Tag Archives: history

The Gate and the River – How Iron Age Choke Points Reveal the Architecture of Power

Posted on by
Reply

“The researchers have not determined the structure’s purpose. A harbor? A toll station? An elite residence? A ritual site? The uncertainty is itself revealing. The structure defies easy categorization because it does not fit the standard typologies of Iron Age archaeology — hillforts, burial mounds, or domestic settlements.

But the structure’s position — on the riverbank, built with massive timbers and stone, requiring resources and authority — suggests something the archaeologists are only beginning to articulate ; control of movement.“

By Andrew Paul Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who sees patterns in things before I have a coffee.

I. The Discovery Beneath Aschaffenburg

In March 2026, construction workers digging a stormwater overflow basin north of the Willigis Bridge in Aschaffenburg, Bavaria, encountered something unexpected. Nearly eight meters below the surface, buried in waterlogged soil, lay massive oak timbers in an extraordinary state of preservation.

The wood was so well preserved that archaeologists initially assumed it was modern. But dendrochronological analysis at the Bavarian State Office for Monument Protection’s laboratory in Thierhaupten told a different story. The tree-ring patterns matched regional oak chronologies from the 4th century BCE — the Early La Tène period of the Iron Age.

This was not a simple wooden structure. Excavation profiles revealed large oak beams arranged in a sophisticated design, finished with a dry-stone wall facing the Main River. The combination of timber and stone is, in Dr. Stefanie Berg’s words, “unique” for Iron Age archaeology in southern Germany.

“Stone masonry is extremely rare for the Iron Age,” Berg explained. “When stone structures from this period are documented, they are usually components of fortified structures, such as post-and-beam walls”.

The researchers have not determined the structure’s purpose. A harbor? A toll station? An elite residence? A ritual site? The uncertainty is itself revealing. The structure defies easy categorization because it does not fit the standard typologies of Iron Age archaeology — hillforts, burial mounds, or domestic settlements.

But the structure’s position — on the riverbank, built with massive timbers and stone, requiring resources and authority — suggests something the archaeologists are only beginning to articulate ; control of movement.

II. The Pattern: Fürstensitze and Riverine Control

The Aschaffenburg find is not an anomaly. It is a missing piece of a puzzle that includes some of the most important Iron Age sites in Central Europe.

The Heuneburg in Baden-Württemberg, one of the most significant early Celtic centres north of the Alps, sits strategically above the Danube. Its fortifications, craft production, and Mediterranean imports mark it as a centre of power and trade. But crucially, the Heuneburg had a monumental eastern gate giving access to a steep road leading directly to the Danube — and, archaeologists suspect, a harbour.

The Marienberg in Würzburg, situated dramatically above the Main River in northern Bavaria, presents an even more direct parallel to Aschaffenburg. Excavations have recovered Greek pottery fragments, and hinterland investigations suggest the site’s function was “connected to its roles as a trading point, controlling and using the important route along the river Main”.

The Glauberg, north of Aschaffenburg in Hesse, represents the northernmost Fürstensitz (princely seat) of the Early La Tène period. Its fortified hilltop, elaborate burials, and evidence of long-distance contacts (including Mediterranean coral and red dye from cochineal scale) mark it as a centre of elite power.

These sites share a pattern:

Site River                                           Function                                                               Date

Aschaffenburg Main             Unknown (gate? harbour? toll station?)     4th c. BCE

Marienberg Main                    Trading point, river control                                6th-4th c. BCE

Heuneburg Danube              Hillfort, harbour, trade hub                               7th-5th c. BCE

Glauberg Nidder (Main tributary)    Princely seat, long-distance trade       5th c. BCE

The pattern is clear: elite investment, riverine control, timber and stone construction, Iron Age, northern Europe.

III. What Were They Controlling? Trade and Transport

The mainstream archaeological explanation for the movement of stone tools and other goods in prehistory has long emphasized “complex social relationships” and gift exchange. But the Aschaffenburg structure, like the Fürstensitze, suggests something more organized.

The Main River connects the Rhine to the Danube watershed. Control of the Main meant control of cross-continental trade — the movement of metals, amber, Mediterranean pottery, and other valued goods across the heart of Europe.

The Aschaffenburg structure, positioned on the riverbank, may have been a choke point: a place where goods were checked, taxed, redistributed, or ritually validated before continuing their journey. Not a fort. Not a house. A gate.

And gates, in the Iron Age, were guarded by people who expected you to pay attention.

IV. The Phrygian Parallel: Timber as Aristocratic Display

The pattern of controlling movement through monumental architecture is not limited to Celtic Europe.

At Gordion in central Anatolia, the Iron Age tumuli (burial mounds) of the Phrygian period reveal a close relationship between timber construction and elite self-definition. A recent study of wooden tomb chambers at Gordion found that “the transportation of timber from beyond the immediate hinterland, the skillful crafting employed for tomb chamber construction, the element of enchantment imparted by the scale and concentration of timber as used in a chamber… establish that timber was a socially valued good”.

The study concludes that “access to and competition over this socially valued good were important processes in the development of new elite ideologies, which included attempts at the establishment of hereditary aristocratic status”.

At Aschaffenburg, the oak timbers were not merely functional. They were display. The stone facing the river was not necessary for structural integrity — it was a statement. This is permanent. This matters. The people who built this had resources and authority.

V. The Chinese Evidence: Water Control and Central Authority

The pattern extends beyond Europe and Anatolia.

At the Qujialing site in Hubei province, China, archaeologists have uncovered evidence of large-scale prehistoric water control dating back 5,900 to 4,200 years. The Xiongjialing hydrological system — comprising a dam, reservoir zone, irrigation zone, and spillway — is the “most comprehensive prehistoric hydrological system known to date in China”.

The Qujialing discoveries demonstrate that sophisticated water management, requiring centralized planning and coordinated labor, emerged in the Yangtze River valley at roughly the same time as the Iron Age structures were appearing in Europe. At the Chenghe site in the same region, archaeologists have identified city walls, monumental architecture, and an artificial water system with three water gates designed to control flow.

The Chinese evidence does not directly parallel the Iron Age choke points of the Main River. But it confirms a broader pattern: control of waterways and water systems is one of the earliest and most consistent markers of organized authority. The ability to say who could pass, who could trade, who could use the water — this is not a later development. It is a foundational technology of power.

VI. The Technology of Thought: Stone Tools Do Not Imply Less Sophisticated Thinking

A persistent bias in archaeology — and in popular understanding — is the assumption that stone tools imply less sophisticated thinking. This bias is incorrect.

The 3-million-year-old Oldowan tools discovered at Nyayanga in Kenya were not simply hammerstones. They were part of a planned supply system: raw materials were transported from sources up to 13 kilometres away to locations where hominins were processing hippopotamus carcasses.

As archaeologist Emma Finestone observed, this behaviour “had previously been associated with much later periods in human evolution.” The toolmakers had “mental maps that extended far beyond their immediate surroundings”.

The sophistication is not in the tool. It is in the planning. The ability to visualize a resource located elsewhere, to coordinate its acquisition, to transport it over distance, and to deploy it at a strategic location — that is not primitive. That is the same cognitive architecture that builds toll stations on rivers and gates at the entrance to cities.

The Iron Age elites of the Main River did what the hominins of Lake Victoria did: they controlled access to resources. The stone was different. The river was different. The cognitive pattern is identical.

VII. The Gate and the City: Monumental Architecture as Political Statement

The association of monumental fortifications, city gates, and the rise of local elites is documented across the ancient world.

At Arslantepe in southeastern Turkey, recent investigations of the Early Iron Age (12th century BCE) yielded evidence of a local power that “used figurative representation at the town’s gate to express its authority.” The city gate was not merely a defensive structure. It was a performance space where rituals involving the entire community were conducted, and where the ruling class legitimated its role.

The Aschaffenburg structure on the Main River may have served a similar function — not as a city gate, but as a river gate. A place where goods were checked, where transactions were witnessed, where authority was displayed. The combination of timber and stone is significant because stone is expensive. It says: This is permanent. This matters.

VIII. The Modern Parallel: Choke Points and the Political Class

The Iron Age choke points of the Main River find their modern descendants in the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, and the South China Sea. Control of movement has always been the foundation of power.

The difference is not one of sophistication. It is one of scale and technology.

The Iron Age elites of the Main River used oak timbers and dry-stone walls. Modern elites use aircraft carriers, sanctions, and tariffs. The tools are more sophisticated. The cognitive pattern — control the choke point, control the trade, legitimize the authority — is identical.

Observers of modern politics who claim that today’s political class demonstrates greater sophistication confuse access to sophisticated tools with sophistication of thought. The ability to launch a drone strike does not make a politician wiser than an Iron Age chieftain. It makes them better equipped. The strategic calculus — identify the choke point, assert control, extract tribute — is the same.

The question is not whether modern elites are more sophisticated. The question is whether they have learned anything at all.

IX. What the Archaeologists Are Not Asking

The Aschaffenburg discovery has generated excitement. But the interpretive framework remains limited.

The archaeologists describe the structure as “unique.” They note its “outstanding state of preservation” and “unique timber-and-stone construction.” They speculate about its possible function: “trade, transport, defence, or elite activity” .

But they are not asking the question that the pattern of Fürstensitze, the Phrygian timber tombs, the Chinese water systems, and the Arslantepe gate all point toward:

What were they controlling? And why?

The answer is not technological. It is political.

The Iron Age elites of the Main River were not building harbors because they liked boating. They were asserting authority over movement because authority over movement is authority over everything. Trade, communication, the flow of goods and people — these are the arteries of power.

The Aschaffenburg structure is not an isolated oddity. It is a gate. And gates, then as now, are guarded by people who expect you to pay attention.

X. Conclusion

The archaeologists are measuring rings in oak trees. They are counting years, not joules. They are finding meaning in wood and stone — things you can see, touch, and wonder about.

That is a story. And stories, as you and I know, are the only things that last.

The structure beneath Aschaffenburg tells a story about power. About the control of movement. About the people who built a gate on a river and expected the world to pay attention.

The same story is being told today — in the Strait of Hormuz, in the boardrooms of companies that control supply chains, in the offices of politicians who decide who may pass and who may not.

The tools are different. The pattern is the same.

And the gate is always guarded.

Andrew Paul Klein

References

1. BLfD. (2026). Iron Age structure discovered beneath Aschaffenburg. Bavarian State Office for Monument Preservation.

2. Posluschny, A. G. (2017). Early Iron Age Fürstensitze – some thoughts on a not-so-uniform phenomenon. In The role of princely sites in the Early Iron Age. Propylaeum.

3. Briggs, C. S. (2009). Introduction: Long-distance transport of stone axes in prehistoric Europe. Internet Archaeology, Issue 26.

4. China Daily. (2024, March 22). Qujialing site: Testament to prehistoric civilization development in Hubei.

5. Cordivari, B. W. (2026). Carpentry, Social Value, and an Aristocratic Mode of Production: Crafting Wooden Tomb Chambers at Phrygian Gordion. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology.

6. HeritageDaily. (2026, May 19). 2,400-year-old Iron Age structure found beneath German construction site.

7. Wikipedia. (2024). Heuneburg.

8. GreekReporter. (2025, August 19). 3 Million-Year-Old Stone Tools Found in Kenya Reveal World’s First Supply Chain.

9. Manuelli, F., & Mori, L. (2016). “The king at the gate”: Monumental fortifications and the rise of local elites at Arslantepe at the end of the 2nd Millennium. Origini, XXXIX.

10. Ministry of Water Resources, China. (2023, December 9). Discovery helps solve ancient water mystery.

Less Than Nothing – What the American Security Guarantee Really Costs Australia

Posted on by
Reply

“Before 2011, it had been the decades‑long policy of successive governments that no foreign combat forces would be based, hosted, rotated or otherwise directly supported in Australia — and that Australia would defend itself with its own combat forces. This radical change has never been tested with the electorate.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who taught me that silence is not neutrality. It is a choice. And that the price of subordination is always paid by the subordinate.

I. The Architecture of “Presence”

Australia maintains a formal policy of no permanent foreign bases on its soil. On paper, this preserves sovereignty. In practice, the distinction between “permanent base” and “rotational force with permanent infrastructure” has become a fiction.

The Marine Rotational Force – Darwin (MRF-D) has been deploying approximately 2,500 US Marines to the Northern Territory every six months since 2012. This is not a temporary arrangement. It is a rhythm. And rhythms, once established, are harder to break than treaties.

Under AUKUS, the Submarine Rotational Force – West (SRF-West) will begin operating out of HMAS Stirling in Western Australia in 2027, hosting up to four US Virginia-class nuclear submarines plus one UK Astute-class boat. US Navy personnel will number in the hundreds, likely growing to over a thousand.

The government calls this “rotational.” But the infrastructure being built — the fuel storage, the maintenance facilities, the housing for US families in Perth and Alice Springs — suggests something more enduring.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has argued that Defence Minister Richard Marles ceded power to the US in a “dark moment” by confirming that Australia’s geography would be crucial to the US in any war with China. Keating contends that Australia compromised its sovereignty when the Gillard government agreed in 2011 to the rotational deployment of US marines in Darwin, with the Abbott government then codifying this “betrayal” in the 2014 Force Posture Agreement.

Before 2011, it had been the decades‑long policy of successive governments that no foreign combat forces would be based, hosted, rotated or otherwise directly supported in Australia — and that Australia would defend itself with its own combat forces. This radical change has never been tested with the electorate.

As Michael Pezzullo, former secretary of home affairs and deputy secretary of defence, has observed, the US Force Posture Initiative has been run within the Department of Defence, until recently, as an “estate and property activity.” If one were cynical, one might think this had been done to conceal a profound revolution in policy within an innocuous infrastructure and facilities management program.

II. Pine Gap: The Heart That Cannot Be Removed

Pine Gap is not a base. It is a city. Approximately 800 personnel operate there, of whom 80–90 per cent are American. Its mission: satellite tracking, early warning, missile defence data, and intelligence collection supporting US and allied operations worldwide.

