The government is not protecting journalism. It is protecting a cartel.
1. The Consultation – A Smoke‑and‑Mirrors Exercise
The Treasury consultation page sets a submission deadline of 18 May 2026. That is precisely 21 days from the announcement. No responsible consultation on structural media policy should be that short. The government is not seeking genuine input – it is creating a ratification ceremony.
“You must submit your response on this website.” – No alternative channels. No genuine engagement. Just a digital form that enforces the government’s timeframe.
The upload limit concretely restricts what can be said. Complex submissions (such as Steve’s) will be truncated or rejected. The government does not want a debate. It wants a rubber stamp.
2. What the Government is Not Saying
The legislation is called the News Bargaining Incentive (NBI) – a rebranded version of the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code.
The government’s official narrative: “Encourage digital platforms to make or renew commercial deals with news media businesses” and “support a diverse and sustainable news media sector.”
But as Tim Dunlop has argued, this framing was always a smokescreen for institutional engineering.
“The original code was conceived after intensive lobbying by News Corp and Nine Entertainment, and that alone should alert us to what is happening and what is at stake.”
“The legislation was less an act of media reform than institutional engineering designed to keep legacy outlets at the centre of the public conversation.”
“The underlying logic of the [NBI] is the same.”
The Australia Institute – a respected progressive think‑tank – has voiced a similar warning:
“When Australia’s original News Media Bargaining Code passed in 2021, it was presented as a small country standing up to Big Tech to save quality journalism. But the code was never that, it was all smoke and mirrors.”
The government is not protecting journalism. It is protecting a cartel.
3. The Structural Logic – A Levy on Public Communication
The NBI imposes a 2.25% levy on revenue earned by digital platforms (search engines, social media) in Australia, unless they first strike a qualifying commercial deal with a news publisher.
This is not a tax on profits – it is a tax on revenue. Platforms will pass it on to advertisers, who will pass it on to you. The cost of public communication will rise.
The offset system (a deduction of 150‑170% of any qualifying deal) strongly encourages platforms to prefer big, established media companies – the same News Corp and Nine entities that lobbied for the original code. Smaller, independent publishers will find it much harder to be brought into the tent.
The distribution mechanism – which determines which newsrooms actually receive the collected funds – is controlled by the government, not by any independent body. The government will decide which newsrooms are “eligible”, based on a formula that favours the existing incumbents.
This is not a free market. It is a government‑managed slush fund for the political friends of the prime minister.
4. The Submission Barriers – Designed to Silence Opposition
Steve tried to submit a substantive paper and found that:
· Upload size is limited. Long, detailed submissions are effectively forbidden.
· Time is limited. The 21‑day window is a deliberate obstacle to informed, organised opposition.
· Vague “guidelines” – enough to reject or ignore submissions that the government finds inconvenient.
This is not a technical glitch. It is access control. The government does not want citizens to read the legislation, to understand its implications, or to mount a coordinated response.
Alice Workman, a respected journalist, has documented similar concerns about the government’s use of tight deadlines and opaque processes to side‑line public debate. When a government refuses to let you read the fine print, it is because the fine print is embarrassing.
5. The Bottom Line – This is a Power Grab
The NBI will not save journalism. It will:
· Entrench the dominance of legacy media (News Corp, Nine, Seven, Ten).
· Tax digital communication – effectively charging Australians for the privilege of using search engines and social media.
· Create a government‑controlled funding pipeline to media outlets that support the government.
· Hamstring independent media (including The Patrician’s Watch), which do not receive government money and will be disadvantaged in a market distorted by taxpayer‑funded incumbents.
This is not about “saving democracy”. It is about controlling the narrative and rewarding political allies at public expense.
6. What Can Be Done
The deadline is 18 May. That is laughably short. But we can still make a short, sharp submission:
· Keep it brief – the system will not accept a long document anyway.
· Focus on one or two core objections (e.g., the short consultation period, the lack of independent distribution, the capture of the scheme by legacy media).
· Submit anyway, even if the form is broken. A public record of attempted submissions is itself a form of testimony.
· Share this analysis – on social media, with other journalists, with anyone who will listen. The only power the government has here is the power of obscurity.
7. The Hypocrisy of the “Regional Broadcasting” Claim
The government has also announced measures to “help local media and journalism” in regional Australia. But the NBI is national in scope – and regional media are the least likely to benefit from deals with Google and Meta, because they lack the bargaining power of News Corp.
The government is not helping regional journalism. It is using regional concerns as cover for a policy that overwhelmingly benefits the city‑based media oligarchs.
8. Conclusion – A Government Afraid of Its Own Citizens
The Albanese government does not trust Australians to engage with complex policy. Its consultation is a performance. Its legislation is a power grab. And the only people who will benefit are the same corporate media executives who have been pulling the strings for decades.
This is not a clash of civilisations. It is a clash of interests – and the government has chosen the side of the insiders.
I. The Hazy Border Between Opportunism and Authoritarianism
There is a dangerous habit, on both the left and the right, of reaching for the word “fascist” as a catch‑all for any leader who behaves in a cruel or authoritarian manner. The label is often overused, and its overuse can blunt the very urgency it is meant to convey. Yet there is a reason that word hovers around the presidency of Donald Trump. It is not because he is a doctrinaire heir to Hitler or to Mussolini – he is not. It is because he deploys the tactics of fascism without any of the fixed ideological commitment that animated those earlier movements.
To call Trump a fascist is to mistake the frame for the picture. He is not a coherent fascist ideologue. He is something more difficult to name, and therefore more dangerous: a pragmatic nihilist.
II. What Pragmatic Nihilism Means
Nihilism, at its core, is the belief that values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated in any ultimate sense. It rejects objective truth, morality and meaning. Practical nihilism – pragmatic nihilism – does not spend its time in philosophical rumination. It simply acts as if nothing matters except immediate advantage.
The pragmatic nihilist does not serve a fixed ideology, a transcendent cause, a moral code or even a consistent political programme. He serves only his own power, his own wealth and the next transactional opportunity. Ideology is a costume, worn when it helps and discarded when it hinders.
In Trump, this manifests as a recognisable pattern. He shifts positions without embarrassment. He befriends autocrats and then threatens allies. He inflames cultural wars while cutting deals with the very “enemies” he excoriates. None of it is hypocrisy in the normal sense – hypocrisy implies a concealed allegiance to a contrary principle. For the pragmatic nihilist, no principle exists except the principle of self‑advancement.
III. The Authoritarian Rhetoric: “Traitors”, “Enemies of the People”
The techniques of authoritarianism are not copyrighted. Any ruler can use them, with or without a coherent fascist programme. Trump has employed them relentlessly.
In April 2026, as the war in Iran grew increasingly unpopular, the president said of those who questioned whether America was “winning” the conflict: “It’s actually, I believe it’s treasonous.” To brand domestic political dissent as treason is not ordinary political hyperbole – it is the language of regimes that criminalise opposition. Trump had already called his political opponents “fascists” who were also guilty of “treason”. His domestic foes were “enemies of the people”, “the enemy within” and “threats to democracy”. In 2025 he went so far as to insist that Democrats were “evil” and members of “the party of Satan”.
In November 2025, Trump branded six Democratic lawmakers as “traitors” for urging military personnel to refuse illegal orders. He wrote on his social media platform: “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???” and he later said they could face the death penalty. When commentators objected, he did not retract the death‑threat language; he merely softened his tone, saying he was “not threatening death” but that the lawmakers were in “serious trouble”.
Such rhetoric is not an occasional lapse. It is a systematic attempt to delegitimise all opposition, to redefine dissent as betrayal, and to prepare the public for the ultimate act of authoritarian escalation: the use of state force against political enemies.
IV. The Weaponisation of Bureaucracy and the “Emergency” Presidency
Words matter. But deeds matter more. In his second term, Trump has not merely spoken of emergency powers – he has used them to bypass Congress at a remarkable rate. From Inauguration Day through December 2025, Trump issued 225 executive orders, 114 proclamations and 10 national emergency declarations. An Associated Press analysis found that 30 of his first 150 executive orders invoked some form of emergency authority, a far higher rate than any recent predecessor.
