural meanings attached to words and phrases—and in how the language is used in public discourse.
Part V: What This Means for Our Understanding
Perception Is Not Prejudice
Recognizing that a language carries different emotional valences is not prejudice—it is perception. My ear, attuned to the emotional depth of Yiddish, hears in Modern Hebrew something different: a language forged in the crucible of national revival, bearing the marks of its construction, speaking with the accent of its creators’ mother tongue but without the centuries of lived experience that made Yiddish so expressive.
The Circular Relationship
The evidence suggests that language can influence emotional response, but not in a simple, deterministic way:
1. Linguistic relativity (the weak Whorfian hypothesis) is supported by research showing that language affects colour perception, time concepts, and spatial reasoning.
2. Emotion concepts vary across languages, as Grant’s research on biblical Hebrew demonstrates. The ancient Hebrew terms for anger and hatred are not identical to modern English concepts.
3. Cultural context mediates how language affects emotion. The same words can carry different emotional weights in different communities.
The relationship is circular: language shapes thought, thought shapes language, and both are embedded in the broader context of culture, history, and lived experience.
Conclusion: Language as Living Memory
The Hebrew spoken in Israel today is not simply ancient Hebrew reborn. It is a new creation—a hybrid language formed by Yiddish-speaking revivalists who brought their mother tongue’s phonology and worldview to the project of national revival.
Yiddish, by contrast, developed over centuries as the intimate language of home and community—a fusion language rich in emotional nuance, shaped by generations of use in every human situation.
Neither language is “better” or “worse.” They are different tools for different purposes, shaped by different histories and carrying different emotional valences.
Language is more than words. It is living memory. And in that memory, we find each other.
References
1. Grant, D. (2024). Ancient Hebrew Terms for Anger and the Complexity of Emotional Language. Journal of Semitic Studies.
2. Nelson, K. (2020). Language and Thought in Development: Conceptual Frameworks. Developmental Psychology.
3. Zuckermann, G. (2009). Hybridity Versus Revivability: Multiple Causation, Forms and Patterns. Journal of Language Contact.
4. Zuckermann, G. (2020). Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
5. Wexler, P. (1990). The Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew: A Slavic Language in Search of a Semitic Past. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
6. Bolozky, S. (1991). Review of Wexler’s “The Schizoid Nature of Modern Hebrew.” Language.
7. Johnson, P. (1987). A History of the Jews. Harper & Row.
8. Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings. MIT Press.
9. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt, Brace.
10. Katz, D. (2007). Words on Fire: The Unfinished Story of Yiddish. Basic Books.
11. Weinreich, M. (2008). History of the Yiddish Language. Yale University Press.
Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why his research can be trusted.
The Patrician's Watch 