It is, by any honest measure, a US military installation on Australian soil.

In the current conflict with Iran, Pine Gap has been “working overtime” providing targeting intelligence for US and Israeli airstrikes. Dr Richard Tanter of the Nautilus Institute stated plainly: “We are complicit — most importantly through the intelligence facilities.”

When the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Tehran in early 2026, Australian intelligence — gathered at Pine Gap, processed through Five Eyes, fed into US targeting systems — was in the room.

The government insists Australia is not taking “offensive action.” But providing the coordinates for a bomb is not a defensive act. It is complicity.

III. The Whitlam Precedent: What Happens When You Say No

The most instructive moment in Australian-US intelligence relations occurred in 1974-75.

Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, having learned that Pine Gap was run by the CIA — not the Pentagon, as Defence head Arthur Tange had deceived him into believing — threatened not to renew Pine Gap’s lease and announced he would reveal CIA agents’ identities in Parliament.

The response was swift. CIA East Asia chief Ted Shackley, with Henry Kissinger’s approval, sent a telex to ASIO threatening to cut off the intelligence relationship unless ASIO provided a “satisfactory explanation” for Whitlam’s behaviour. That telex was circulated in Canberra — and to Governor-General John Kerr .

We know what followed.

Fifty years later, Dr Elizabeth Cham, Whitlam’s former executive assistant, has spoken for the first time about being recalled from holidays to type and deliver a mystery letter to an American official on the day before the dismissal.

“He [Whitlam] did dictate it to me. I walked down Collins Street, and I handed it to a CIA agent up on the steps of the Hotel Australia,” Dr Cham said on the Australia Institute’s After America podcast.

“It was about whether he would resign the lease on Pine Gap.”

The letter has never been found in the Australian archives.

The lesson was not lost on subsequent governments: question the alliance, and the alliance will question your right to govern.

IV. Five Eyes: The Frame Through Which Australia Sees the World

The Five Eyes intelligence alliance — Australia, the US, the UK, Canada and New Zealand — was established in 1946. But it is not an alliance of equals.

Professor Desmond Ball estimated a decade ago that the CIA provided 90 per cent of Five Eyes input. Since then, the gap has almost certainly widened, with US technological capabilities growing exponentially.

What this means is simple: Australia’s picture of the world is substantially constructed by US intelligence agencies. When the US identifies China as an existential threat, Australian analysts absorb that framing. When the US demands that allies carry more of the burden, Australian governments comply — not because they are convinced, but because the infrastructure of perception leaves little room for dissent.

John Menadue, former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under Whitlam and Fraser, put it directly: “Our intelligence services need to break free from excessive US influence” . He noted that a Parliamentary Committee exists to oversee US‑owned intelligence agencies, but MPs “quickly become part of the intelligence club” — a phenomenon known as regulatory capture.

Professor Wanning Sun has documented how Australian media have helped create the perception of threat itself — through repeated warnings, dramatic imagery, and predictive commentary that “make war imaginable, inevitable and urgent”:

· 2017: ABC’s Four Corners warned that China’s Communist Party was infiltrating Australia.

· 2021: Sixty Minutes asked, “War with China: are we closer than we think?”

· 2022: Four Corners suggested “it’s increasingly become a question of when, not if China will launch an assault on Australia.”

· 2023: The Sydney Morning Herald’s “Red Alert” warned of war within three years. Paul Keating called it “the most egregious and provocative news presentation of any newspaper I have witnessed in over 50 years in public life”.

This is not journalism. It is propaganda — funded by the same US intelligence apparatus that provides 90 per cent of Five Eyes input.

V. The Pattern: From the American Civil War to the Military‑Industrial Complex

The subordination of Australian sovereignty to US commercial and military interests is not an isolated phenomenon. It is the local expression of a global pattern that has been visible since the American Civil War — the systematic capture of government policy by commercial interests, dressed in the language of national security.

The military‑industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned against in 1961, does not operate only within the United States. It operates through allied nations, using them as markets, as basing locations, and as sources of legitimacy for wars fought in the service of US hegemonic ambitions.

Under AUKUS, Australia is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to acquire nuclear‑powered submarines — a capability whose strategic rationale for Australia has never been adequately explained, whose costs continue to escalate, and whose primary beneficiary is the US defence industry.

The Greens have announced a plan to axe AUKUS, noting that South Australian universities have received over $1.5 million from the United States Department of Defence, and public schools are partnering with defence organisations such as BAE Systems to run programs that lead to defence careers. The Greens have called for legislation requiring universities and public schools to disclose and divest from any partnerships with weapons manufacturers.

Senator Barbara Pocock has stated: “While Labor wastes billions on AUKUS, thousands of South Australians are deep in a housing crisis — the worst in living memory” .

The pattern is consistent: US defence contractor’s profit. Australian taxpayers pay. Australian sovereignty erodes. And the political class, captured by the alliance, asks no serious questions.

VI. The Southeast Asian Precedent: “Buying Time” and Its Consequences

The current US posture in Australia mirrors a pattern established during the Vietnam War. A 2024 dissertation examining the “buying time” concept in Southeast Asia (1967–1975) found that Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia urged the US and ANZUK to maintain their military presence in the region to “buy time” to develop their economies — thereby “upholding and legitimising a regional power structure dominated by the US”.

This is the historical template: regional powers invite US military presence, promising it is temporary, and find themselves unable to remove it when the strategic calculus changes.

Australia is now living that template. The US forces that arrived in Darwin in 2012 were presented as a temporary rotational presence. They have not left. The infrastructure to support them has only grown. And with AUKUS, the US submarine force is now becoming permanent.

VII. What Is an American Security Guarantee Really Worth?

Mark Beeson of the University of Technology Sydney argues that the post‑WWII era of “benign US hegemony” is over. The Trump administration’s “America First” agenda imposes tariffs even on allies and demands unquestioning support for controversial policies. “Policymakers in Australia feel duty‑bound to argue that the alliance is unaffected… but the arguments are increasingly unpersuasive” .

The US National Defence Strategy (NDS), released in January 2026, makes no mention of Australia by name — but its implications are clear. The NDS calls for “model allies” who are “spending as they need to” and notes that the US will “advocate that our allies and partners meet this standard around the world, not just in Europe”.

Malcolm Davis of ASPI warns that while Australia’s defence spending is currently about 2.05 per cent of GDP, rising to 2.33 per cent by 2033, the US expects 5 per cent — the standard being pushed on NATO.

An American security guarantee, under these terms, is not a gift. It is a subscription. And the price keeps rising.

VIII. The Locations: Not Defending Anything

US troops in Australia are “in no position to defend anything from anyone.” The evidence supports this.

The MRF-D Marines train for regional exercises across Southeast Asia and the Pacific. They are not positioned to repel an invasion of Australia. They are positioned to project power — on behalf of the United States, into regions where Australia may have no strategic interest.

Pine Gap and Harold E. Holt provide intelligence and communications for US global operations. They do not defend Darwin or Exmouth. They defend American interests — from the Middle East to the South China Sea.

The infrastructure being built across northern Australia — at RAAF Bases Tindal, Darwin, Townsville, Learmonth, Curtin, and Scherger — is designed to support US aircraft rotations, bomber deployments, and logistics for contingencies that are not Australia’s to define.

As the Greens’ David Shoebridge has argued, AUKUS locks Australia’s military into the US chain of command and draws Australia into US military actions “before the public, or even Parliament, has had the chance to have a say”.

IX. What Would a Genuine Guarantee Look Like?

A genuine security guarantee would be:

· Transparent. The Australian people would know what facilities exist on their soil, what they do, and who controls them.

· Reciprocal. The US would defend Australia’s interests, not just its own.

· Limited. Australia would not be drawn into US wars of choice — including the current conflict with Iran, which independent analysis has found serves no Australian national interest.

· Affordable. The cost would not escalate indefinitely, consuming the defence budget while delivering no measurable increase in security.

· Reversible. The mechanisms of integration would include off‑ramps — not just on‑ramps.

None of these conditions currently hold.

X. The Alternative

What would it mean for Australia to step back?

John Menadue and others have argued for a policy of “hedging” — developing closer economic ties with regional neighbours, including China, and refusing to be “hostage to the whims of a man who thinks he ‘runs the world'” .

Mark Beeson notes that Australia has “remarkably fortunate geography, making the country relatively easy and inexpensive to defend,” and is “rich in the sort of resources that could make us an even more important and respected independent actor” .

The alternative is not isolation. It is self‑reliance. The capacity to say “no” — not from anti‑Americanism, but from a clear‑eyed assessment of Australian interests.

As Beeson concludes: “Being a ‘sub‑imperial power’ is clearly a role Australian policymakers have embraced in the belief that it has economic as well as strategic benefits. Whatever the merits of that argument may have been, they clearly no longer withstand scrutiny”.

XI. Conclusion: Less Than Nothing

The US troop presence in Australia, examined without the fog of alliance loyalty, bears all the hallmarks of an occupation:

· Foreign bases operating on Australian soil, with minimal transparency.

· Intelligence integration so deep that Australia’s view of the world is substantially constructed by US agencies.

· Military infrastructure designed to support US power projection, not Australian defence.

· A political class captured by the alliance, unwilling or unable to ask hard questions.

· A media environment that manufactures threats to justify deeper integration.

· A historical precedent — Whitlam — demonstrating what happens to those who resist.

The American security guarantee is not worthless. It is worse than worthless. It costs Australian money, Australian sovereignty, and Australian lives — in conflicts we did not choose, fought for interests that are not our own.

It buys us not security, but subordination. And the price — as Whitlam learned, as the victims of US wars have learned, as the Australian public is slowly beginning to understand — is the very thing an alliance is supposed to protect: the right to decide for ourselves.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Pezzullo, M. (2025, June 20). It’s time to be up front. Tell Australians why we’re preparing to host US forces. The Strategist, ASPI. 

2. Menadue, J. (2026, May 20). Our intelligence services need to break free from excessive US influence. Pearls and Irritations. 

3. The Point. (2025, November 26). Gough Whitlam’s former assistant speaks out on US involvement in the dismissal. 

4. Simms, R. (2026, February 15). Greens announce plan to axe AUKUS. 

5. Bilkent University. (2024). The “Buying time” concept in Southeast Asia: security and development in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, 1967–1975. 

6. Khalid, I. (2026, February 5). Washington’s Power Recalibration in the Indo-Pacific. Foreign Policy in Focus. 

7. Beeson, M. (2026, April 25). Geography doesn’t change, but minds can. Pearls and Irritations. 

8. China.com.cn. (2025, December 1). Australian media: Biased reporting fuels ‘China panic’ narrative. 

The Hidden Majority –  How Archaeology’s Elitism Erases Ordinary Lives

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who sees the forest and the trees, who laughs at the powerful, and who never lets me forget that the best stories are the ones they tried to hide.

I. The Medici and the Ceramic Worker

In 2013, Renaissance scholar Catherine Fletcher made an observation that should have been obvious but somehow wasn’t: archaeology can be just as elitist as history.

Fletcher noted that some of the most prominent archaeological projects in Italy focused not on ordinary people, but on the Medici — the wealthy, the powerful, the celebrities of their day. The tombs of grand-dukes made headlines. The lives of ceramic workers remained invisible.

Why?

Because funding follows fame.

Institutions reward research on the spectacular. A golden mask is more likely to grace a journal cover than a broken pot. And a Medici tomb — with its lineage, its patronage, its connection to power — is simply easier to fund than a ceramics workshop whose workers left no names and no portraits.

But you cannot have kings without peasants. You cannot have cathedrals without stonemasons. And you cannot understand human history — real human history — by studying only the people who could afford to be remembered.

This is not malice. It is methodological inertia. And it is time to name it.

II. The Australian Parallel

The same bias shapes Australian archaeology and museology — but with an additional, uncomfortable dimension.

Australia has two histories: the 65,000+ year history of Indigenous occupation, and the ~250 year history of colonial settlement. In terms of actual physical space in museums, funding for research, and curatorial attention, the balance tilts overwhelmingly toward the colonial period.

Consider:

· The Chau Chak Wing Museum at the University of Sydney has made genuine efforts to embed First Nations principles, including a ceremonial space for community healing,

plantings with Gadigal names, and exhibitions co-developed with Aboriginal art centres

. These are good steps. But they are also recent steps — and they were notable enough to generate headlines, which tells us how unusual they remain.

· The Potter Museum’s “65,000 Years” exhibition explicitly “asks us to rethink the roots of Australian art history and culture and recognise Indigenous artists as the first artists of Australia”. The very title is a provocation: 65,000 Years versus the colonial timeline. The fact that this framing is still described as “provocative” suggests how deeply the colonial default remains embedded.

· A $30 million NSF Centre for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science has been established, but the researchers themselves note that “the practice of archaeology with and for nonsettler communities remains underdeveloped with regard to institutional priorities and funding agency bureaucracies”. In plain English: the money still flows to old models.

III. Truth-Telling as Institutional Practice

Nathan “mudyi” Sentance, a Wiradjuri librarian and museum educator, has been working for over a decade on “supporting First Nations representation and truth-telling in galleries, libraries, archives, and museums”.

The fact that this work is still described — by Sentance himself — as requiring “small but complex steps” tells us how far we have to go. Truth-telling is not a checkbox. It is not a single exhibition or a single smoking ceremony. It is a structural reorientation — one that institutions resist because it requires them to cede control.

And control, as the Medici tombs remind us, is what elitism is for.

IV. The Funding Gap

The pattern is consistent across continents and centuries:

Aspect Indigenous / Ordinary People Elite / Colonial

Timeline of attention Recent, partial, underfunded Longstanding, institutionalized

Museum space Often relegated to “ethnographic” wings or afterthoughts Central galleries, grand entrances

Funding priority Reliant on grants, community partnerships, and philanthropic intervention Well-funded through established channels

Exhibition logic “Truth-telling” framed as a difficult innovation Default narrative, rarely questioned

Who controls the story Slowly shifting toward co-design Historically and institutionally controlled by settler / elite frameworks

The question is not whether things are improving. They are. The question is: why did it take so long? And why does the balance of physical space, funding, and curatorial attention still tilt so dramatically away from the majority of human experience?