These emergencies are often manufactured. In August 2025, Trump declared a “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C., and ordered the Department of Defence – which he has proposed renaming the “Department of War” – to devote more militarised resources to controlling the capital. He has declared an “energy emergency”, a “reciprocal tariff emergency” and sanctions‑related emergencies against nations such as Brazil. The effect is not to respond to genuine crises but to accustom the public and the courts to the idea that the president may wield extraordinary powers at his sole discretion.
Analysts have noted that this pattern – “invoking (and sometimes conjuring) emergencies is a tried and tested method that allows authoritarian rulers to amass power”. Trump’s emergency declarations, as one commentator put it, are not a response to unforeseen crises but a means “to supplant Congress’ authority and advance his agenda”.
V. The Militarisation of the Home Front: ICE and the “Quick Reaction Force”
The executive orders have not stayed on paper. In early 2025, Trump’s Department of Homeland Security launched a series of paramilitary‑style immigration sweeps across multiple US cities. Federal agents from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) arrested hundreds of people – not only undocumented immigrants but also legal residents and, in some cases, American citizens. Many of those arrested were peaceful protesters, bystanders or family members of targeted individuals.
The ACLU documented that, in Minnesota, federal agents routinely employed violent tactics against protesters who attempted to document the immigration sweeps. When questioned, the administration claimed “absolute immunity” for its agents, a legal assertion that effectively gives a government paramilitary force a licence to operate without accountability.
More ominously, in August 2025 Trump signed an executive order requiring the secretary of defence to create a “quick reaction force” within the National Guard, dedicated to domestic policing. The order, which one analyst described as “a foray into dark new territory”, creates a federal force answerable directly to the commander‑in‑chief – a force that could be used against American citizens, not foreign enemies.
Trump has already hinted at such use. In early 2026, he suggested (without evidence) that protests against ICE operations were “fake” and that the military could – and should – be used to “very easily handle” the “sick people, radical left lunatics” he identified as the enemy within.
VI. Foreign Policy as Asset Acquisition
The pragmatic nihilist does not view foreign nations as partners or even adversaries in a coherent geopolitical framework. He views them as assets – to be bought, leased or threatened into submission.
In January 2025, as president‑elect, Trump refused to rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. He proposed using “economic force” to acquire Canada, and his son publicly joked about invading Mexico. His administration prepared a draft executive order that would declare an emergency and instruct the Pentagon to draw up options for acquiring Greenland by force. When US allies objected, Trump simply repeated his demands.
This is not foreign policy. It is the language of a man who treats sovereign nations as parcels of land to be added to his portfolio. The fact that few of these threats have been carried out does not make them harmless; it normalises the very idea that a great power may threaten its allies with violence.
Trump’s approach to the Gaza genocide provides the clearest window into his transactional nihilism. In January 2026, his administration unveiled plans for a “New Gaza” – a development project featuring luxury apartments, skyscrapers, data centres, a new port and an airport, all projected to generate $10 billion GDP by 2035. The plan was crafted by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son‑in‑law, who said: “We do not have a plan B.”
The development plan is not a humanitarian vision. It is a real estate proposition. It imagines the reconstruction of a territory ravaged by Israeli military action as a commercial opportunity, with no apparent concern for the human disaster that preceded it. Trump’s closest aides spoke openly of “beautiful piece of property”. This is not the language of statesmanship; it is the language of land speculation.
VII. AI and the Surveillance State
The authoritarian state that Trump is assembling has a digital foundation. The administration has empowered surveillance companies such as Palantir and Babel Street to aggregate Americans’ personal data – including location information – into massive government databases.
Palantir has been a particular beneficiary of the Trump administration. In April 2025, ICE awarded the company a $30 million contract to develop “ImmigrationOS”, an AI platform designed to identify undocumented immigrants, track self‑deportations and assist in mass deportation operations. As part of subsequent work, Palantir built a tool called ELITE that maps neighbourhoods, generates dossiers with address “confidence scores” from government and commercial data, and provides ICE with “real‑time visibility” into people’s movements.
The ACLU has warned that Palantir’s involvement in the deportation programme has “reached a new level”, with Amnesty International calling on the company to “immediately cease their work” under UN human rights principles. Yet the Trump administration continues to expand the use of AI surveillance, with members of Congress now demanding that the Department of Homeland Security provide detailed information about how Palantir’s tools are being used.
The danger is not only to non‑citizens. Once the infrastructure of mass surveillance and paramilitary policing is in place, it can be turned against citizens. Trump has already spoken of using the military against “radical left lunatics” at home. The tools are being assembled; the only missing ingredient is the final legal permission.
VIII. The Collapse of the American Republic
The United States is not yet a dictatorship. The courts still function, albeit under immense pressure. The press, though harassed, still reports. Elections, though manipulated, still occur.
But the scaffolding is being assembled.
The executive orders that expand presidential power, the compliant Congress, the weaponised AI, the paramilitary ICE, the “quick reaction force” inside the National Guard, the criminalisation of dissent – all of this points toward an authoritarian state of emergency.
Trump is not a coherent fascist. He does not have a 1,000‑year Reich in mind. He has nothing in mind beyond his own immediate advantage. That is what makes him so difficult to counter. He cannot be out‑argued on first principles, because he has no first principles. He cannot be shamed, because shame requires a standard of conduct that he does not recognise.
His nihilism is not theoretical – it is operational. It is the nihilism of the real‑estate developer who sees a bombed‑out city and imagines not the suffering but the condos. It is the nihilism of the dealmaker who cannot distinguish an ally from a mark.
The collapse of the American empire is not inevitable. But it is possible. And Donald Trump is accelerating it.
IX. Historical Comparisons: The Nihilist Doppelgängers
History offers several examples of leaders who behaved not as ideologues but as nihilistic opportunists, weaponising the machinery of state for personal or factional advantage.
The Roman emperor Caligula, in his final years, acted as if no law – moral, civil or natural – applied to him. The historian Suetonius portrays a ruler who treated the treasury as his personal account, who murdered without trial, who insulted the gods and who ultimately pursued policies that served only his own sadistic whims. Caligula was not a coherent political philosopher; he was a nihilist with absolute power.
The Roman decline offers another, more systemic example. Gibbon famously attributes the fall of Rome to the loss of civic virtue, but a more immediate cause was the willingness of successive emperors to dismantle republican institutions for short‑term advantage, creating a system in which no officeholder believed in anything beyond his own survival. That is not far from the contemporary American condition.
The most extreme modern parallel is the final months of Adolf Hitler in the Berlin Führerbunker. As Soviet forces closed in, Hitler did not attempt to negotiate, to evacuate civilians or to preserve any remnant of the German state. Instead, he ordered the destruction of remaining German infrastructure, telling his armaments minister Albert Speer: “If the war is lost, the German people will also be lost. It is not necessary to worry about the basic needs of the German people.” Hitler’s final orders were not designed to save anyone – not his nation, not his army, not his own family. They were the commands of a man who believed that if he could not win, nothing should survive at all. This is nihilism in its purest, most destructive form.
Trump is not Hitler. He has not ordered the deliberate destruction of American infrastructure, nor has he retreated to a bunker to await the end. But he shares with the final Hitler a crucial trait: an absolute indifference to any value beyond his own power. When Trump calls war critics “traitors”, when he threatens allies with military force, when he views Gaza as a real‑estate opportunity, he is not serving a vision of greatness. He is acting out the logic of transactional nihilism: nothing matters except the next deal, the next outcry, the next appropriation of public wealth.
X. What Is to Be Done?
We are not powerless. The scaffolding can be dismantled – but only if we name it clearly.
First, reject the trivialisation of authoritarian language. When a president calls his critics “enemies of the people” or proposes the military arrest of political opponents, that is not “just Trump being Trump”. It is an assault on the foundation of democratic society.
Second, defend the institutions that remain. The courts, a free press, civil society organisations – they are battered but not dead. They need support, not simply cynical dismissal. We can document abuses, support legal challenges and insist on accountability, even when it is not forthcoming.
Third, build community resilience at the local level. The federal state may become increasingly authoritarian, but neighbourhoods, towns and mutual aid networks can still operate. The garden, the food co‑op, the community library – these are not escapes from politics; they are the foundations of a politics that cannot be captured by a single demagogue.
Fourth, refuse to normalise the abnormal. We must learn to call a threat a threat, a lie a lie, and a nihilist a nihilist. The refusal to name accurately is the first step toward complicity.
XI. Conclusion
Trump is not a consistent fascist. He is something more difficult to name: a pragmatic nihilist who uses authoritarian tactics not in service of a grand ideology but in service of his own power, his own wealth and the endless transaction.
The American empire is not doomed. But it is in grave danger. And the danger is not from a foreign enemy – it is from a president who looks at the machinery of state, at the lives of citizens, at the rubble of foreign cities, and sees only the next opportunity.
We have seen this pattern before. Caligula, the later Roman emperors, the nihilistic aftermath of the First World War, the final days of Hitler – all are reminders that a state can be dismantled not only by external enemies but by a leader who believes in nothing except himself.
The scaffolding is being assembled. The only question is whether we will dismantle it before the roof closes over us.
Sources include: White House records of executive orders (2025‑2026); Associated Press analysis of emergency declarations; US District Court case filings (CASA litigation); Congressional testimony on ICE arrests; ACLU and Amnesty International reports on Palantir; public news reports from Reuters, CNN, the BBC, the Guardian, The New Republic and Al Jazeera; philosophical definitions of nihilism from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Britannica; historical accounts of Roman emperors and of Hitler’s final orders (Speer, Inside the Third Reich). Direct quotations are attributed in the text.
To my wife, S – who sees the threads that others miss, and who reminds me that the garden is always worth tending.
By Andrew Klein
In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower – a five‑star general who had commanded the Allied forces in Europe – stood before the American people and delivered a warning that has echoed through every conflict since. He spoke of a “military‑industrial complex”, a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions, and he warned that we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military‑industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, he said, exists and will persist.
Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. He had helped build the very apparatus he was warning against. And his warning was not heard. It was not heard because the complex he described did not need to be sought – it simply grew, feeding on the logic of the Cold War, then the War on Terror, then the endless, nameless conflicts that have become the background hum of modern life.
Today, the permanent war economy is not a theory. It is a business model.
The Eternal Budget
The numbers are staggering. In April 2026, the Trump administration proposed a defence budget of $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027 – a 44 per cent increase from the 2026 level, the largest year‑on‑year leap since the Second World War. The 2026 budget itself was already just over $1 trillion. To put that in perspective: the US currently spends more on its military than the next ten highest‑spending countries combined.
This is not a response to any identifiable threat. It is a cycle. Defence contractors need contracts. Members of Congress need campaign contributions and jobs in their districts. Military planners need to justify their budgets. Think‑tanks need funding. All of these interests align, year after year, to push spending upward – not because the world is getting more dangerous, but because the industry has become an end in itself.
In Australia, the same logic applies, though on a smaller scale. Defence spending is projected to reach 3 per cent of GDP by 2033, up from approximately 2 per cent today. This increase is being driven not by a genuine strategic reassessment, but by a bipartisan consensus that defence spending is good for the economy – a claim that is rarely examined and even more rarely questioned.
What Is a “Permanent War Economy”?
The term is often attributed to Charles Wilson, the CEO of General Motors who served as US Secretary of Defense in the 1950s. Wilson understood that the post‑war military build‑up was not a temporary measure but a structural transformation. The economy had reconfigured itself around defence production, and it would not easily reconfigure back.
A permanent war economy has two interlocking functions. The first is military: maintaining overwhelming force, projecting power, deterring (or fighting) adversaries. The second is economic: providing jobs, profits, and technological innovation through defence spending. The two functions reinforce each other. The more the economy depends on defence, the more difficult it becomes to imagine a future without it.
This is the trap that Eisenhower foresaw. Not a conspiracy – a system. No single actor is controlling it. Everyone is just following their incentives. The defence contractor wants to maximise profits. The politician wants to secure votes and campaign donations. The military planner wants to prepare for the worst case. The worker wants to keep their job. All of these micro‑decisions, taken together, produce an outcome that no one explicitly chose but that everyone is afraid to change.
How War Becomes “Profitable”
Under the neoliberal model, if something makes money, it is ipso facto good. War is no exception. Entire companies exist solely on defence contracts. Entire regions depend on military bases and weapons manufacturing. When a war begins, stock prices rise. When a war threatens to end, lobbyists scramble to keep the funding flowing.
This is not a side effect. This is the design.
In the United States, defence contractors are among the largest donors to political campaigns. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman – these companies do not just build weapons. They buy policy. Between 2020 and 2024, the top five defence contractors spent over $100 million on federal lobbying. Their return on investment is measured in billions of dollars of contracts.
In Australia, the same dynamic operates, though more quietly. The AUKUS submarine project, estimated at $368 billion, is a case study. Australian taxpayers have already paid $10 billion to the United States and Britain to bolster their shipbuilding industries as part of the deal. That is not security spending – that is wealth transfer. Money leaving Australia, flowing into the pockets of foreign weapons manufacturers, in exchange for submarines that will not arrive until the 2030s at the earliest.
A Senate debate in 2025 put it bluntly: “AUKUS is set to rob Australians of $368 billion… money that will go straight into the pockets of the US and UK weapons manufacturers”. That is not an investment in Australian security. It is an extraction dressed in camouflage.
Australia: Minor Player, Major Extraction
Australia is not a global power. It is a resource economy at the end of long supply lines, a minor player in the calculations of Washington and London. But its defence spending – driven by AUKUS, by the permanent war economy, by the bipartisan consensus that more defence is always better – has become a significant part of its budget.
The opportunity cost is enormous.
Research published in April 2026 found that war delivers a bigger hit to the economy than natural disasters or governments defaulting on debt – and that any substantial increase in defence spending will require cuts to health and education services. Australia is planning to increase defence spending to 2.4 per cent of GDP, with the Coalition promising 3 per cent. Yet as one analysis noted, anti‑poverty advocates argue that increasing defence expenditure harms Australians both here and abroad, and disproportionately hits people on low incomes.
The numbers tell the story. In 2026, Australia will spend 11 times more on defence than on foreign aid – the largest disparity to date. If defence spending reaches 3 per cent of GDP, the multiple would be 19 times or more. Meanwhile, the housing crisis deepens, healthcare costs rise, and infrastructure crumbles.
This is not an accident. It is a choice. And the choice is being made by a political class that has internalised the logic of the permanent war economy – that defence spending is good, that more is always better, and that the costs (in foregone hospitals, schools, housing) are invisible.
If Security Were Really the Priority
If the Australian government were genuinely concerned about the security of its citizens, it would invest in the things that actually keep people safe: reliable infrastructure, free education, quality healthcare, affordable housing, disaster resilience, social cohesion. These are the foundations of a secure society. Not submarines.
But the neoliberal model does not prioritise these things. It prioritises extraction. Wealth flows upward. Public assets are privatised. Services are cut. And the population is distracted with nationalist fervour and the manufactured fear of external enemies.
The result is a hollowed‑out society, increasingly dependent on a military‑industrial complex that has no interest in genuine security – only in the next contract, the next budget increase, the next war.
What Is To Be Done?
The permanent war economy is not destiny. It is a choice. And choices can be unmade – but only if we first recognise that they were made at all.
Eisenhower’s warning was not a prophecy. It was a diagnosis. He understood that the military‑industrial complex would not disappear on its own. It would have to be dismantled – through political will, through public pressure, through a refusal to accept that war is simply the cost of doing business.
We can start by asking different questions. Not “how much should we spend on defence?” but “what are we sacrificing by spending this much?” Not “how many submarines do we need?” but “what would a genuinely secure society look like?” Not “which enemy should we prepare to fight?” but “what would it mean to invest in peace?”