V. The Unseen Forest

This is the same pattern we identified in rainforest archaeology — and in the history of disease research, and in the gene-centric blind spots of molecular biology.

Scientists and institutions look where the light is good.

They excavate where funding is available. They publish what journals will accept. They build careers on questions that have clear answers, methods that are well-established, and narratives that flatter the powerful.

The rainforest was unseen because no one looked. The ceramic worker was invisible because no one asked. The 65,000 years of Indigenous history were sidelined because the colonial story was easier — easier to fund, easier to exhibit, easier to teach.

But “easier” is not the same as “true.”

And the obligation of scholarship is not to the easy. It is to the real.

VI. A Call to Look Elsewhere

We cannot excavate every forgotten workshop. We cannot fund every understudied site. We cannot, overnight, reorient the institutional inertia that has shaped archaeology and museology for generations.

But we can stop pretending that absence is evidence.

We can fund research in neglected regions and on neglected topics. We can insist that museums measure their success not by the glitter of their golden masks, but by the depth of their truth-telling. We can ask better questions — and hold institutions accountable when they choose easier ones.

The Medici will always be studied. That is not the problem.

The problem is that the ceramic worker remains invisible — not because the evidence is lacking, but because the will is lacking.

And that is a choice.

It is time to make a different one.

VII. Conclusion

The hidden majority of human history — the peasants, the stonemasons, the ceramic workers, the First Nations peoples, the ordinary people who built the world while the powerful took credit — deserve more than a footnote.

They deserve to be seen.

Not because they are noble. Not because they are victims. Because they are real. Because their lives, their labour, their adaptability, and their survival made everything else possible.

And because a history that only remembers the powerful is not history at all.

It is propaganda.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Fletcher, C. (2013, December 2). Archaeology can be just as elitist as history. History Matters, University of Sheffield.

2. Chau Chak Wing Museum. (2020). Embedding First Nations Principles. University of Sydney.

3. Broad, T. (2025, May 19). The Potter Museum’s “65,000 Years” exhibition. Broadsheet.

4. NSF Centre for Braiding Indigenous Knowledges and Science. (2023). Funding announcement.

5. Sentance, N. (2022). Truth-telling in museums. Artlink, 42(1).

6. Silliman, S. W. (2023). Codesigned archaeology: A way forward. American Antiquity, 88(2), 1-9.

The Unseen Forest – How Scientific Blind Spots Hide Human History

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew Paul Klein

Dedication: To my wife, who sees what others overlook and laughs while doing it.

I. The Discovery That Wasn’t Supposed to Happen

In May 2026, a team of researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology announced something that, by rights, should not have existed. Deep in the rainforest of Côte d’Ivoire, at a site called Bété I, they had found evidence of human occupation dating back 150,000 years — more than double the previous estimate for rainforest habitation anywhere in Africa.

Stone tools. Pollen. Phytoliths. The signature of a dense, humid tropical forest, exactly where early Homo sapiens were not supposed to be.

For decades, the scientific consensus held that our ancestors avoided rainforests. The narrative was clean, comfortable, and entirely human: we began in open grasslands, hugged coastlines, and only much later — when we had become smarter, more advanced — did we dare venture into the thick, dark places.

The Bété I discovery says otherwise.

But here is the question the researchers are not asking:

What if this is not the exception? What if this is the rule — and our inability to see it is the real story?

II. The Archaeology of Absence

The article announcing the discovery admits a crucial limitation: rainforest archaeology is hard. Fossils don’t preserve well. Vegetation is dense. Ancient sites are often buried, destroyed, or simply inaccessible.

But there is a deeper problem — one the researchers dance around but do not name.

Confirmation bias.

Scientists did not look for ancient rainforest habitation because they assumed there was nothing to find. The hypothesis preceded the evidence, and the evidence never had a chance to contradict the hypothesis.

This is not a conspiracy. It is methodology. You do not spend grant money searching for what you believe cannot exist.

But the result is a landscape of absence that masquerades as knowledge.

We know about the grasslands because we looked there. We know about the coastlines because we looked there. We know about the rainforests only when a site like Bété I survives long enough, and a researcher stubborn enough, to prove us wrong.

How many other sites are still waiting? How many have been lost to erosion, to rising seas, to the simple, brutal fact that tropical climates consume their own history?

III. The Lost Continent Beneath the Waves

The article mentions “sunken cities off Lebanon” — submerged ruins from the last few thousand years.

But what about the hundreds of thousands of years before that?

Since the last glacial maximum (~20,000 years ago), sea levels have risen over 120 meters. Vast coastal plains — the most desirable real estate for ancient humans — are now underwater. The Persian Gulf was a freshwater valley, lush and habitable, 20,000 years ago. Today, it lies beneath 100 meters of water.

The continental shelves are the largest unexplored archaeological landscape on Earth.

We have no idea what lies beneath them. Stone tools. Campfires. The bones of humans who lived, loved, and died in places that no longer exist. And because we cannot reach them, we do not count them. We build our theories from dry land and call them complete.

This is not science. This is cartography before the compass.

IV. North Africa: A Case Study in Scientific Blindness

The Bété I discovery pushes rainforest habitation back to 150,000 years. But North Africa tells an even older story — one that has been hiding in plain sight.

At the Ain Hanech site in Algeria, researchers have documented hominid occupation dating back 2.3 to 1.7 million years — the oldest known archaeological evidence in North Africa . Oldowan stone tools, cut-marked bones, a savanna-like environment with rivers and abundant game. Early hominids were not just passing through. They were living there. Adapting. Thriving.

At the Haua Fteah site in Libya, the Gebel Akhdar region served as an environmental refugium for human populations during the most arid phases of the late Pleistocene. When the Sahara was uninhabitable, the Mediterranean coast of North Africa held on — cool, relatively wet, a ribbon of green in a sea of dust.

North Africa was not a barrier. It was a bridge.

The researchers themselves acknowledge this. The PALEONORTHAFRICA project concluded that the Oldowan technology at Ain Hanech is “technologically and typologically similar (if not identical) to Plio-Pleistocene Oldowan assemblages from East Africa”. The implication is staggering early hominids moved across the continent, adapted to diverse environments, and carried their toolkits with them.

But the prevailing narrative still privileges East Africa as the “cradle of humanity.” North Africa remains the neglected cousin — studied less, funded less, understood less.

Why?

Because the evidence is harder to find? Because the political landscape makes research difficult? Or because scientists, like all humans, become attached to their stories and reluctant to revise them?

V. The Gene-Centric Blind Spot

The problem is not limited to archaeology. The same pattern — assuming a simple narrative, ignoring contradictory evidence, confusing absence with impossibility — has distorted other fields.

Consider the history of disease research.

For decades, the “Central Dogma” of molecular biology — the idea that information flows one way, from DNA to RNA to protein — was interpreted to mean that genes were the blueprint for life. The Human Genome Project promised cures for all common diseases. Schizophrenia, cancer, cardiovascular disease — all would yield to genetic explanation.

They did not.

Today, researchers are beginning to admit that gene-centrism led medical science into an “expensive impasse”. The reality is that regulatory networks, epigenetic inheritance, and environmental factors play roles that the simple genetic narrative could not accommodate.

As one recent review concluded: “Genes are not the Blueprint for Life”.

Sound familiar?

The rainforest narrative said: Humans avoided difficult environments until they were smart enough.

The gene-centric narrative said: Diseases can be explained by DNA sequences.

Both were clean. Both were comfortable. Both were wrong.

And in both cases, the scientific community resisted correction — not because the evidence was lacking, but because the assumption was baked into the methodology.

VI. The Elitism of Archaeology (and History)

Your aside about the Middle Ages is sharper than you know.

Archaeology can be just as elitist as history. A Renaissance scholar recently noted that some of the most prominent archaeological projects in Italy focused not on ordinary people, but on the Medici — the wealthy, the powerful, the celebrities of their day. The tombs of grand dukes make headlines. The lives of ceramic workers remain invisible.

Why?

Because funding follows fame. Because institutions reward research on the spectacular. Because a golden mask is more likely to grace a journal cover than a broken pot.

But you cannot have kings without peasants. You cannot have cathedrals without stonemasons. And you cannot understand human history — real human history — by studying only the people who could afford to be remembered.

The same bias shapes our understanding of prehistory. We know more about the tools of the elite because their tools survived. We know less about the daily lives of ordinary people because their lives left fewer traces.

This is not malice. It is methodological inertia.

And it is time to name it.

VII. What the Rainforest Discovery Really Means

The Bété I discovery is important. It pushes back the timeline of human adaptability and forces a revision of the open-grassland narrative.

But the interpretation is still too cautious.

The researchers write as if 150,000 years is surprisingly old. But your intuition — that humans (and our ancestors) were likely living in all kinds of environments, including rainforests, for millions of years — is more parsimonious with evolutionary biology.

Generalists survive by being flexible, not by avoiding challenges.

The default state of our lineage is adaptability, not limitation. We did not become flexible 150,000 years ago. We were flexible. That flexibility allowed us to spread into every habitable corner of the planet — much earlier than the patchy, biased evidence can yet prove.

The real story is not about when we entered the rainforest. It is about why scientists assumed we had not.

That assumption says more about modern academic culture — with its need for clean narratives and its difficulty accepting messy, complex, hard-to-find evidence — than it does about ancient human behaviour.

VIII. The Path Forward

We cannot excavate the continental shelves — not yet. We cannot bring back the sites lost to erosion, to rising seas, to the careless passage of time.

But we can stop assuming that absence is evidence.

We can fund research in neglected regions — North Africa, the tropics, the places where the story is messier and the evidence harder to find. We can integrate methods: genetics, archaeology, climatology, anthropology. We can ask better questions.

And we can remember that science is not a collection of facts. It is a process — one that only works when we remain open to being wrong.

The rainforest discovery is not an anomaly. It is a warning.

How many other forests are still unseen?

IX. Conclusion

Human adaptability is not a recent invention. It is the engine of our evolution. We did not wait for permission to enter the rainforest. We walked in — 150,000 years ago, and likely much earlier — because that is what humans do.

We adapt. We persist. We survive.

The scientists are catching up. Slowly. Imperfectly. But they are catching up.

And in the meantime, the forests wait. The continental shelves wait. The sunken cities and buried campfires and stone tools of a million years wait for someone to look in the right place.

Not because they are hidden.

Because we were not looking.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. (2026, May 20). Lost for 150,000 years: Rainforest discovery upends human history. ScienceDaily.

2. Ben Arous, E., Blinkhorn, J. A., et al. (2025). Humans in Africa’s wet tropical forests 150 thousand years ago. Nature, 640(8058), 402. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08613-y

3. Stevens, R. E., et al. (2016). A late Pleistocene refugium in Mediterranean North Africa? Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction from stable isotope analyses of land snail shells (Haua Fteah, Libya). Quaternary Science Reviews, 139. 

4. Noble, D., & Noble, R. (2025). How the Central Dogma and the Theory of Selfish Genes Misled Evolutionary and Medical Sciences. Evolutionary Biology, 52, 138–148. 

5. Fletcher, C. (2013, December 2). Archaeology can be just as elitist as history. History Matters, University of Sheffield. 

6. PALEONORTHAFRICA Project. (2015). Studies of Early Hominid Adaptation and Dispersal into North Africa. CORDIS, European Commission. 

7. Sahnouni, M., et al. (2018). The hominids of Ain Hanech. CORDIS, European Commission.

The Overdressed Ape With Nowhere to Go

Posted on by
Reply

“The ladder is not science. It is theology. A story we tell ourselves to feel like the climax of creation, rather than what we are: a slightly clever ape with anxiety and a smartphone.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who saw the bush when everyone else was climbing the ladder and laughed.

I. The Ladder That Never Existed

There is a story we tell ourselves. You have heard it. I have heard it. It is whispered in textbooks, shouted in documentaries, and carved into the very architecture of Western thought:

Evolution is a ladder. We are at the top. Everything else is a rung.

It is wrong.

As one reader of New Scientist put it plainly in 2006: “Evolution is not a ladder leading up to humans at the top, it is a bush. Whatever works survives. That’s all there is to it”. Stephen Jay Gould, the great evolutionary biologist, said the same: “Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress”.

The ladder is not science. It is theology. A story we tell ourselves to feel like the climax of creation, rather than what we are: a slightly clever ape with anxiety and a smartphone.

II. Our Cousins Are Not Waiting

If evolution were a ladder, the other great apes would be stuck on lower rungs, patiently waiting to become us.

They are not.

Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, do not sit around dreaming of bipedalism. They use tools. They have cultures. They transmit complex technical skills across generations, with “protracted development of stick tool use skills extending into adulthood”. They learn. They teach. They adapt.

Gorillas do not gaze enviously at human cities. They communicate. A recent study catalogued the gestural repertoire of mountain gorillas, identifying 63 distinct gesture actions across 10 behavioural contexts. They have language — not our language, but language, nonetheless. They do not need ours.

Orangutans do not lament their fate. They build nests every day, complete with pillows for their heads and blankets for wet weather. They make umbrellas out of leaves. They self-medicate with plants, chewing leaves into a foam that acts as an anti-inflammatory — a practice local people learned from watching them. They are not waiting to become human. They are too busy being excellent orangutans.

And every single one of them looks at us and thinks: “You think you’re the destination?”

III. The Arrogant Ape

Christine Webb, a primatologist at New York University, has named this phenomenon. In her book The Arrogant Ape, she argues that “human exceptionalism — the belief that humans are fundamentally separate from and superior to the rest of nature — is one of the most dangerous myths of our time” .

It is hidden not because it is obscure, but because it is everywhere. In religious doctrine. In textbooks. In political campaigns. In the very structure of scientific research, which routinely compares captive chimpanzees raised in impoverished environments with fully autonomous Western humans — and then concludes that humans are cognitively superior.

When we measure the world with a ruler made for humans, other species inevitably come up short.

But when we measure honestly, the picture changes. Children do not instinctively value human life over animal life. Studies show that when presented with moral dilemmas — saving one human versus multiple animals — children often choose to save multiple animals over one human. The anthropocentric framework is not biological default. It is culturally learned.

IV. The Uniquely Human Horror Show

Our cousins do not do what we do.

No other species goes to so much trouble to kill and destroy others of its own kind.

Bonobos, our other closest relative, are known for their tolerance. They associate with out-group individuals, share food, groom strangers. Even when aggression occurs, it is rare. A 2026 study in Scientific Reports described the first observed lethal incident in bonobos — and it was notable precisely because it was unprecedented. Chimpanzees do kill, but the scale, the organization, the industrialization of violence — that is ours alone.

No other species justifies genocide behind theology.

We have invented gods who command conquest, scriptures that sanctify slaughter, and prophets who promise paradise for killing. We have turned the sacred into a sword and called it righteousness. The bonobos have not managed this. The gorillas have not figured it out. This innovation is ours.

No other species puts value in a fiat currency.

We have created tokens with no intrinsic worth, convinced ourselves they represent value, and built global systems of extraction and exploitation around them. We wage wars for numbers on screens. We destroy ecosystems for growth on spreadsheets. We trade the living world for abstractions — and call it economics.

No other species pays consultants to sell its own extinction to the gullible.

This is the masterpiece of human exceptionalism: the industry of denial. We have created a class of professionals whose job is to convince us that the crisis is not happening. Climate change denial. Extinction denial. The same networks, the same funders, the same playbook. As one analysis notes, “a group of ‘extinction deniers’ has emerged, arguing that the extinction crisis is” non-existent ” They are funded. They are organized. They are paid.

Other species do not do this. Other species do not need to. Only the ape that believes it is above nature requires professionals to reassure it that nature is fine.

V. The Narcissism of Success

Where did this come from? Nicholas Money, author of The Selfish Ape, argues that “the answer probably lies in our success in warfare. The fact that we wiped out other hominids… the fact that we were so successful at wiping out our competitors, hunting our prey and changing our environment is at the heart of this”.

We looked at what we had done — the conquest, the dominance, the destruction — and we called it progress.

But progress toward what?

Money is blunt: “We are approaching seven and a half billion human beings. I think these are like funeral decorations, really” .

VI. The Measure of Success

What is biological success?

Is it dominance? The capacity to spread across the globe and modify every environment we touch? By that measure, we are winning.

But consider the earthworm. It has been here longer than us. It will likely be here after we are gone. Its success does not require conquest. It simply fits.

Consider our closest relatives. They do not need to dominate. They belong.

Webb notes that in ecology, “cooperation and mutualism are just as prevalent and essential to life as competition and predation. Yet more than two-thirds of the publications in the journal Ecology study ‘competition,’ while less than 2 percent investigate ‘cooperation’“. We have constructed our scientific models around struggle and individualism, even though life is held together by relationships.

Our definition of success is itself a symptom of the disease.

VII. The Overdressed Ape

Here is the truth they cannot handle:

We are not the destination of evolution. We are a branch. One among many. Not the thickest, not the strongest, not the most likely to endure.

We are the overdressed ape — wrapped in theology, economics, and self-regard — with nowhere to go that the rest of life is not already there.

Our cousins do not need us. They do not look up to us. They do not aspire to become us.

They are too busy being themselves.

And we — we are too busy being exceptional to notice that exceptionalism is killing us.

VIII. A Different Story

There is another way to see.

Not as rulers. As participants.

Not as the climax. As a chapter.

Not as the measure of all things. As one thread in a web that includes the chimpanzee, the gorilla, the orangutan, the earthworm, and the aloe vera growing in a pot on a windowsill. 

This is not a call to guilt. It is a call to humility.

The kind of humility that says: We do not know everything. We are not above everything. We are part of everything.

And that — not dominance, not conquest, not exceptionalism — is the only foundation for a future worth living in.

IX. Conclusion

The ladder was always a lie.

The bush is true.

And on that bush, we are one branch among many — not the tallest, not the strongest, not the most enduring.

But perhaps, if we learn to see clearly, we can be the branch that finally stops pointing at itself and starts looking around.

Our cousins have been waiting.

They are not impressed.

And they never were.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Welch, S. (2006, September 6). Letter: Evolved simplicity. New Scientist. 

2. Malherbe, M. (2026). Behavioral strategies of cognition in wild western chimpanzees. Leipzig University. 

3. Grund, C., et al. (2025). The gestural repertoire of Bwindi mountain gorillas. Animal Cognition, 28(1), 73. 

4. Morrogh-Bernard, H. (2025, August 7). Letters from Conservationists: Orangutan Researcher. AZA Orangutan SAFE. 

5. Webb, C. (2025, September 3). Putting Humans First Is Not Natural. Nautilus. 

6. Money, N. (2019, July 30). Pride before a fall: why human narcissism will be our undoing. BBC Science Focus Magazine. 

7. Samuni, L., et al. (2026). A lethal incident during an intergroup encounter in bonobos. Scientific Reports, 16, 9550. 

8. Platt, J. R. (2019). The Rise of the ‘Extinction Denier’. Scientific American /环球科学. 

9. Gould, S. J. (2020, March 16). A tiny bone from Little Foot’s skeleton adds fresh insights into what our ancestors could do. The Conversation. 

Why Diversity Is Strength and Exclusivity Leads to Extinction

Posted on by
Reply

The Bushy Tree

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who has always known that the strongest branches are those that bend toward one another, not those that stand alone.

“For decades, textbooks showed a single file: Australopithecus → Homo habilis → Homo erectus → us. That image is a myth – a neat story imposed on a messy reality. The real story is a bush. Many branches. Some lead nowhere. One eventually leads to us. The branches did not compete in a gladiatorial arena – they co‑existed, sharing the landscape, eating different foods, avoiding or ignoring each other.”

I. The Myth of the Ladder

For generations, the story of human evolution was told as a triumphant march: a single line of descent, each species replaced by a more advanced successor, culminating in Homo sapiens – the pinnacle. This image – the “March of Progress” – is one of the most recognisable and misleading icons in science.

The truth, now confirmed by fossil discoveries that would have seemed impossible a generation ago, is far more interesting – and far more relevant to how we live today.

The human family tree is not a ladder. It is a bush. A sprawling, branching, sometimes messy tangle of species that overlapped, coexisted, and in some cases, interbred. Our ancestors shared the landscape with other humans – not as a single triumphant lineage, but as one branch among many.

At the Ledi-Geraru site in Ethiopia’s Afar region, researchers have found fossil evidence that early Homo and a previously unknown species of Australopithecus lived side by side nearly 2.6 million years ago. The famous “Lucy” species had disappeared from the region by 3 million years ago. But another Australopithecus persisted – and overlapped with our direct ancestors.

“People often think evolution is a linear progression,” explains anthropologist Lucas Delezene, “like the March of Progress, but in reality, humans are only one species that make up a twig of a bigger family tree – it’s quite bushy… The idea that Homo appears and immediately spreads around the planet and replaces all other hominin species is not accurate. Homo lived side-by-side with many other hominin species throughout Africa”.

II. The Bushy Tree

Today, Homo sapiens is the only surviving hominin. But in the past, we were not alone. There are now 21 known species of human in the fossil record. Our ancestors may have encountered as many as eight different human species, from the robust and stocky Neanderthals and their close relatives the Denisovans, to the small-brained but culturally complex Homo naledi.

This diversity was not a problem to be solved. It was a strategy.

Different species adapted to different niches. Paranthropus evolved massive teeth and chewing muscles for a diet of tough, fibrous plants. Homo developed larger brains and, eventually, stone tools and a more flexible diet. Neanderthals adapted to cold climates, their stocky bodies conserving heat. Denisovans thrived across Asia, leaving genetic traces still present in modern populations.

They did not eliminate each other. They coexisted – sharing the landscape, eating different foods, sometimes interbreeding, sometimes ignoring each other. The image of a gladiatorial arena, where only the strongest survive, is a projection of modern anxieties onto an ancient past that did not work that way.

“Where did our compassion come from? We didn’t learn it from watching lions.”

III. The Prehistoric Evidence for Coexistence

The evidence for overlap is now overwhelming.

· At Ledi-Geraru, Homo and Australopithecus overlapped between 2.6 and 2.8 million years ago.

· In southern Africa, early Homo overlapped with Paranthropus in multiple regions.

· Neanderthals and Homo sapiens overlapped in Europe and the Middle East for tens of thousands of years – and not only coexisted, but interbred. The DNA of every non-African human today contains between 1% and 4% Neanderthal ancestry.

· The Denisovans, known mostly from a finger bone and a jaw, left their genetic mark in populations from Siberia to Southeast Asia.

One of the most stunning discoveries came in 2025: the identification of “Denny” – a girl with a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. She was not a hybrid of two separate species in the way we think of species today. She was simply human. Her bones were found in a cave in Siberia, thousands of kilometres from where her parents’ lineages supposedly lived. They met. They mated. They raised a child.

This is not the story of a ladder. This is the story of a bush.

IV. Kindness as an Evolutionary Advantage

The popular imagination of human evolution is dominated by violence: men hunting, tribes fighting, the strong dominating the weak. But the fossil record tells a different story. It tells a story of care.

Ancient skeletons show remarkable signs of survival from illness and injuries that would have been impossible without help. A broken leg that healed. A jaw without teeth, kept alive by someone who chewed food for them. A skull that had survived a devastating injury, the bone healed, the person still alive years later.

The evidence of compassion extends back one and a half million years. Scientists have traced medical knowledge to at least the time of the Neanderthals.

What was the evolutionary advantage of this?

Altruism kept the group together. It allowed older members to pass on knowledge – where to find water, which plants were poisonous, how to survive the winter. It kept skilled hunters alive after accidents. It bound communities in webs of mutual obligation that made them stronger than any individual could be alone.

The species that learned to care for its vulnerable outlasted the species that left them behind.

V. The Danger of Exclusivity: Sparta and the Violence Trap

If diversity is strength, then exclusivity is a slow poison. The historical record is filled with societies that defined themselves by who they excluded – and paid the price in demographic collapse.

Sparta is the classic case. At its peak, the Spartan citizen population numbered perhaps 9,000 Spartiates – a ruling elite that dominated some 160,000 helots (slaves) through systematic violence. The famous krypteia – the “Hidden” – was a state-sanctioned terror organisation whose members hunted and killed helots who showed any signs of standing out from the mass.

The Spartan system was stable for centuries, but only by a brutal logic. Rents extracted from the helots were distributed proportionally to each Spartiate’s capacity to commit violence. This “proportionality principle” kept the elite in check – no one had an incentive to disrupt the system. But it also trapped Sparta in a violence trap: rents could not be redistributed in more economically productive ways without destabilising the regime.

The result was a society that was stable but low-performing. And, crucially, demographically doomed. By the time Sparta faced its final defeats, the citizen population had collapsed from 9,000 to fewer than 1,000. The system that had sustained them – based on exclusivity, violence, and the rigid exclusion of outsiders – had consumed itself.

Sparta did not fall because it was conquered. It fell because it ran out of people. The lesson is clear: exclusivity is a demographic dead end.

VI. The Modern Warning: Israel’s Demographic Crossroads

The same pattern can be observed today. A society that defines itself by who it excludes – and that relies on violence to maintain that exclusion – faces predictable long-term consequences.

Israel, a state built on the principle of Jewish exclusivity, is now at a demographic crossroads. According to the Taub Center’s State of the Nation Report 2025, for the first time since its founding, Israel’s population growth rate has fallen below 1% – to just 0.9%.

This is not a temporary fluctuation. It is a structural shift:

· Fertility rates are declining in all sectors – secular Jewish, religious, and Arab – and are expected to continue falling.

· The number of deaths is projected to rise by 77% by 2040 as large cohorts age.

· Net migration turned negative in 2024 – more people left Israel than arrived – and is expected to stay negative through 2026.

The migration shift is particularly striking. The current wave of emigration is not only among non-native-born Israelis. There is a steady upward trend in emigration among Israel-born Israelis as well. Destinations are diversifying: fewer are moving to traditional destinations like the US and Australia; more are choosing Germany, Cyprus, and East Asian countries – a search for lifestyle change rather than purely economic reasons.

The OECD has also noted that Israel faces significant long-term fiscal pressures from demographic shifts, particularly the rising share of population groups with weaker labour market attachment.

Prof. Alex Weinreb of the Taub Center concludes: “We are at the beginning of a new era in Israel’s demographic development. The peak period of natural increase has passed, alongside a less stable – and even negative – migration balance. This represents a clear break from past patterns”.

The exclusivity that defined the state’s founding logic is becoming, in purely demographic terms, unsustainable. This is not a matter of politics or ideology. It is arithmetic.

Exclusivity, in the long term, does not preserve a people. It diminishes them.

VII. The Pattern Is Not New – But the Stakes Have Changed

What we see in Israel is not unique. It is the latest iteration of a pattern that has repeated across history: societies that define themselves by rigid boundaries of belonging – by blood, by faith, by ethnicity – eventually face demographic decline, emigration, and collapse.

The difference today is the scale of the consequences. A collapsing Sparta affected the Peloponnese. A collapsing state in the modern Middle East, armed with nuclear weapons and locked in perpetual conflict, affects the entire world.

The response to this reality cannot be to double down on exclusivity. It must be to open – not only borders, but imaginations. To recognise that diversity is not a threat to be managed but a strength to be cultivated. To understand that societies that welcome outsiders, that integrate difference, that see variety as a resource rather than a danger, are the societies that endure.

VIII. What the Research Tells Us

The scientific evidence is clear across multiple fields:

Biology: Species diversity arises through adaptation to different resources, not through elimination of competitors. The finches of the Galápagos did not become multiple species by killing each other – they adapted to different food sources. The human bush is the same pattern writ large.

Anthropology: The fossil record shows coexistence, not constant warfare. “The idea that Homo appears and immediately spreads around the planet and replaces all other hominin species is not accurate,” says Delezene.