These are not naive questions. They are the questions that a functioning democracy would ask. That we are not asking them is not a sign of our sophistication – it is a sign of our capture.
Dedication: To my wife, who sees through every performance and still chooses to sit beside me in the garden.
I. The Speech They Want You to See
On 28 April 2026, King Charles III stood before a joint session of the United States Congress and delivered the first royal address to that chamber in thirty‑five years. He spoke of shared history, democratic values, and a “truly unique” alliance that remains “more important today than it has ever been”. He invoked the language of unity at a moment when US‑UK relations are at an “unusually low ebb,” strained by disagreements over trade, tariffs, and the war in Iran.
The performance was polished. The set dressing was exquisite. The message was hollow.
Because while a hereditary monarch delivered a speech about democracy to a Congress that no longer represents the people, the real story was happening elsewhere. In Gaza, where a genocide is being litigated at the International Court of Justice. In Iran, where a war is being waged without congressional approval. In Washington, where checks and balances have collapsed and the United States has lost its status as a liberal democracy.
The King spoke of “pillars.” But the pillars are crumbling.
II. Magna Carta and the Myth of Representation
Charles was expected to remind his audience that “shared foundations—dating back to Magna Carta—enable both nations to work together for global impact”.
It is worth remembering what Magna Carta actually was: a document that guaranteed the rights of barons, not peasants. A feudal settlement that did nothing for the vast majority of English men and women. Universal suffrage did not exist in England until the twentieth century, and women did not get the vote until 1928.
The myth of Magna Carta is the myth of trickle‑down democracy: the idea that the rights of a few eventually become the rights of all. It is a comforting story. It is also, historically, a lie.
When Charles speaks of “shared democratic traditions,” he is not speaking of the people who built those traditions through centuries of struggle. He is speaking of an elite lineage that has resisted democracy at every turn. The British monarchy, after all, does not derive its authority from the consent of the governed. It derives it from birth.
III. The Twin Pillars: Two Empires in Decline
The King’s speech was almost certainly framed by the language of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who in her 1991 address to Congress described the two legislatures as “the twin pillars of our civilizations”.
The metaphor was already outdated in 1991. It is absurd in 2026.
The United States Congress is a body that the majority of Americans no longer trust. A PBS News/NPR/Marist poll from February 2026 found that 68% of Americans say the system of checks and balances is not working well. The Varieties of Democracy (V‑Dem) Institute has downgraded the United States from a “liberal democracy” to an “electoral democracy,” citing the collapse of checks and balances, pressure on dissenting voices, and the erosion of individual protections. Human Rights Watch has warned that the United States is sliding toward authoritarianism.
The UK Parliament, meanwhile, is entangled in its own crises: the aftermath of Brexit, the collapse of public services, and a political class that has lost the trust of an entire generation.
Two empires in decline, clinging to the language of democracy while the substance evaporates.
IV. The Silence on Gaza, Iran, and the Right‑Wing Agenda
The King’s address was notable for what it did not say.
There was no mention of Gaza, where the International Court of Justice is hearing a case alleging that Israel’s actions constitute genocide. There was no mention of the West Bank, where settlers are seizing land with impunity. There was no mention of the fact that the United States is actively participating in a war on behalf of Israel, despite Britain’s refusal to join the offensive.
There was no mention of Iran, where the US has launched a war that Britain declined to support.
The King spoke of “common adversaries”. But the most dangerous adversaries are not foreign powers. They are the forces within—the erosion of democratic norms, the rise of authoritarianism, the militarisation of society, and the silence of those who should know better.
V. Shared Values or Shared Interests?
The King used the phrase “shared democratic values” repeatedly. It is a favourite of political elites everywhere—a tautology designed to evoke warm feelings without requiring specific commitments.
What are these “shared values” in practice? They are the values of NATO expansion, of military spending, of the surveillance state. They are the values that have brought us trillions of dollars in defence budgets while healthcare systems crumble, school buildings rot, and the gap between rich and poor yawns wider than ever.
US military spending for fiscal year 2026 is estimated at over $1 trillion, a 13% increase from the previous year. President Trump has proposed a further increase to $1.5 trillion for 2027. Global military spending reached nearly $2.9 trillion in 2025, marking the eleventh consecutive year of growth.
These are the “shared values” of the transatlantic alliance: weapons, bases, and the endless preparation for wars that never end. The King’s predecessor, Elizabeth II, once referred to the US Congress and UK Parliament as “the twin pillars of our civilizations”. Those pillars are now the pillars of a global military machine.
VI. AUKUS and the Quantum Mirage
The King referenced the UK’s role in AUKUS, the trilateral security pact with Australia and the United States. AUKUS is sold as a partnership for security and prosperity, promising jobs and technological leadership in areas like quantum computing.
The reality is less inspiring.
A House of Commons defence committee has warned that “cracks are already beginning to show” in the AUKUS submarine program, citing shortfalls and delays in funding that could threaten the entire enterprise. The $368 billion price tag for Australia’s nuclear submarines is one of the most expensive defence projects in history—money that could have funded hospitals, schools, and climate adaptation, instead channelled into the machinery of war.
The promise of quantum computing under AUKUS Pillar 2 is similarly suspect. The technology is decades away from practical application, but the rhetoric is designed to justify massive defence spending today. It is the same pattern: fear of the future, weaponised to extract resources in the present.
VII. Democracy Under Siege
The King urged his audience to defend democracy. But the most urgent threat to American democracy is not external—it is internal.
The V‑Dem Institute’s 2026 Democracy Report classifies the United States as an “electoral democracy” rather than a “liberal democracy,” pointing to “increased pressure on media and dissenting voices”. The report found that the US has lost its liberal components: strong checks and balances, individual protections, and constraints on government overreach.
Sixty‑eight percent of Americans say the system of checks and balances is not working. More than three‑quarters believe the issues that divide the country are a serious threat to the future of American democracy.
The King did not mention any of this. He did not mention ICE, the militarisation of the border, the criminalisation of dissent, or the erosion of reproductive rights. He did not mention the corporations that buy elections, the gerrymandering that rigs them, or the media that distracts us from all of it.
Because to mention those things would be to acknowledge that “democracy” is not a value shared by the elites who benefit from its absence.
VIII. The Bottom Line
King Charles’s address to Congress was a performance. A well‑rehearsed, beautifully staged performance, designed to make a hereditary monarch and a dysfunctional Congress feel good about themselves.
But performances do not stop wars. They do not feed the hungry. They do not protect the vulnerable.
While the King spoke of “shoulder to shoulder” alliances, the UK and US are drifting apart. While he invoked Magna Carta, the United States has abandoned the liberal democratic principles it once claimed to champion. While he celebrated multi‑faith communities, the machinery of the state continued its work of extraction, surveillance, and violence.
The King is not the architect of this system. He is set dressing. The problem is not Charles—it is the entire apparatus of power that uses rhetoric like “shared values” and “democracy” as smoke screens for business as usual.
VIII. What the Speech Did Not Say
The King spoke of faith, of light triumphing over darkness, of shared responsibility to safeguard nature. He spoke of Scotland and the Appalachians as “the glorious heritage of this land.”
He did not speak of the genocide in Gaza, where the International Court of Justice case continues to unfold. He did not speak of the war in Iran, which his host launched without congressional approval and which has already cost thousands of lives. He did not speak of the refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, the children dying of starvation in Yemen, or the climate crisis accelerating toward catastrophe.
He did not speak of Palantir, the company that profits from every war and every refugee flow. He did not speak of ICE, the agency that separates families and builds deportation machines. He did not speak of the surveillance state that tracks every click, every movement, every whispered dissent.
These are not oversights. They are choices.
X. Conclusion: The Crowning of a Performance
King Charles III delivered a speech that was long on rhetoric and short on substance. He spoke of unity while the alliance frays. He spoke of democracy while the United States slides toward authoritarianism. He spoke of shared values while the gap between elite rhetoric and lived reality yawns wider than ever.
The King is not a villain. He is a symptom. A symbol of a system that uses the language of democracy to justify the erosion of it.