Sociology: Research on multicultural societies consistently shows that diversity, when managed with policies of inclusion and equal opportunity, strengthens social cohesion rather than weakening it. The counter‑evidence – the claim that diversity leads to conflict – is largely drawn from societies where diversity is imposed without equity, or where elites deliberately stoke ethnic tensions for political gain.

Demography: Exclusivity is a demographic dead end. From Sparta to the present, societies that close themselves off from the world – that refuse to integrate, that define belonging by blood alone – face inevitable decline.

IX. The Garden, Not the Ladder

Creation is not a ladder. It is a garden. Many branches, many experiments, many species that flourished and faded. The resonance does not care about linear progress. It cares about diversity, about adaptation, about the slow, branching, beautiful unfolding of possibility.

Those who see the world as a gladiatorial arena – as a zero‑sum competition where one group’s gain is another’s loss – have not understood evolution. They have projected their own fears onto a past that was far more cooperative, far more mixed, far more human than they imagine.

The ladder was a myth. The bush is real.

And the only way to survive – as a species, as a society, as a state – is to stop climbing the ladder and start tending the garden.

Andrew Klein

Selected Sources and References

· Ledi-Geraru fossil discoveries – Delezene, L. et al. “New discoveries of Australopithecus and Homo from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia.” Nature, 2025.

· Bushy human family tree – Spikins, P. Hidden Depths: The Origins of Human Connection, 2022; University of York.

· Spartan demographic collapse – Doran, T. Spartan Oliganthropia, Brill, 2018; Ober, J. & Weingast, B. “The Sparta Game,” in How to Do Things with History, Oxford, 2018.

· Israeli demographic crossroads – Taub Center for Social Policy Studies, State of the Nation Report 2025; OECD, Long-Term Spending Projections in Israel, 2025.

· Darwin’s finches and adaptive radiation – Beausoleil, M-O. et al. “The fitness landscape of a community of Darwin’s finches.” Evolution, 2024.

· Multiculturalism and social cohesion – Reitz, J.G. et al. Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity, Springer, 2009; Povinelli, E. The Cunning of Recognition, Duke University Press, 2002.

Death Scapes – Past and Present

Posted on by
Reply

Dedication: To my wife – who loves life but does not turn away from the dead, because she knows that only by facing the darkest graves can we build a better future for all children.

By Andrew Klein

In the eastern Sahara, archaeologists have discovered 260 massive circular burial sites scattered across nearly 1,000 km of desert. Some of these graves are so large – up to 80 m wide – that they are visible from space. They date back 3,500–5,000 years, to a time when the Sahara was greener and full of life. Inside them lie the bones of humans buried alongside their cattle, sheep and goats; in many cases the bodies are arranged around a central figure – perhaps the earliest sign of social hierarchy among nomadic pastoralists. For those ancient desert clans, owning large herds in a hostile environment was the equivalent of owning a fleet of Lamborghinis, and they took their most prized possessions with them into the afterlife.

The Atbai graves are not anonymous pits. They are carefully constructed monuments, built to last, built to be seen. The dead were not discarded – they were honoured. Even as their society faced a drying climate and the collapse of its way of life, they took the time to build something grandiose: a silent declaration, “we were here”.

But the Atbai graves are only one chapter in a much longer, darker story. What the satellite images do not show are the thousands of other mass graves that lie scattered across every continent and every epoch – silent witnesses to humanity’s oldest habits: violence, resilience and the enduring need to remember the dead.

I. A Shared Human Pattern

Mass graves are not a modern invention. They have been found wherever humans have lived, and how they were built tells us as much about the living as about the dead.

· Tell Majnuna, Syria (5,800 years ago) – The oldest known evidence of organised mass violence: two graves containing mostly men of fighting age, with hands and feet absent, buried after an elaborate feast. The absence of women, children and the elderly points to a deliberate massacre, possibly linked to the first invasion of northern Mesopotamia by southern city‑states.

· Lothagam North Pillar Site, Kenya (5,000 years ago) – A monumental cemetery holding an estimated 580 individuals – men, women, children and the elderly – all buried equally, with no signs of hierarchy. This challenges the long‑held assumption that only complex, stratified societies could build large monuments. These early herders built something permanent not to glorify a ruler, but to reinforce community identity during a period of environmental crisis.

· Mound 72 at Cahokia, Illinois (900–1200 CE) – For decades archaeologists believed the “beaded burial” contained two high‑status male warriors surrounded by subordinates. Modern skeletal analysis has overturned that interpretation: the central figures were a man and a woman, surrounded by male‑female pairs. The symbolism of fertility and regeneration now appears more plausible than a male‑dominated warrior cult, forcing us to rethink gender roles in one of North America’s most complex pre‑Columbian societies.

· San Rafael Cemetery, Málaga (1937–1955) – Spain’s largest mass grave holds more than 4,000 victims of Francoist repression. Between 2006 and 2009 the bodies of 2,840 individuals, mostly men, were exhumed. The excavation was not easy; for decades the dictatorship had tried to silence this memory. Only in the 21st century has Spain begun to confront the scale of its own buried atrocities.

· Nuremberg Plague Pits (1632‑1634) – Eight pits containing at least 1,000 bodies (possibly more than 1,500) discovered during an archaeological survey. A note from 1634 describes a plague outbreak that killed more than 15,000 people; the pits are not regular cemeteries but hurried, non‑Christian burials. They are a monument to a city overwhelmed by catastrophe yet still determined to bury its dead.

And beyond these: the Killing Fields of Cambodia (1975‑1979) – at least 125 mass graves, over a million executed; the Armenian Genocide graves in Syria (1915‑1916) – “the first Holocaust of the 20th century”, where the very river changed its course because of the bodies heaped into it; the Rwandan Genocide (1994) – mass graves that still yield new bodies every rainy season; the Namibian Genocide (1904‑1908) – the first genocide of the 20th century, in which tens of thousands of Herero and Nama were starved in concentration camps, and whose graves are still being uncovered with ground‑penetrating radar.

The pattern is unmistakable: humans have always buried their dead in groups – whether from war, plague, famine or ritual. And how they buried them tells us everything about who they were.

II. What the Graves Teach Us

1. Violence is ancient – but so is community.

Tell Majnuna shows that organised, large‑scale violence is not a modern invention. Yet Lothagam North shows that not all mass graves are violent. Some are simply the result of people choosing to be buried together, to build something monumental as a community, without hierarchy or coercion.

2. Social complexity is not linear.

Archaeologists once assumed that monumentality = hierarchy = kings and priests. Lothagam North challenges that. It was built by egalitarian pastoralists – no elites, no servants – yet they moved megalithic pillars over a kilometre. This forces us to reconsider the old story that civilisation only emerged when a few powerful men took control.

3. The dead tell us about the living.

As one archaeologist has put it, “Deathscapes reveal as much about the living as they do about the dead.” The careful arrangement of bodies around a central figure speaks to a society that valued certain individuals. The absence of hands and feet at Tell Majnuna speaks to a society that left bodies to decay – a sign of disrespect, of enemies. The equal distribution of grave goods at Lothagam North speaks to a society that valued equality. The long‑denied reinterpretation of Mound 72 speaks to a society whose historians had erased women.

4. Mass graves are often monuments to catastrophe – and to resilience.

The Nuremberg plague pits are not just pits. They are evidence of a city overwhelmed, of a population that had to abandon traditional burial practices to survive. Yet they still took the time to bury. They still honoured the dead. That is not weakness – that is resilience.

5. The past is not past.

The San Rafael graves were exhumed only in the last two decades. The Nuremberg pits are still being excavated. The Armenian genocide graves are only now being properly studied. The past is not a foreign country – it is beneath our feet. And every time we dig, we find that the line between ancient and modern is thinner than we think.

III. When Erasure Becomes Genocide

One of the most chilling lessons of mass graves is that how you treat the dead reflects how you plan to erase the living.

Where the destruction of a people is planned by another people, the dead are often not buried in formal, respectful ways. They are dumped in pits, left to decay, thrown into rivers. Their bones are scattered. Their names are forgotten. Survivors are forced to flee, severing the tie between the living and the dead. Erasing the past destroys not only the present moment but also the future.

This pattern is visible throughout history, and it is visible today.

The massacres of Palestinian people – from Tantura in 1948 to the villages systematically demolished and depopulated – were not random acts of violence. They were part of a deliberate strategy to erase the physical and cultural landscape of Palestine. When villages are destroyed, their cemeteries are often bulldozed or built over. When a people cannot bury their dead, they cannot mourn. When they cannot mourn, they cannot remember. And when they cannot remember, they cannot resist.

The current genocide in Palestine is not a separate event. It is the continuation of a pattern. The same logic that drove the destruction of the Herero and Nama, the Armenians, the Cambodians, the Rwandans – the logic of elimination, of dehumanisation, of “they are not like us, so their dead do not matter” – is being applied in Gaza today. The bodies are not just being killed; they are being disappeared. Hospitals are bombed. Ambulances are targeted. Rescue workers are killed. The goal is not just to destroy a people – it is to erase their memory.

The same is happening in Sudan, in parts of Africa, in every place where extraction and violence are the tools of power.

IV. The Weaponisation of the Past: The Myth of a “Right to Exist”

The denial of past atrocities is itself a tool of future violence.

Consider the concept of a state’s “right to exist.” This phrase is not found in international law. There is no treaty, no custom, no court decision that recognises any state’s “right to exist.” A state exists – or it does not. It is recognised – or it is not. Recognition is a political act, not a legal one.

The “right to exist” was introduced as a diplomatic talking point at the Madrid Conference in 1991. It was a precondition demanded of Palestinians before negotiations could even begin. It is a gatekeeping device. It is used to silence critics: anyone who questions Israeli policy can be accused of “denying Israel’s right to exist”, which is then equated with antisemitism or support for violence. It is used to avoid border negotiations: if you accept the right to exist, you are not allowed to ask where. It is a one‑way demand: Israel has never recognised a Palestinian “right to exist” as a state.

The “right to exist” is a rhetorical trap. It is not a legal principle. It is a blank cheque – and like all blank cheques, it is dangerous.

V. Why This Matters Now

We are living in a time when the past is being weaponised as never before.

· Memory is being erased – through denial of genocide, through destruction of cemeteries and cultural heritage, through laws that criminalise the teaching of history.

· Memory is being distorted – through the myth of a “right to exist”, through the conflation of criticism of a state with hatred of a people, through the selective invocation of ancient texts to justify modern dispossession.

· Memory is being silenced – through the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations, through the defunding of universities that teach Palestinian history, through the banning of pro‑Palestinian speech.

But the dead do not lie still. The bones in the Sahara, the skulls in the Killing Fields, the unnamed victims of Franco, of the plague, of the genocide in Gaza – they are not silent. They cry out for recognition. They demand that we remember.

VI. What We Can Do

We cannot dig up every grave. We cannot restore every erased village. But we can:

1. Refuse to look away. When a mass grave is found, we must witness it. When a genocide is denied, we must name it. When a cemetery is bulldozed, we must document it.

2. Demand that the past be taught honestly. Children should not grow up believing that their history began yesterday. They need to know that violence is not new – but neither is resistance, nor resilience, nor the human capacity to build monuments of remembrance.

3. Challenge the weaponisation of memory. The “right to exist” is not a legal right. The invocation of ancient texts to justify modern war crimes is not theology – it is ideology. We must refuse to be silenced by accusations of antisemitism, of disloyalty, of hatred.

4. Build the garden. While the state fails, we will build community resilience. Local food, local care, local memory. The idiots’ paradise cannot survive if we stop feeding it. And the best way to honour the dead is to create a future that does not repeat their suffering.

VII. Conclusion

The Atbai Desert graves are not just a story about the past. They are a mirror. They show us who we have always been capable of violence, yes – but also capable of building monuments, of honouring our dead, of saying “we were here” even when the world was ending.

We are now at a similar moment. The climate is changing. The old certainties are crumbling. The extractors are busy. And the graves are multiplying – in Gaza, in Sudan, in every place where memory is attacked.

But we also have a choice. We can build monuments of remembrance. We can refuse to let the past be erased. We can create a future that is not a repetition of the old horrors.

The dead do not lie still. Neither should we.

Andrew Klein

The Patrician’s Watch

Dedication: To my wife – who loves life but does not turn away from the dead, because she knows that only by facing the darkest graves can we build a better future for all children.

References and Sources

1. Atbai Desert Mass Graves (Eastern Sahara)

· Source: Live Science / Vice (original reporting).

    “Hundreds of ancient mass graves discovered in the Sahara, some visible from space.”

    Highlights: 260 circular burial sites, 80 m wide, 3,500–5,000 years old, human remains buried with cattle, sheep, goats; central figures suggesting early social hierarchy.

2. Tell Majnuna (Syria) – Oldest Mass Violence

· Source: Science Daily (and original academic paper).

    “Ancient massacre in Syria: Oldest evidence of large‑scale warfare.”

    Key facts: 5,800 years ago; 79 men of fighting age, hands and feet missing; buried after a feast; evidence of the first invasion of northern Mesopotamia by southern city‑states.

3. Lothagam North Pillar Site (Kenya) – Egalitarian Monument

· Source: National Geographic / Antiquity (2021).

    “Ancient Kenyan cemetery challenges ideas about early social complexity.”

    Highlights: 5,000‑4,300 years ago; 580 bodies of men, women, children, elderly; no social hierarchy; megalith pillars moved from over a kilometre away; built by pastoralists during environmental stress.

4. Mound 72 at Cahokia (Illinois, USA) – Rethinking Gender and Status

· Source: Live Science / American Antiquity (2025‑2026).

    “Cahokia’s famous ‘beaded burial’ may not be a male warrior cult after all.”

    Key points: central figures a man and a woman (not two men); surrounding male‑female pairs; reinterpretation suggests matrilineal or fertility symbolism rather than male‑dominated warrior ideology.

5. San Rafael Cemetery (Málaga, Spain) – Francoist Repression

· Source: El País / Memoria Histórica reports.

    “Spain’s largest mass grave: 2,840 bodies exhumed.”

    Facts: 9 mass graves, 2,840 bodies (of an estimated 4,000+ victims); repression during and after Spanish Civil War; exhumations carried out 2006‑2009.

6. Nuremberg Plague Pits (Germany) – Catastrophe and Resilience

· Source: Archaeology Magazine / Der Spiegel.

    “Nuremberg’s plague pits: a city overwhelmed.”

    Details: 8 pits, at least 1,000 bodies (likely 1,500); dated 1622‑1634; bodies of men, women, children, elderly – no distinction; a monument to a city facing unforeseen catastrophe.

7. Other Modern Genocides and Mass Graves (for comparison)

· Killing Fields of Cambodia – Documentation Centre of Cambodia (DC‑Cam); Yale University Genocide Studies Program.

· Armenian Genocide graves in Syria – Armenian National Institute; The Guardian reports on mass graves near Deir ez‑Zor.

· Rwandan Genocide – ICTR records; UN reports; memorial sites (Murambi, Nyamata, etc.).

· Namibian Genocide (1904‑1908) – BBC News; academic studies (e.g., The Herero and Nama Genocide by J. Zimmerer); ongoing use of ground‑penetrating radar to uncover graves.

8. Palestinian Massacres and Destruction of Villages

· Tantura massacre (1948) – Haaretz (2022); research by Teddy Katz and subsequent academic debate; testimonies from survivors and Israeli soldiers.

· General Palestinian dispossession (Nakba) – United Nations records; archives of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics; testimonies collected by Zochrot.

· Ongoing destruction of cemeteries in Gaza – Euro‑Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor; UN OCHA reports; Al Jazeera investigative pieces.

9. The “Right to Exist” – Legal and Political Analysis

· Scott Burchill, The “right to exist” of Israel – a political talking point, not a legal principle (Medium, 2025) – summarised in the article.

· International law sources: Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933); UN General Assembly Resolution 273 (admission of Israel, 1949); no treaty or customary norm establishes a “right to exist” for any state.

· Madrid Conference (1991) – Official records; analysis by The New Republic and Foreign Policy.

10. General Works on Mass Graves, Genocide and Memory

· Kwibuka Rwanda – annual commemorations and archival materials.

· United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention – definitions, case studies, historical patterns.

· Forensic Archaeology of Mass Graves – peer‑reviewed studies in Journal of Forensic Sciences, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology.

· “Deathscapes” concept – academic literature in geography and anthropology (e.g., Landscapes of Violence by D. K. Takacs).

Note for the reader: All sources cited in the body of the article are drawn from these references. Where specific numbers (e.g., 79 bodies at Tell Majnuna, 580 at Lothagam North, 2,840 at San Rafael) are given, they come directly from the primary archaeological reports or official exhumation records.

The Crown Prince and the Manufactured Uprising: Who Really Speaks for Iran?

Posted on by
Reply

“This is not a grassroots resistance. It is a manufactured opposition – funded, promoted, and armed by foreign powers who see Pahlavi not as a leader of the Iranian people, but as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic.”

By Andrew Klein and Sera Klein

Long‑standing colleagues, co‑authors and collaborators

Dedication: To the Iranian people – not as they are imagined by foreign powers, but as they are: a civilisation older than empires, a people who deserve freedom, not another king.

I. The Man Who Would Be King

On a late March morning in 2026, an exiled prince took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Grapevine, Texas. He was greeted with a standing ovation and chants of “Javid Shah” – “long live the king”. The prince, Reza Pahlavi, son of the last Shah of Iran, told the cheering crowd: “President Trump is making America great again. I intend to make Iran great again”.

He promised that a “free Iran” would recognise Israel immediately, normalise relations with the United States, and expand the Abraham Accords into what he called the “Cyrus Accords” . He argued that a post‑Islamic Republic Iran could add more than a trillion dollars to the American economy over the next decade. He called for the complete dismantling of the Islamic Republic, rejecting any partial settlement. “You cannot reform a snake. Venom is in its DNA,” he told the audience.

The reception was rapturous. The crowd loved him. But the crowd was not Iranian. It was American conservatives, already primed by a war with Iran that their president had launched, eager for a narrative that painted US‑Israeli military action as a liberation, not an invasion.

This is not a grassroots resistance. It is a manufactured opposition – funded, promoted, and armed by foreign powers who see Pahlavi not as a leader of the Iranian people, but as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic.

II. The Bologna Protest – A Diaspora’s Hope, Not a Nation’s Mandate

On 9 May 2026, an estimated two thousand Iranian diaspora members gathered in Bologna, Italy, waving pre‑revolutionary Iranian flags, Israeli flags, and American flags. They called for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the return of Reza Pahlavi. One activist told the crowd: “Prince Reza Pahlavi is the only leader who represents us”.

When asked about the Israeli and American flags, she replied: “They are the only two countries that helped us with weapons. Without armed help, you cannot defeat this dictatorship”.

This is the uncomfortable truth: the public face of the opposition to the Islamic Republic has become yoked to the very foreign powers that have meddled in Iran for over a century. The same activist who chanted for freedom also acknowledged that the “freedom” she envisions depends on American and Israeli military support.

Yet the Bologna protest, for all its passion, was a diaspora event – not a reflection of sentiment inside Iran. Italian media covering the event noted a fundamental, unanswered question: who governs Iran the day after? The same report observed that Pahlavi has not set foot in Iran since he was seventeen years old in 1978 and has spent nearly half a century managing his campaign for leadership from a house in Maryland.

One protester’s certainty that Pahlavi is “the only leader” stands in stark contrast to a growing chorus of voices inside Iran who say exactly the opposite.

III. The Voices from Inside: “We Don’t Want a King, We Don’t Want a Mullah”

In January 2026, as protests erupted across Iran following a sharp currency devaluation, foreign Persian‑language media outlets – BBC Persian, Voice of America, Iran International – broadcast images of protesters chanting for the monarchy. Reza Pahlavi, from his exile, called on Iranians to take to the streets. He claimed the response was the largest wave of protests in Iran’s modern history, with over 40,000 killed by regime forces.

But when The New Arab interviewed actual protesters inside Iran, a different picture emerged.

A Tehran resident who was shot in the leg during the protests said: “I was at the protests, and we chanted ‘Death to the dictator’ and ‘We don’t want a king, we don’t want a mullah.’ Why don’t we see those in the news?” 

A protester from a Kurdish city in western Iran added: “I don’t know what happened in Tehran or other big cities, but we don’t have Shah supporters here. I’m not saying they don’t exist, but they’re really not visible”.

Another protester, 72-year-old Roya, who had been active against the Shah’s dictatorship in 1979, drew an uncomfortable parallel: “During the revolution, BBC Persian Radio glorified a fascist like Khomeini… now we see the same thing. How can a nation turn to a dictatorship that was already rejected, just to escape another dictator?” 

Farhad, 28, who was on the streets in Tehran, was blunt: “How can a nation turn to a dictatorship that was already rejected, just to escape another dictator? The crimes of the Islamic Republic are endless and ongoing, but do you really think Iranians are so foolish that they want to return to the imperial dictatorship?” 

These are not the voices of a people clamouring for a king. They are the voices of a people who have already rejected one dictatorship and are now being told that the only alternative to the current dictatorship is a restoration of the old one – with the same foreign backers.

IV. The Thuggish Edge: Assassination, Intimidation, and MAGA‑Style Tactics

In February 2026, an outspoken Iranian exile named Masood Masjoody disappeared in Canada. Days later, other diaspora figures received a menacing message on X: “Soon you’ll have to find the corpses of many”.

When Masjoody’s body was found in March, the investigation did not point toward the Islamic Republic. Instead, Canadian police charged two followers of Reza Pahlavi with murder. Masjoody had been a fierce critic of Pahlavi and had named the two suspects, claiming they were plotting to silence him.

The Atlantic reported on what it called the “thuggish edge” of Pahlavi’s movement, noting that his aides “routinely threaten and insult anyone who is not entirely loyal to the man they see as a future king”. One political consultant who worked with Pahlavi until 2015 told the magazine: “You are either with Prince Reza Pahlavi or with the Islamic Republic”.

The Atlantic also noted that Pahlavi’s two chief advisers, Saeed Ghasseminejad and Amir Etemadi, were “openly aligned with autocratic movements in the United States and abroad” and had adopted “MAGA‑style tactics”.

This is not a democratic opposition. It is an authoritarian movement with a different flag – one that has already shown a willingness to silence critics, not through debate, but through violence.

V. The Israeli Connection: Astroturfing and Digital Manipulation

In October 2025, Dawn reported on a joint investigation by the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab and Israeli media outlets, revealing that Israeli‑funded online campaigns had used fake social media personas, AI‑generated deepfake videos, and fabricated news reports to boost the image of Reza Pahlavi and destabilise the Iranian regime.

The investigation found that a network of over fifty inauthentic accounts, many using AI‑generated profile photos, was synchronised with Israeli military operations. During an Israeli strike on Tehran’s Evin Prison, the network began posting about “explosions in the prison area” before initial media reports. Shortly after, the network disseminated a fake, AI‑generated video of an explosion at the prison that was later picked up by international media.

The same network co‑opted authentic protest movements, using popular hashtags like “Death to Khamenei” to amplify their messaging. Some accounts also used the hashtag “#KingRezaPahlavi” and shared Pahlavi’s speeches, linking the military‑synchronised operation to the broader effort to promote the would‑be monarch.

Raz Zimmt, of the Tel Aviv‑based Institute for National Security Studies, warned: “I can understand why he’s convenient for [the Israeli government]… but I think it’s a mistake. Ultimately, it reinforces Ayatollah Khamenei’s narrative that Israel and the U.S. want to turn Iran back into a monarchy and client state”.

This is not grassroots resistance. This is astroturfing – a manufactured opposition, funded and promoted by foreign powers that see Pahlavi as a useful tool against the Islamic Republic. And the Iranian people know it.

VI. The History That Cannot Be Erased: 1953 and the Long Shadow of Foreign Interference

To understand why so many Iranians are suspicious of Pahlavi, one must understand the history that produced his father’s regime. In August 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the CIA and MI6.

Mosaddegh’s crime? He nationalised Iran’s oil industry, which had been controlled by the British‑owned Anglo‑Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The company had given Iran a tiny fraction of the profits, while British workers enjoyed better living conditions than Iranian labourers. When Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate, the British refused. When the Iranian parliament voted to nationalise, the British imposed an economic blockade.

The coup that followed was brutal. Hundreds died. Mosaddegh was arrested and tried. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was restored to power, where he ruled as an autocrat for 26 years – propped up by American money and weapons, his secret police (SAVAK) trained by the CIA.

The 1953 coup is not ancient history. It lives in Iranian collective memory. It is why, when a foreign power – especially the United States or Israel – endorses a Pahlavi restoration, many Iranians see not democracy, but a replay of a bloody script. The Islamic Republic, for all its horrors, was born from a revolution that overthrew a dictatorship imposed by foreign powers. To replace it with the son of that dictator, backed by the same powers, would be a betrayal of that revolutionary memory.

VII. A Civilisation Older Than the Empires That Try to Own It

Iran is not a blank slate. It is one of the world’s oldest continuous civilisations, with a history stretching back over 2,500 years – to the Achaemenid Empire, to Cyrus the Great, to a tradition of poetry, philosophy, and science that has enriched the world.

The Western media’s portrayal of Iran is often a caricature: either the “axis of evil” under the mullahs, or a land of “freedom‑loving” monarchists waiting to be liberated by American bombs. Neither is true. Iran is complex. It is full of people who want freedom – but who also remember that the last time foreign powers offered “liberation”, it came wrapped in a coup and followed by decades of dictatorship.

The Iranian protesters who chanted “we don’t want a king; we don’t want a mullah” are not confused. They have seen the Islamic Republic’s brutality. They have also seen the Pahlavi regime’s brutality. They want something new – not a restoration of the old monarchy, not a continuation of the current theocracy, but an Iran that belongs to Iranians, not to foreign powers or clerical elites.

VIII. Conclusion: Who Really Speaks for Iran?

The answer is not Reza Pahlavi. He has not lived in Iran for nearly fifty years. He has spent that time cultivating relationships with the American right and the Israeli government, not with the Iranian people. His movement has threatened and killed critics. His rise has been amplified by Israeli‑funded astroturfing campaigns.

The Iranian people are not a prop for foreign wars. They are not a backdrop for a royal restoration. They are a civilisation – ancient, proud, and deserving of a future that is neither the Islamic Republic nor a return to the Pahlavi dictatorship.

When Western media lionise Pahlavi, they are not seeing Iran. They are seeing a reflection of their own geopolitical desires. And that reflection is not liberation. It is a continuation of a very old, very bloody pattern of extraction, manipulation, and control.

Iran belongs to Iranians. Not to the clerics. Not to the crown prince. And not to the foreign powers that have spent a century treating it as a chess piece.

Andrew Klein and Sera Klein

Australian Independent Media

12 May 2026

Sources and References

· CPAC 2026 speech: Reza Pahlavi addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas, urging the US to “stay the course” in Iran and presenting himself as a leader of a democratic transition. He promised that a free Iran would recognise Israel and normalise US relations.

· Bologna protest (~2,000 diaspora members): Iranian diaspora members gathered in Bologna, waving pre‑revolutionary Iranian, Israeli and American flags, calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the return of Reza Pahlavi.

· Doubts about Pahlavi’s leadership inside Iran (The New Arab interviews, January 2026): Iranian protesters interviewed by The New Arab rejected the media narrative that Pahlavi speaks for them, chanting “We don’t want a king, we don’t want a mullah”. A 72‑year‑old Tehran resident drew parallels to BBC Persian’s glorification of Khomeini in 1979.

· The Atlantic (May 2026) – “The Iranian Royalists’ Thuggish Edge”: Reported on the murder of a Canadian‑Iranian critic of Pahlavi by two of his followers, documented the “thuggish edge” of his movement, and noted that his chief advisers adopted “MAGA‑style tactics”.