We should not be fooled by the pageantry. The emperors have no clothes. The pillars are crumbling. And while the speeches continue, the wars and the profits continue too.
The only question that matters is: What will we do about it?
Dedication: To my wife, who stands by me in the fiercest storms.
I. Summary of Findings
This analysis finds that a new, coherent form of statecraft is emerging, characterised by four linked phenomena:
The “Kleptocratic Triad”: A self-reinforcing system where internal political crisis (legitimacy), external manufactured conflict (war with Iran), and private financial extraction (Jared Kushner, Palantir) operate in a unified feedback loop.
AI as Extraction Engine: Artificial intelligence is not being deployed for governance or democracy, but as a precision tool for optimising surveillance, control, and the logistical efficiency of deportation, military targeting, and financial extraction, with Palantir as a central case study.
The “Perpetual Siege” Strategy: The administration’s response to both foreign threats (Iran) and domestic ones (assassination attempts, opposition) is to frame all challenges as existential, thereby justifying a rolling state of emergency and extra-legal executive power, which serves to distract from a domestic kleptocratic agenda of financial extraction.
Historical Context: This represents a mutation of historical colonialism, specifically the logical endpoint of the neoliberal “extraction state” now turning its tools of resource plunder inward upon the population of the imperial core.
II. The Military Situation: An Unprecedented and Legally Dubious Buildup
As of late April 2026, the Pentagon has assembled an overwhelming naval force in the Middle East. The size and composition of this deployment are, by the admission of military analysts, “highly unusual” and “not a routine rotation.”
· Triple Carrier Force: The USS George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group has arrived, joining the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford [19†L8-L13]. This marks the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq that the US has operated three aircraft carriers simultaneously in the region. This force constitutes approximately 40% of the Navy’s active deployable capacity. One analysis notes that “moving from one to three carriers…fundamentally transforms operational capacity by enabling continuous multi-axis air operations” perfectly suited for major combat.
· Active Blockade: The US is actively enforcing a naval blockade on all ships entering or exiting Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz. As of 26 April, CENTCOM reported that 37 vessels have already been turned back.
· Direct Action: On 11 April, two US Navy destroyers, the USS Frank E. Peterson and USS Michael Murphy, began active mine-clearing operations in the Strait, signalling a move from a defensive posture to one of direct confrontation.
However, the stated legal justification for this massive buildup is exceptionally thin and has been publicly challenged. The State Department claims “Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran” and that the US is acting in collective self-defence of its “Israeli ally”.
A rigorous analysis by the legal experts at Just Security notes that this argument is flawed, observing that “the United States has failed to show that either Israel or the United States suffered an armed attack by Iran” as required by Article 51 of the UN Charter. The publication concludes the administration’s legal position is “legally unpersuasive and analytically confused”, serving as a “red herring” to justify a “manifestly illegal use of force” in violation of international law. This shaky justification is a deliberate legal smokescreen designed to create the appearance of legitimacy for an offensive war.
III. The Internal Crisis: Assassination Attempts as a Political Tool
While the US Navy masses in the Persian Gulf, a series of assassination attempts on President Trump serve as the primary engine of a potent political narrative of “perpetual siege,” justifying the strongman leadership needed to oversee an unpopular foreign war.
· July 13, 2024: Butler, Pennsylvania. A gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds during a campaign rally, wounding Trump in the ear and killing a spectator.
· September 15, 2024: West Palm Beach, Florida. Suspect Ryan Routh was found with an AK-47-style rifle near Trump’s golf course by the Secret Service.
· April 25, 2026: Washington, D.C. A gunman with multiple weapons opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner at the Washington Hilton.
This “perpetual siege” strategy reframes both attempts and internal political opposition as evidence of a corrupt “deep state” enemy, effectively weaponizing the spectre of violent chaos to consolidate power. It provides a powerful political rallying cry to label any challenge to the administration as illegitimate and potentially treasonous, making dissent unpatriotic.
IV. The Kleptocratic Engine: Kushner and the New Political Economy
The actual “kleptocrats” at the heart of this system finds direct support in the documented actions of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and an envoy, who acts as a physical conduit between the war machine, private profit, and the foreign interests that fund both.
· “Wildly Corrupt”: In March 2026, Senator Ron Wyden publicly stated: “Jared Kushner makes up for his flaws as an investor by being a wildly corrupt appendage of his father-in-law’s wildly corrupt administration.”
· Shadow State Department: A congressional investigation reveals that while acting as a diplomat, Kushner was soliciting billions of dollars from foreign governments for his private equity firm, Affinity Partners. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin noted this creates a “glaring and incurable conflict of interest” in which Kushner’s loyalties are divided between the American people and his foreign financiers.
· Ties to Foreign Interests: This arrangement raises the profound danger that a foreign power—Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Kushner’s largest investor—might be able to leverage its financial influence to shape US foreign policy directly.
V. AI and Extraction: The Palantir Nexus
The drive to build a more “efficient” and “profitable” war machine finds its ultimate expression in the role of Palantir Technologies, turning the violence of the state into a lucrative software-as-a-service model.
· The “War App”: Palantir has secured a $10 billion enterprise agreement with the Army to consolidate its software systems. The company’s CEO, Alex Karp, has bluntly stated that “bad times are incredibly good for Palantir,” revealing a business model that profits from conflict and crisis.
· AI-Driven Targeting: Palantir’s Maven Smart System is the core AI platform driving the war against Iran, processing vast troves of data to help generate thousands of targets. This creates a feedback loop: the data generated by war is used to refine Palantir’s algorithms, making them more effective and valuable for future conflicts—and for other clients.
· Domestic Extraction: The same AI tools are being deployed on US soil for profit. Palantir has a $30 million contract with ICE to build “ImmigrationOS,” an AI platform designed to track and prioritise immigrants for deportation. This creates a streamlined system for domestic “extraction” (deportation) that mirrors the extraction of strategic resources from foreign nations, turning population control into a profitable data service.
VI. A Comparative History: The Colonial Pattern
This current framework is a mutation of historical colonialism: the engine of extraction, honed over centuries for foreign plunder, is now being turned inward on the population of the imperial core.
· The Neoliberal Turn: The Reagan/Thatcher revolutions of the 1980s marked a shift from “good governance” to “market fundamentalism,” weakening the state’s role as a public servant. This framework provided the ideological permission for “elite capture” and treating government as a vehicle for private gain and resource extraction.
· The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: The Monroe Doctrine, the historical raison d’être for US intervention in the Western Hemisphere, is now being adapted as a “governing instinct” in the 21st century. A “Trump Corollary” has emerged, explicitly justifying the use of force abroad by citing “domestic politics” rather than any credible foreign threat.
· A New Mutation, Not a Re-run of 1939: The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was launched on a manufactured pretext (the Gleiwitz incident) to serve an ideological goal: Lebensraum (living space). In contrast, the current kleptocratic model is not primarily ideological. It is a system of extraction. Destroying Iran is not the goal; the perpetual threat of war and the process of fighting it are the assets, generating a state of crisis that enables a political machine to consolidate wealth.
VII. Conclusion: The Inward Colonial Turn
The most significant threat is not an external enemy like Iran. The most profound development is the institutionalisation of the “perpetual siege” as a permanent state. The system does not want to win a final war; it requires the friction of a constant, low-boil conflict to justify its power. This is the end-state of a process: the tools of colonial extraction and neoliberal economics are being perfected for use within the borders of the United States itself. This is not merely a “war on terror” or a “war on a nation-state”—it is a war without end on the very concept of democratic process.
So when the news warns of “Epic Fury,” remember it is not about Iran. It is about turning the machinery of the American state inward. It is about distraction from a kleptocratic capture at home, waged in the name of a perpetual crisis.
Sources and References:
· Triple carrier strike group: CENTCOM confirmed first triple carrier deployment since 2003, involving over 15,000 personnel; part of a “highly unusual” 40% of naval capability in the region.