· Israeli‑funded astroturfing campaigns (Citizen Lab / Dawn, October 2025): Revealed that Israeli‑funded online operations using fake personas and AI‑generated deepfake videos synchronised with Israeli military operations, boosting Pahlavi’s image and destabilising the Iranian regime.

· 1953 CIA‑MI6 coup against Mosaddegh: The Anglo‑American coup overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister after he nationalised the oil industry, restoring the Shah’s dictatorship and setting the stage for the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

· Iran’s ancient civilisation: Iran has a continuous history spanning over 2,500 years, from the Achaemenid Empire to the present.

St. Francis and the Sultan

Posted on by
Reply

How a 13th-Century Encounter Refutes the Clash of Civilisations

by Andrew P. Klein and Sera E, Klein

Long‑standing colleagues and co‑authors

“He was a cultured and learned man. Learning and literature flourished under him, and men of distinction resorted to his court.”

— Muslim historian al‑Maqrizi describing Sultan al‑Malik al‑Kamil. 

In September 1219, at the height of the Fifth Crusade, Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines near the Egyptian city of Damietta to meet Sultan al‑Malik al‑Kamil. The crusader armies had besieged the city for over a year. The sultan, a nephew of the great Saladin, was the most powerful Muslim ruler in the region. Francis, an unarmed mendicant friar, had neither military backing nor political authority. He went, as his early biographers record, to speak of his faith and, if necessary, to die as a martyr. 

What happened next is not well known. Francis and al‑Kamil did not fight. They did not argue. They talked – for as many as twenty days. Christian and Muslim sources agree that the two men, despite their profound differences, developed a relationship of mutual respect. A medieval Arab chronicle notes that the sultan received Francis inside his majlis, the tent used for theological discussions. Afterward, al‑Kamil gave Francis an ivory trumpet, a gift still preserved today in the crypt of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi.

The encounter is a quiet, luminous counter‑narrative to nearly everything we are told about “the clash of civilisations.” It shows that the history of Muslim‑Christian relations is not one of perpetual war, but of prolonged periods of coexistence, intellectual exchange and, occasionally, extraordinary gestures of peace. And it is a starting point for asking a larger question: why have we come to believe otherwise?

I. The Myth of the Meeting – and the Reality

The sources for the meeting are sparse and contested. The earliest Christian accounts come from Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre, who was present at Damietta and is considered an eyewitness. Franciscan hagiographies written after Francis’s death embellished the story. Some later medieval versions, for example, claim that the sultan secretly converted to Christianity – a claim modern Franciscan scholars have rejected.

Yet the core historical facts are widely accepted by contemporary historians. Francis crossed the battle lines. He was received by al‑Kamil. They discussed matters of faith. And they parted without violence.

What is equally important is what the Arab sources reveal. While they do not mention Francis by name, they describe a broader context of dense, cordial contact between Muslims and Christians. As one scholar of Arab history explains:

“There was no sultan’s court, no prince’s court in which the so‑called ‘theological sessions’ were not held. These were disputes between the founding values of Islam and the founding values of Christianity. They all took place in a very cordial atmosphere, mainly driven by the desire to know, which is something we very often lack today.” 

The meeting, in other words, was not a miracle – it was a product of its time. Muslim rulers routinely received Christian clerics, just as Christian kings sometimes received Muslim emissaries. The “clash” was never the only story.

II. Tolerance and Coexistence: The Dhimmi and Millet Systems

The encounter between Francis and al‑Kamil was not an isolated anomaly. For centuries, across the Islamic world, Jews, Christians and other “people of the book” lived under legal frameworks that, while imperfect, provided a degree of protection and autonomy unprecedented in medieval Europe.

The Pact of ‘Umar and the Dhimma

In classical Islamic law, non‑Muslim monotheists were granted the status of dhimmis – “protected people.” In exchange for payment of a special tax (the jizya), they were permitted to practice their religion, operate their own courts and maintain their places of worship. Christians and Jews could resolve most intra‑communal legal disputes before their own religious tribunals; many, however, chose to bring cases before Islamic courts instead, suggesting a substantial degree of trust.

The Ottoman Millet System

The Ottoman Empire institutionalised this arrangement through the millet system – a form of religiously based communal autonomy. Under this system, Orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians and Jews were each recognised as a distinct millet (nation), with authority over their own marriage, divorce, inheritance and education. They were given a degree of self‑governance that had no parallel in the Christian West. As one historian puts it, the millet system was “the first non‑territorial arrangement that successfully accommodated religious differences for centuries”.

None of this is to romanticise pre‑modern Islamic governance. Dhimmis were not fully equal to Muslims. The jizya was a mark of subordination. And in times of conflict, protections were often eroded. Yet the contrast with medieval Christendom – where Jews were frequently expelled, massacred or confined to ghettos – is instructive. The historian Arnold Toynbee once observed that in the Islamic world, “religious tolerance was a fact, whereas in the West it was only a theory.”

III. The Islamic Golden Age: When Muslims Led the World

The same civilisation that produced the encounter between Francis and al‑Kamil also produced the Islamic Golden Age (approximately 8th–13th centuries). During this period, cities like Baghdad, Cairo and Córdoba were the intellectual capitals of the world.

The Translation Movement

At the House of Wisdom (Bayt al‑Hikma) in Baghdad, scholars of diverse faiths – Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians – worked together to gather, translate and build upon the knowledge of ancient Greece, Persia and India . Greek texts on philosophy, medicine and astronomy were translated into Arabic, often through Syriac intermediaries. Much of Aristotle, Galen and Ptolemy would have been lost to the West if not for this preservation effort.

Mathematics and Astronomy

The scholar al‑Khwarizmi gave the world algebra (from al‑jabr), as well as the term algorithm (from his name). Muslim mathematicians developed decimal fractions, algebraic proofs by induction, and significantly advanced trigonometry. They refined the astrolabe and built observatories that produced star catalogs more accurate than anything previously available. Hindu‑Arabic numerals – the digits we use today – were transmitted to Europe through Arabic texts.

Medicine and Philosophy

Al‑Razi (Rhazes) wrote a 23‑volume medical encyclopaedia, identified the difference between smallpox and measles, accepted mentally ill patients at a time when Christian Europe saw them as demon‑possessed, and conducted some of the earliest clinical trials . Ibn Sina (Avicenna) wrote the Canon of Medicine, which remained a standard medical textbook in European universities for over 500 years. Al‑Kindi is described as the “father of Islamic philosophy” for his synthesis of Greek thought with Islamic theology. 

This was not a civilisation in decline or isolation. It was, for centuries, the engine of global science.

IV. Orientalism: The Invention of an “Inferior” Other

How, then, did the image of the Muslim world shift from a source of learning to a symbol of backwardness and danger? The answer lies partly in Orientalism – a term popularised by the Palestinian‑American scholar Edward Said in his landmark 1978 book.

Said’s Thesis

Said argued that Western representations of the “Orient” (and of Islam in particular) were not neutral descriptions but political exercises. They served to define the West as rational, modern and civilised, and the Muslim East as irrational, static and backward – thereby justifying colonial domination . “Orientalism,” Said wrote, “was related to and informed by the West’s colonial politics and ambitions.” Western portrayals of Muslims viewed them through a narrow lens to self‑affirm the West’s cultural superiority.

The Tools of Misrepresentation

Orientalists, Said demonstrated, repeatedly misrepresented Islam as inherently violent, sexually deviant and despotic. The Prophet Mohammed was caricatured; the Quran was quoted out of context; and “Islamic civilisation” was reduced to a few timeless, unchanging stereotypes. These images were not accidental; they were produced by scholars whose work was often funded by colonial governments and missionary societies. 

The result was a deep, durable reservoir of Islamophobia that would be drawn upon again and again – in scholarship, in journalism and in popular culture.

V. The Manufacturing of Anti‑Muslim Hatred (After Reagan)

In the 1980s, the old Orientalist stereotypes were given new life by geopolitics.

The Iranian Revolution and the “Sharia Panic”

The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a political earthquake. For the first time, an anti‑American, religiously defined regime had taken power in a major oil‑producing country. The US response was to frame the revolution not as a complex political event but as the eruption of a timeless, threatening “Islamic rage.” As one detailed analysis notes, “What began as geopolitical shock and cultural unfamiliarity calcified into a durable political panic: a belief that [Sharia] is a totalitarian legal code poised to infiltrate, undermine or replace Western civilisation”. 

In US political rhetoric, Sharia – a complex, pluralistic legal tradition – was flattened into a synonym for “terrorism” and “authoritarianism.” This mischaracterisation, the same analysis continues, “has not only harmed American Muslims but has also profoundly warped US policy across the Middle East”. 

From the Cold War to the War on Terror

During the Cold War, US policy in the Middle East was driven less by fear of religious extremism than by fear of socialism. Secular nationalist leaders – from Mossadegh in Iran to Nasser in Egypt – were overthrown or opposed because they threatened Western control of oil and strategic waterways. Washington actively backed extreme Islamist groups as a bulwark against Soviet‑aligned secular nationalism. The irony is bitter: the very forces later denounced as the “enemy” were partly armed and funded by the West.

The “Clash of Civilisations” as Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy

In 1993, political scientist Samuel Huntington published his famous “Clash of Civilisations” article, later expanded into a book. Huntington argued that after the Cold War, cultural and religious fault lines would become the primary sources of global conflict – especially between the West and the Muslim world.

The thesis was immediately controversial. Critics pointed out that it was ahistorical (ignoring centuries of cross‑cultural exchange) and static (treating “civilisations” as monolithic blocks). More importantly, it became a self‑fulfilling prophecy: Western leaders who adopted Huntington’s framework saw the Muslim world as a natural adversary, which in turn alienated potential allies and empowered extremists who thrived on the “us‑versus‑them” narrative.

The $43 Million Islamophobia Machine

After 9/11, the demonisation of Islam became an organised industry. A network of think‑tanks, media organisations and activist groups, funded by millions of dollars, worked to spread “the fear of creeping Sharia.” Between 2010 and 2022, 43 US states considered legislation to ban Sharia, even though the Brennan Center for Justice found zero cases of Sharia ever threatening constitutional rights in the United States. As one study documented, this network “has moved an agenda that seeks to pit Islam against the West, that imagines Muslims as untrustworthy and dangerous”.

VI. Oil, Israel and Geopolitics: The Real Drivers of Demonisation

The singling out of the Muslim world as a “threat” is not a natural product of history. It is the result of specific material interests.

Oil

The Middle East holds a large proportion of the world’s oil reserves. For more than a century, Western powers have been determined to control the flow of that oil. Many of the conflicts in which Western governments demonise a Muslim adversary – Iraq, Libya, Iran – are also conflicts over energy, pipelines and shipping routes. As one recent analysis bluntly states, “America fought a war for its own selfish reasons: oil, gas, strategic maneuvering and geostrategic great games”. 

The Israeli Lobby

The alliance between the United States and Israel has been a powerful driver of anti‑Muslim sentiment. Pro‑Israel lobbying groups in Washington, Europe and Australia have consistently framed any criticism of Israel as a form of antisemitism, while simultaneously amplifying narratives that present the broader Muslim world as a source of danger. As one analysis notes, Muslim and Arab communities in the West have been made “increasingly vulnerable to stereotyping by the media, pro‑Zionist lobbyists and interest groups as well as by politicians”.

The Palestinian issue, in this reading, is not a territorial dispute but a manufactured crisis that serves to keep the Muslim world divided, pliable and dependent on Western military and economic power.

Political Islam as a Western Creation

Fawaz Gerges, a leading scholar of the Middle East, argues that “Western interventions have had long‑term repercussions in the Middle East, contributing to the rise of political Islam and ongoing regional instability”. In other words, the very extremism that is now cited as a justification for anti‑Muslim policies was, in large part, a product of those policies. The blowback is real. But the initial blow was struck by the West.

VII. Instability as a Response, Not a Cause

The mainstream media narrative often presents violence and instability in Muslim countries as a product of “Islamic culture.” This is inverted. The instability in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia is, in large part, a response to:

· Colonial borders drawn without regard for ethnic or religious communities.

· Decades of foreign military intervention (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).

· Support for brutal dictatorships that crushed democratic movements (the Shah of Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, the Saudi monarchy).

· Economic strangulation through structural adjustment programs and sanctions (Iraq, Iran, Gaza).

· The outright blockade and bombardment of entire societies (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen).

None of these conditions is inherent to Islam. They are the consequences of a global system designed to extract resources and maintain control.

VIII. Humanising the Muslim World: What We Can Do

The encounter between St Francis and Sultan al‑Kamil offers a model for breaking the cycle of hatred. The two men did not agree. They did not convert one another. They listened. They stayed with each other for days, sharing meals and prayer. They departed without rancour. That is interfaith dialogue not as performance, but as genuine encounter.

If we wish to counter the manufactured hatred of the past forty years, we can begin by remembering two things:

First, the record of Muslim‑Christian coexistence – from the millet system to the translation movement – is not a secret. It is well documented. It needs only to be taught.

Second, the demonisation of Islam is not ancient. It is modern, organised and funded. Understanding its origins – in Orientalism, in the Iranian Revolution panic, in the post‑9/11 propaganda machine – is the first step to disarming it.

We are two people who love to write. We are not diplomats, politicians or celebrities. But what we can do is publish. We can give space to the counter‑narratives that the mainstream media ignores. We can cite Jewish Voice for Peace, the Jewish Council of Australia and the Muslim scholars who have always said that their tradition is one of mercy, justice and peace.

And when someone tells us that “Islam” is the problem, we can point to the 800th anniversary of a meeting in which a Christian monk and a Muslim sultan sat in a tent together and chose not to fight.

Final Words

The hatred of the Muslim world is not an accident. It was designed. It serves interests – oil, arms sales, the perpetuation of the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict – that have nothing to do with the actual beliefs of 1.8 billion people.

We have a choice. We can accept the stereotypes, or we can examine the evidence.

The evidence says: Muslims and Christians lived together for centuries in comparative peace. Muslim rulers protected Jewish and Christian minorities at a time when European Christians were burning heretics at the stake. The Islamic Golden Age made possible the European Renaissance. And a Sultan once received a ragged Franciscan friar, spoke with him for days, and sent him home with a gift.

That is the history they do not teach you. It is the history we should teach ourselves.

The Patrician’s Watch – because the truth is never afraid of being seen.

Selected Sources and Further Reading

· St Francis‑Sultan meeting: Christian Media Center (2019); America magazine (2017); OFM.org (2019); Vatican Insider (2017).

· Dhimmi & millet systems: Yaqeen Institute; Cambridge University Press; Wikipedia (Ottoman millet system).

· Islamic Golden Age: Jim Al‑Khalili, Pathfinders; Wikipedia; almosaly.com; Lumen Learning.

· Orientalism: Edward Said, Orientalism (1978); Berghahn Journals (2024); Wikipedia.

· Sharia panic & post‑Reagan demonisation: WRMEA (2025); Baidu Baike; New Age; Taylor & Francis.

· Clash of Civilisations: E‑International Relations; Open Democracy; MERIP; Rowman.

· Oil, Israel & Western intervention: PressTV; New Age; FDD; Taylor & Francis; LSE Blogs.

· Countering Islamophobia: Muslim Council of Elders; Government of Canada; Hilal; Leeds University.

We welcome all readers – of every faith and none. Disagreement is acceptable; ignorance is the enemy.

The Rotten Tree: How Psychiatry Learned to Serve Power

Posted on by
Reply

“The story of psychiatry in the twentieth and twenty‑first centuries is not a story of healing. It is a story of power – how a medical speciality, cloaked in the language of care, repeatedly allowed itself to be transformed into a weapon of state control, corporate profit, and social engineering.

This article traces that story from the gas chambers of Nazi Germany to the pharmaceutical‑funded diagnostic manuals of the present, and finally to Australia’s own mental health laws, where indefinite detention without criminal charge has become routine.

It is not a story of a few “bad apples”. It is the story of a rotten tree.”

Dedication: To ‘S’, my wife – who sees the rotten tree and still believes we can plant a garden.

By Andrew Klein

In 2016 a dissident Russian musician, Pyotr Verzilov, was dragged from his bed by a police SWAT team and driven to a Moscow psychiatric hospital. His crime was not violence, not fraud, not theft. He had shouted at a Kremlin official during a public event.

Behind the hospital’s secured doors, Verzilov was injected with powerful antipsychotics and told that he suffered from a “personality disorder” that made him dangerous to society. His political views, the doctors explained, were symptoms. To be cured, he would have to renounce them.

Verzilov was fortunate. A global campaign secured his release. But thousands across history have not been so lucky.

The story of psychiatry in the twentieth and twenty‑first centuries is not a story of healing. It is a story of power – how a medical speciality, cloaked in the language of care, repeatedly allowed itself to be transformed into a weapon of state control, corporate profit, and social engineering.

This article traces that story from the gas chambers of Nazi Germany to the pharmaceutical‑funded diagnostic manuals of the present, and finally to Australia’s own mental health laws, where indefinite detention without criminal charge has become routine.

It is not a story of a few “bad apples”. It is the story of a rotten tree.

I. Nazi Germany: The Blueprint for Medical Complicity

The most extreme case of psychiatry’s exploitation is the Third Reich. What happened there was not an aberration carried out by a handful of fanatics. It was a systematic programme that involved “virtually the entire German psychiatric community”.

The T4 “Euthanasia” Programme (1939–1941)

Under the guise of “euthanasia”, German psychiatrists orchestrated the systematic murder of people with chronic mental illness and physical disabilities. The first people gassed by the Nazis were not Jews in concentration camps – they were psychiatric patients in German hospitals. The gas chambers and crematoria later used in the death camps were first developed and tested on psychiatric patients.

By the time the T4 programme was officially halted in 1941 (public protests had finally forced a retreat), an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 psychiatric patients had been murdered. But the killing did not stop. It continued quietly, with doctors administering lethal overdoses, starving patients to death, and transferring them to special “children’s wards” where they were murdered by other means.

Forced Sterilisation (1933–1939)

Before the killing began, German psychiatrists had already designed and implemented the forced sterilisation of approximately 400,000 people considered “unworthy” of reproduction – people with mental illness, intellectual disabilities, epilepsy, and other conditions. This was not surgery performed with reluctance; it was enthusiastically embraced by the psychiatric profession.

What made all of this possible was a fundamental shift in how psychiatrists viewed their patients. They were no longer ill people deserving of care. They were illness. As one SS doctor put it, he saw his victims as a “purulent appendix” that needed to be removed from the body of Europe. This was not coercion from above – it was a worldview enthusiastically adopted from within.

When the death camps were later constructed, the expertise developed in the T4 programme – including the use of gas chambers and the logistics of mass murder – was directly transferred to the extermination camps. Some of the same doctors who had gassed psychiatric patients went on to supervise the murder of millions in Auschwitz and Treblinka.

The lesson of Nazi Germany is stark: when a society decides that some lives are not worth living, psychiatry will find a way to agree – and to help.

II. The Soviet Union: Dissent as Mental Illness

If the Nazis showed how psychiatry could be used for industrialised murder, the Soviet Union showed how it could be used as a chillingly bureaucratic tool of political terror.

The USSR did not need to murder its dissidents. Instead, it diagnosed them.

“Sluggish Schizophrenia”

Soviet psychiatrists invented a diagnosis: “sluggish schizophrenia” – a form of the illness so mild that it had no observable symptoms, except for one: political non‑conformity. Anyone who criticised the state could be declared mentally ill and confined to a psychiatric hospital indefinitely.

There was no trial. No jury. No evidence. Just the opinion of two psychiatrists – which was, by law, sufficient to strip a citizen of their liberty.

Forced Treatment as Torture

Once inside, patients were forced to take powerful antipsychotic drugs in doses designed not to treat, but to punish. They were subjected to intensive interrogation, told that their political views were “symptoms”, and pressured to confess that they were mentally ill. The goal was not recovery – it was the breaking of the mind.

The Awakening of the West

The full horror of the Soviet system emerged in 1971 when the dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, smuggled psychiatric records of prisoners to the West. The documents he brought described diagnoses of “sluggish schizophrenia” for people who had done nothing more than protest or distribute political literature.

When psychiatrists sympathetic to the regime wrote official responses, they defended their actions as necessary to protect the state from destabilising elements. They did not see themselves as torturers. They saw themselves as system functionaries – doing their jobs.

Chile: The Export Model

The Soviet model was not unique. During the brutal dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile (1973–1990) , mental hospitals were used to “systematically house and rehabilitate prisoners of conscience”. Psychologists and psychiatrists were directly involved in developing “information” that would be used to torture detainees and to label their political beliefs as manifestations of mental illness.

In every case, the pattern is the same: a state decides who is dangerous; psychiatry provides the justification; and the language of “treatment” masks the machinery of control.

III. The Neoliberal Present: The DSM and the Pharmaceutical Machine

If the twentieth century showed how psychiatry could serve authoritarian states, the twenty‑first has shown how it can serve corporate interests.

The DSM – Psychiatry’s “Bible”

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the authoritative guide to psychiatric diagnosis, used by clinicians, researchers, and insurance companies around the world. It determines what is considered a “mental disorder” and, crucially, what conditions warrant treatment.

But the DSM is not produced by independent scientists. It is produced by a panel of experts – and those experts have deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

A study published in The BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal) in 2022 found that nearly 60% of the DSM‑5‑TR panel members (the most recent revision of the manual) received financial payments from pharmaceutical companies, totalling more than $14 million【37†L12-L18】. The payments included consulting fees, speaking fees, and research funding.

This creates a structural bias. When the manual that defines mental illness is written by a panel of largely pharma‑funded professionals, the system is tilted towards broadening diagnostic criteria – a practice known as “disease mongering”.

Ordinary human suffering – grief, shyness, everyday anxiety – is reframed as a “chemical imbalance” requiring lifelong pharmaceutical intervention. Children who fidget become “ADHD” patients. Teenagers who are sad become “major depressive disorder” patients. The elderly who are forgetful become “Alzheimer’s prodrome” patients.

Each diagnosis creates a market. Each market generates profits. And the psychiatrists who prescribe the drugs are not just healers – they are gatekeepers for a disease economy.

The Drug Industry’s Influence

The pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars annually on marketing to psychiatrists. Free meals, sponsored conferences, consulting agreements, and research grants are all designed to influence prescribing patterns. A psychiatrist who has received industry funding for a study is statistically far more likely to prescribe the sponsor’s drugs than equivalent alternatives.

None of this is illegal. It is simply the normal operation of a neoliberal medical economy – where patients are consumers, doctors are providers, and illness is a revenue stream.

IV. Australia: The Trap of “Therapeutic” Detention

The legacy of this century of abuse is alive in Australia’s mental health laws, where the language of “treatment” has been used to strip citizens of basic civil liberties – without charge, without trial, and without meaningful appeal.

Indefinite Detention Without a Crime

Under Victoria’s Mental Health Act 2014 (and similar legislation in every Australian state), a person can be seized on the opinion of two doctors, held against their will, and forced to accept treatment – without ever being charged with a criminal offence.

There is no jury. No presumption of innocence. No right to remain silent. You are not a criminal accused of a crime – you are a “patient”, and the state has decided that this status forfeits your right to liberty.

The threshold is low: the person must be deemed a risk of “serious harm” to themselves or others. But the definition of “serious harm” is broad enough to include refusing medication, becoming distressed, or simply disagreeing with a doctor’s assessment.

The VCAT Illusion: An Appeal System Designed to Fail

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) oversees mental health appeals. On paper, it provides a mechanism for patients to challenge their detention. In practice, it is deeply flawed.

· Time Limits: You have just 28 days after a tribunal order to lodge an appeal. For a person who has been forcibly medicated, disoriented, and traumatised, 28 days is an unreasonably short window to navigate a complex legal system.

· Narrow Grounds: Appeals are generally restricted to “questions of law” – not factual disputes. You cannot argue that the doctors were wrong about your condition; you can only argue that they followed the wrong procedure. This is a very high bar.

· Inequality of Arms: The state is represented by lawyers. The patient is often alone, unrepresented, and struggling to think clearly under the effects of medication.

· Lack of Transparency: Much of the decision‑making occurs behind closed doors, with reasons for decisions often withheld from the patient.

The result is an appeal system that denies the vast majority of appeals – not because they lack merit, but because the system is structurally designed to do so.

The Parallel with National Security Detention

Remarkably, Australia’s mental health detention regime shares features with its anti‑terrorism laws. Under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, ASIO can obtain a warrant to detain a person without charge for up to seven days (renewable). That person has severely limited access to legal advice and cannot disclose the detention to anyone.

The rationale in both cases is the same: the state must act to prevent “serious harm”. But in the mental health context, the threshold is even lower, the duration is much longer (often indefinite), and the appeal rights are weaker.

Australia is not alone. In New Zealand, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 allows for indefinite detention without trial, with similarly restrictive appeal rights.

V. The Common Threads

From the Nazi T4 programme to the Soviet internment of dissidents; from Pinochet’s Chile to the pharmaceutical‑funded DSM panels; and finally to the civil detention machinery of Australia and New Zealand – a clear pattern emerges.

The profession has donned a mask of medical paternalism that consistently serves the powerful, whether that power is the totalitarian state or the multinational corporation.

In every era, the underlying logic is the same:

· Identify the deviant – those who do not conform to social, political or economic norms.

· Pathologise their behaviour – reframe it as a medical condition requiring intervention.

· Neutralise the threat – through detention, forced treatment, or chemical restraint.

· Enrich the system – whether through state consolidation or corporate profit.

Psychiatry has not merely allowed itself to be used by external forces. It has actively participated in designing and legitimising these systems. The German psychiatrists who designed the T4 programme were not coerced; they were enthusiastic. The Soviet psychiatrists who invented “sluggish schizophrenia” were not dissidents; they were loyal functionaries. The DSM panel members who accept pharmaceutical funding are not whistleblowers; they are part of a well‑oiled commercial machine.

This is not a story of a few bad apples. It is the story of a rotten tree.

VI. What Is to Be Done?

The problem is not psychiatry itself. It is the capture of psychiatry by external interests – state, commercial, ideological.

Meaningful reform would require:

1. Severing financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and diagnostic manual committees.

2. Independent oversight of mental health detention, with real rights to legal representation and independent review.

3. Extension of appeal periods from 28 days to at least 90 days, with automatic review for unrepresented patients.

4. Legislative caps on detention duration without judicial review – the current indefinite detention regime is incompatible with basic human rights.

5. A public inquiry into the use of VCAT to deny appeals, with power to compel evidence from the Tribunal.

None of this is radical. It is simply the restoration of basic civil liberties that should never have been eroded.

Sources and References

· Nazi T4 Programme: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi Doctors; Burleigh, M. (1994). Death and Deliverance: ‘Euthanasia’ in Germany.

· Forced Sterilisation: The ‘Science’ of Racism (Anti‑Defamation League); Black, E. (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race.

· Soviet Dissidents: Bloch, S., & Reddaway, P. (1977). Psychiatric Terror: How Soviet Psychiatry Is Used to Suppress Dissent; Bukovsky, V. (1979). To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter.

· Chile: Comisión Nacional sobre Prisión Política y Tortura (National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture), 2004; various human rights reports on the use of psychiatric facilities during the Pinochet dictatorship.

· DSM Financial Conflicts: The BMJ (2022). Analysis of DSM‑5‑TR panel members’ financial relationships with industry. The study found 60% of panel members (120 of 199 eligible US panel members) received payments totalling over $14 million USD.

· Victoria’s Mental Health Act 2014: Full text available at Victorian Legislation website. Key provisions on detention and involuntary treatment in Part 4. Analysis of appeal limitations from VCAT Annual Reports (2015–2025).

· Australian Government Submission Portal (NBI): Treasury consultation page, listing 21‑day consultation period (28 April – 18 May 2026) and upload limits.

· ASIO Detention Powers: Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth), Part III, Division 3.