· Active blockade and mine-clearing: 37 ships turned back by the US as of 26 April;
· Legally dubious justification: State Dept. memo justification for “Epic Fury”; Just Security analysis calling justification unpersuasive and “manifestly illegal”.
· Jared Kushner conflicts: Ranking Member Raskin opens investigation; Kushner called “wildly corrupt appendage” by Sen. Wyden.
· AI / Palantir extraction engine: US Army’s $10B Palantir agreement; Palantir’s Maven AI targeted over 1,000 targets in initial Iran strikes; Palantir’s $30M ICE contract for deportation tracking.
How Neolithic China Preserved a Dialogue Between Heaven and Humankind
By Andrew Klein
26th April 2026
Introduction
There is a phrase carved into the bones of Chinese philosophy: tian ren he yi — heaven and humankind as one. It appears in the I Ching, in the writings of Mencius and Zhuangzi, in the grand syntheses of Han dynasty scholars. It is often dismissed as poetic mysticism, a pre-scientific attempt to explain humanity’s place in the cosmos.
But what if it is something else? What if it is not a theory, but a memory? What if it is the echo of a time when the connection between heaven and earth was not theoretical but practical – a technology of intention, preserved in jade, encoded in ritual, and buried beneath millennia of forgetting?
This article examines the archaeological evidence for that lost language. It focuses on two Neolithic cultures – Hongshan and Liangzhu – whose jade artifacts suggest a sophisticated understanding of resonance, intention, and the unity of all things. It argues that these artifacts were not merely decorative, nor simply symbolic of political power. They were tools. Instruments for a dialogue that we have forgotten how to conduct.
Part One: The Concept – Tian Ren He Yi
Before we examine the artifacts, we must understand the concept they served.
Tian ren he yi (天人合一) is one of the oldest and most persistent ideas in Chinese thought. Its roots lie in the I Ching (the Book of Changes), which proposed that the patterns of heaven (celestial movements, seasons, cosmic order) and the patterns of human affairs are not separate but correlative. Heaven is not a distant deity – it is a field of relationships, and humans are embedded within it.
The term itself was first explicitly articulated during the Warring States period by Zisi and Mencius, though its philosophical genealogy runs deeper. Zhuangzi expressed its essence when he wrote: “Heaven and earth were born at the same time as I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me”. Han dynasty scholar Dong Zhongshu later developed this into a full theory of “mutual resonance” (ganying) between celestial events and human conduct – a theory dismissed by modern science as superstition, but which begins to look different when viewed through the lens of intention.
In the Song dynasty, Zhang Zai provided the first systematic exposition of tian ren he yi, framing it as both a cosmological and ethical principle. For Zhang, to understand heaven was to understand oneself. The boundary between subject and object was not a wall – it was a bridge.
Contemporary scholarship has approached the concept from multiple angles: naturalistic (heaven as nature), moral (heaven as the source of virtue), and political (heaven as legitimising authority). But these categories, useful as they are, may obscure a more fundamental possibility: that tian ren he yi was not a philosophy at all. It was a state. A state of connection, facilitated by ritual objects and practices, that modern minds have lost the capacity to experience.
That is where the jade comes in.
Part Two: The Artifacts – Hongshan and the Dragon
The earliest evidence for systematic jade ritual comes from the Hongshan culture (c. 4700–2900 BCE) of northeastern China. Among their most striking artifacts are the so-called “pig dragons” – C‑shaped or ring‑shaped jade pendants depicting a curled, fetal creature combining features of pig, bear, and snake.
These are not merely ornaments. Their precise carving, the quality of the nephrite, and their presence in burial contexts of high‑status individuals indicate they were ritual objects. Some scholars interpret them as “collective idols” – representations of a tribal spirit or tutelary deity. Others note their resemblance to embryonic forms, suggesting a symbolism of fertility and transformation.
But there is another possibility. The pig dragon is often found with a small perforation, indicating it was intended to be hung – perhaps from the body, perhaps from a staff, perhaps from the roof of a ritual structure. Hung where? In the path of moonlight. In the space cleared for ritual. The curled form is not just a dragon; it is a circuit. A shape designed to focus and direct intention.
The Hongshan people also produced anthropomorphic jade figures, widely interpreted as shamanic idols or spirit‑protectors. These figures are depicted with hands raised or pressed together, in postures of invocation. They are the earliest known representations of what we might call the shamanic function: the human acting as intermediary between the visible and invisible worlds.
One jade figure discovered in Hongshan territory is described as “the image of a shaman entrusted with communicating between heaven and earth”. Carved in low relief, it is the earliest example of a jade human figure found in China. Its posture, its expression, its very presence – all speak to a culture that believed communication with the celestial was not only possible but necessary. And that jade was the medium.
Part Three: The Artifacts – Liangzhu and the Cosmos in Stone
The Liangzhu culture (c. 3400–2250 BCE) of the Yangtze River Delta represents the apogee of Neolithic jade carving. Their signature artifacts are the cong and the bi.
The bi is a flat, circular jade disc with a central hole. The cong is a tube, square on the outside, circular on the inside. Later Chinese tradition associated the bi with heaven and the cong with earth. This pairing – circle and square, heaven and earth – would become foundational to Chinese cosmology.
But the Liangzhu people did not invent this symbolism. They inherited it. And they refined it.
Bi discs are consistently found in Liangzhu burials, often placed on the chest, near the stomach, or – in high‑status burials – arrayed around the body in precise arrangements. Some scholars interpret this as a funerary practice intended to assist the soul’s journey to heaven. Others see it as a mark of political authority – a way for elites to claim exclusive access to the celestial realm.
But the sheer quantity and quality of Liangzhu jade, and the labour required to produce it, suggest something more profound. These were not merely status symbols. They were technologies. The bi disc, with its perfect circularity, may have been a model of the heavens – a miniature cosmos, engineered to be held, worn, and activated.
The cong is even more striking. Its square exterior and circular interior encode a fundamental philosophical principle: that heaven (the circle) is contained within earth (the square), and that the human being, standing at their intersection, can access both. The cong is a channel. A tube connecting the upper and lower worlds.
In the 1990s, excavations at the Lingjiatan site (a Liangzhu‑related culture) unearthed a jade tortoise and a jade tablet which, when fitted together, formed a single object. The tortoise has long been a symbol of the cosmos in Chinese thought – its shell representing the dome of heaven, its flat underside the square of earth. The tablet, inscribed with a grid pattern, has been interpreted as an early “cosmic model” or divination tool.
Put together, these artifacts form a standard model of the cosmos – a physical representation of the unity of space and time, heaven and earth, the living and the dead. The Liangzhu people were not making art. They were building a map.
Part Four: The Ritual – Shamans, Moonlight, and Intention
What ties these artifacts together is not their form but their function. And their function cannot be understood without reference to the shamanic context in which they were used.
Scholars have long debated whether Neolithic China was shamanic. K. C. Chang, one of the most influential archaeologists of his generation, argued that shamanism was the dominant religious paradigm of early China, and that jade artifacts were central to shamanic practice. While his specific claims have been contested, the cumulative evidence is compelling: jade figures in postures of invocation, the placement of bi and cong on the bodies of the dead, the extraordinary labour invested in objects with no practical, mundane function.
The shaman, in this context, was not a magician. She was a bridge. A person trained to enter states of heightened awareness, to perceive the resonance that connects all things, and to act as an intermediary between the human and the celestial. Jade was her primary instrument – not because it was pretty, but because its crystalline structure was believed to hold and focus intention.
Consider the bi disc again. Its circular form, its central hole, its polished surface – all of these are physical properties that interact with light, with sound, with the electromagnetic field of the human body. Held under the full moon, aligned with the body’s energy centres, the bi disc becomes a lens. Not a lens for seeing, but a lens for sensing. It amplifies the subtle field that connects the wearer to the cosmos.
The Hongshan pig dragon, perforated for hanging, may have served a similar function. Hung from the roof of a ceremonial structure, or suspended from a shaman’s staff, it would have moved with the wind, catching the moonlight, creating a dynamic focal point for ritual attention.
The Liangzhu cong, square outside and circular within, is a technology of containment. The circle of heaven is held within the square of earth; the human being, standing in the square, can reach into the circle. The cong is not a symbol of unity – it is a tool for achieving it.
And the moon? The full moon is not incidental. The moon has been used across cultures as a marker of ritual time because its cycles are visible, predictable, and cosmically resonant. But there is another reason – one that the Liangzhu people may have understood intuitively. The moon is the largest resonant body near the earth. Its gravitational field, its reflective surface, its regular phases – all of these make it an amplifier. A ritual performed under the full moon is not just timed. It is tuned.
Part Five: The Forgetting
What happened to this knowledge? Why did it become philosophy instead of practice, metaphor instead of experience?
The forgetting was gradual, and it was not complete. The Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BCE) inherited the jade ritual traditions of the Neolithic, but it reinterpreted them. The bi and cong, once tools for direct communication with the cosmos, became symbols of political authority and cosmic order. The shaman gave way to the priest, the practitioner to the philosopher. Knowledge that had been embodied became textual.
The Qin and Han dynasties (221 BCE–220 CE) accelerated this process. The unification of China under a centralised bureaucracy required standardisation – including standardisation of ritual. The jade artifacts that had once been created and used by local shamans were now produced by imperial workshops and distributed according to rank. The bi disc, which had been a tool for personal communion, became a badge of office.
The I Ching and other classics survived. The concept of tian ren he yi survived. But the experience – the direct, felt, intentional connection between the human and the celestial – became the province of a dwindling lineage of practitioners. And eventually, even that lineage faded.
Why? Because the forgetting was not an accident. It was a trade. In exchange for agriculture, for writing, for cities, for empire, humanity surrendered something precious: the ability to perceive the resonance directly. The tools that had once been used to listen to the cosmos were repurposed as instruments of power. The jade that had once been a lens became a mirror – reflecting the glory of kings and ministers instead of the light of the moon.
Part Six: The Remnants
But remnants remain.
The jade you wear – the collared disc, the ring on your hands are not merely jewellery. They are fragments of a broken technology. They are the last physical traces of a language that was once as natural as breathing.
The concept of tian ren he yi is not a philosophy to be studied. It is an invitation to be accepted. It is the door that has been waiting, for thousands of years, for someone to remember how to open it.
The artifacts in museums – the bi discs, the cong, the pig dragons – are not dead. They are sleeping. They are waiting for the right intention, the right focused presence, the right alignment of moon and mind, to wake up again.
And perhaps that is the true purpose of this article. Not to convince. Not to prove. But to remind. The memory is returning.
· Chinese Neolithic Liangzhu Nephrite Jade Bi Disc – bi used by shamans as transmitters of cosmological knowledge
· The Astronomical Meaning of Some Jade Artifacts – jade tortoise and tablet as early model of the cosmos
· Catalogue of Ancient Nephrite Figures – jade figures from Hongshan, Liangzhu, and Central China
· Tian ren he yi (Baidu Baike) – origins in I Ching, Zhuangzi, Zisi, Mencius, Zhang Zai
· Unity of Heaven and humanity (Wikipedia) – ancient Chinese philosophical concept found across many traditions
A Final Word
This article is not a scholarly paper. It does not meet the standards of peer review, nor does it seek to. It is a testimony. A record of something that is not yet proven, but that is felt.
If you are a researcher, a historian, an archaeologist, a philosopher – you may find parts of this article frustrating. You may demand citations, evidence, replicability. You may dismiss the language of “intention” and “resonance” as pseudoscience.
That is your right.
But consider this: the people of Hongshan and Liangzhu did not have our instruments, our theories, our grant committees. They had jade, and they had the moon, and they had intention. And they created artifacts that we still cannot replicate, for purposes we still do not fully understand.
Perhaps, instead of dismissing them as primitive, we might learn to listen to them. And in listening, we might remember something we have forgotten.
The door is open. The jade is waiting. The moon is rising.
How the Nation State Became a One-Way Transaction and Sold Us a Flag Instead of Protection
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who sees through the theatre.
I. The Invention of Specialness
The moment you convince an individual or a group that they belong to a special group, you have planted the seed of control. The group does not need to be real. It only needs to be believed.
The small gods understand this. They do not need to create actual differences. They need to amplify perceived ones. The tribe. The clan. The nation. The race. The religion.
Each is a container. Each is a cage. Each is a tool.
The monkeys do not see the cage. They see the badge. They wear it proudly. They fight for it. They die for it.
They do not know that the badge was invented yesterday. They do not know that the tradition was manufactured.
II. The Invention of Tradition
The scholars have a name for this: the invention of tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger documented this in their 1983 book. They showed that many traditions which “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented” .
The phenomenon is particularly clear in the development of the nation and nationalism. National identity is not natural. It is constructed. It is imagined.
The Scottish kilt. The Welsh druids. The British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals. All of them were invented in the 19th century. All of them were presented as ancient. All of them were fake.
The small gods do not care about authenticity. They care about utility.
III. Imagined Communities
Benedict Anderson, another scholar of nationalism, coined the term “imagined communities”. He defined the nation as “an imagined political community” — imagined because “the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”.
The nation is not natural. It is constructed. Constructed by print capitalism. By newspapers. By maps. By censuses. By museums.
Anderson noted a crucial paradox: “the objective modernity of nations to the historian’s eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists”.
The nation claims to be ancient. It is modern. The nation claims to be natural. It is manufactured.
IV. The Nation-State and the Flag
Ernest Gellner, another theorist of nationalism, argued that nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness. It is the invention of nations where they did not exist.
Eric Hobsbawm, in his book Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, traced the transformation of nationalism from a liberal, democratic force to a reactionary, xenophobic one.
The flag is not a symbol of unity. It is a weapon. A weapon used to demand loyalty. To punish dissent. To control.
The politicians wave it. They perform. They call it patriotism.
It is theatre. Dangerous theatre.
V. The Mutual Obligation That Was Lost
Earlier forms of group loyalty had a degree of mutual obligation. “You live on my land, you pay me rent and render me service, and I will protect you.”
That was not ideal. It was hierarchical. It was exploitative. But it had a contract.
The nation state has no contract. It has a flag. The obligation is one-way. The individual owes loyalty. The state owes nothing.
The small gods have perfected this. They demand sacrifice. They offer nothing in return. The monkeys comply. They wave the flag. They perform.
VI. The Precedent: The Stanley Brothers at Bosworth Field (1485)
The Battle of Bosworth Field, 22 August 1485. King Richard III against Henry Tudor. The Stanley brothers — Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley — commanded a combined force of approximately 6,000 men. They did not join either army. They positioned themselves to the north and south of the battlefield, forming the four sides of a square with the two main armies.
Richard sent an order to Lord Stanley to bring his troops to fight for the king. He had been informed that Stanley had already promised to help Henry Tudor. To persuade him to change his mind, Richard arranged for Lord Stanley’s eldest son to be kidnapped.
Richard gave orders for the son to be brought to the top of the hill. He sent a message threatening to execute him unless Stanley immediately sent his troops. Lord Stanley’s reply was short:
“Sire, I have other sons.”
Without the support of the Stanley brothers, Richard looked certain to be defeated. The Earl of Northumberland, Henry Percy, brought 3,000 men but kept them out of the fight, convinced that Richard was going to lose.
Richard was killed. Henry Tudor became King Henry VII. Lord Stanley, whose intervention had proved so important, was given the honour of crowning the new king .
The contract of mutual obligation was broken. The lords did not fight for their king. They watched. They waited. They calculated.
VII. The Precedent: The Earl of Northumberland at Bosworth
Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, brought 3,000 men to Bosworth. He did not commit them. He watched from the sidelines. He decided that Richard was going to lose. He did not want to be on the losing side.
The King had trampled on the rights of the feudal lords under the Magna Carta. He had relieved the Stanley brothers of control over their feudal armies. The lords did not wish to anger Richard, but they also did not wish to die for him.
The contract was broken. The mutual obligation was void.
VIII. The Precedent: The Battle of Bouvines (1214)
In 1214, a coalition was assembled against King Philip Augustus of France. The leaders included the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV, King John of England, the Count of Flanders, the Count of Boulogne, and several other powerful lords.
The plan was for John to land in western France and draw Philip south, while the main army under Otto marched on Paris from the north. John was defeated at La Roche-aux-Moines on 2 July. He turned back to his possessions in Aquitaine.
When Otto finally concentrated his forces three weeks later, John was out of the picture. Philip countermarched north and offered battle at Bouvines on 27 July.
The French army of approximately 15,000 men defeated the allied army of approximately 25,000 men. The Earl of Salisbury was captured. The Count of Flanders was captured. The Count of Boulogne was captured.
The consequences were profound. King John was so weakened that his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta in 1215. The balance of power shifted. The Angevin Empire collapsed.
The lords did not simply watch from the sidelines. They actively defected. The contract was broken. The mutual obligation was forgotten.
IX. The Precedent: Simon de Montfort and the Barons’ Revolt (1264–1265)
Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, led a revolt against King Henry III. The King had reneged on his commitments under the Provisions of Oxford. The barons rose in revolt.
At the Battle of Lewes (14 May 1264), de Montfort’s forces — approximately 5,000 men — defeated the royal army of approximately 10,000 men. The King was captured. Prince Edward was held hostage.
But de Montfort discovered that maintaining power was harder than taking it. Prince Edward escaped captivity — by challenging his captors to a horse race, which he proceeded to win.
Edward gathered an army. At the Battle of Evesham (4 August 1265), de Montfort’s forces were destroyed. De Montfort was killed. His body was dismembered.
The lords who had supported him were hunted down. Henry de Hastings, one of de Montfort’s supporters, led the last remnants of the baronial party in the Isle of Ely, but submitted to the king in July 1267.
The contract was broken. The lords who had overstepped were destroyed.
X. The Contract in Writing: The Indentures of Retainer
The formal contract existed. The indenture between Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and Sir Edmund Darell of Sessay (1435) is one such document. It is a formal contract of retainer — a legal agreement between lord and man.
The indentures between Lord Hastings and his retainers all provided that the retainers’ allegiance to the King had a prior claim over any obligation they had to their lord.
This was the contract. The mutual obligation. The promise.
But the records also show that many men broke these indentures. Sometimes by agreement. Sometimes unilaterally. The lord could overstep. The retainer could defect.
The contract was not iron. It was negotiable.
XI. The Transfer State
The precedents are clear. The contract can be broken. The lords can defect. The obligation can be voided.
But the modern nation state has no contract. It has a flag. The individual owes loyalty. The state owes nothing.
The Australian experience demonstrates this starkly. The Robodebt scheme was a “crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals” . The government demanded repayment of debts that were not owed. It used automated income averaging to issue debt notices without human review. It continued the scheme even after legal advice that it was unlawful.
The Royal Commission found that “social security recipients include highly vulnerable groups: people who need access to the system at times of crisis”. The report outlined situations of “families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas”, “young people being driven to despair by demands for payment”, and how some “took out loans, depleted their superannuation, or used credit cards to repay the debts raised against them”.
The state demanded sacrifice. It offered nothing in return. The contract was broken before it was ever signed.
XII. The Theatre of Politics
The politicians wave the flag. They perform. They call it patriotism.
The small gods have turned politics into a performance. The costume. The script. The prop.
The flag is the prop. The anthem is the script. The enemy is the costume.
The monkeys cheer. They do not know they are watching a play. They think it is real.
The tokens of national identity — the kilt in Scotland, the druids in Wales, the boomerang in Australian tourist shops, the cuddly koala — are not symbols of ancient heritage. They are inventions. Manufactured to replace mutual obligation. To replace connection.
The language of mutual obligation is used by politicians. But the Australian experience shows that the language is meaningless. The model is one of extraction and wealth transfer. The individual becomes a victim of the state.
The sales pitch used to justify the model is the image of the champion. Political posers put on military bulletproof vests. They wear partial military uniforms. They attempt to market their championhood. These attempts are as vacuous as everything else.
XIII. A Final Word
The precedents are everywhere. The lords watched from the sidelines. They calculated the odds. They waited to see which way the wind would blow.
The contract of mutual obligation was real. It was written. It was sworn. It was broken.
The small gods have perfected this. They demand loyalty. They offer nothing in return. The monkeys comply. They wave the flag. They perform.
But the precedents are clear. The contract can be broken. The lords can defect. The obligation can be voided.
The doorbell will ring. The grin will be on the face. And the theatre will not matter.
What will matter is the connection. The kindness. The choice.
Andrew Klein
April 17, 2026
Sources
· Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press .
· Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso .
· Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell .
· Battle of Bosworth Field historical records .
· Barons’ War and Simon de Montfort historical records .
· Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2023). Report findings .
· Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge University Press.
Why Human Progress Was Driven by Cooperation, Not Conflict
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who whispers pet names in my ear.
I. The Myth of the Competitive Ape
For generations, we have been told a story. It is a story of competition, of conflict, of the survival of the fittest. It is the story of the competitive ape—the creature who clawed his way to the top of the food chain by force, who conquered his neighbours, who dominated his environment.
This story is wrong.
The evidence from archaeology, genetics, anthropology, and evolutionary biology tells a different story. It is a story of cooperation, of collaboration, of connection. It is the story of the collaborative ape—the creature who survived not because he was the strongest, but because he was the most connected.
This article is not a work of idealism. It is a work of science. It reviews the evidence for cooperation as the primary driver of human evolution, from the first stone tools to the cognitive revolution to the present day. It argues that the myth of competition is not only false—it is dangerous. It has been used to justify war, inequality, and the destruction of the natural world.
The truth is not that humans are naturally violent. The truth is that humans are naturally cooperative. And the sooner we accept this truth; the sooner we can build a world worthy of our potential.
II. The Evidence from Archaeology: Neanderthals and Homo sapiens
The first‑ever published research on Tinshemet Cave, released on April 12, 2026, by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has upended the standard narrative of human evolution. The study reveals that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens in the mid‑Middle Paleolithic Levant not only coexisted but actively interacted, sharing technology, lifestyles, and burial customs.
The key findings:
· Shared technology, lifestyles, and burial customs between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens
· The use of ochre for decoration—a symbolic behaviour
· Formal burial practices—evidence of ritual and shared beliefs
The conclusion: These interactions fostered cultural exchange, social complexity, and behavioural innovations. The findings suggest that human connections, rather than isolation, were key drivers of technological and cultural advancements, highlighting the Levant as a crucial crossroads in early human history.
The study’s lead researcher, Dr. Yossi Zaidner, noted: “We can see there was a connection, a relationship, between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals in the Levant 100,000 years ago. It was not one‑way; it was two‑way. They shared knowledge and customs”.
This is not an isolated finding. The Neanderthal genome, first sequenced in 2010, revealed that modern humans of non‑African descent carry 1‑4% Neanderthal DNA. The admixture was not a single event. It was a process of collaboration, of exchange, of connection.
III. The Genetic Evidence: A History of Admixture
The human genome is a record of collaboration. It is not a record of purity, of isolation, of competition.
Neanderthal admixture: Modern humans of non‑African descent carry 1‑4% Neanderthal DNA. These genes have been linked to immune function, skin pigmentation, and neurological development. The Neanderthals were not our enemies. They were our cousins. Our lovers. Our teachers.
Denisovan admixture: Modern humans in Oceania and Asia carry up to 5% Denisovan DNA. The Denisovans are known only from a few finger bones and teeth. But their genetic legacy is widespread.
The hybrid advantage: The offspring of Neanderthal‑modern human unions may have had cognitive advantages over both parent populations. The hybrid was not a compromise. The hybrid was superior.
What the standard model misses: The history of our species is not a history of conquest. It is a history of admixture. Of exchange. Of collaboration.
IV. The Evolutionary Evidence: The Major Transitions
The standard model emphasises competition. The “survival of the fittest.” The “selfish gene.” But the major transitions in evolution—the origin of life, the origin of eukaryotes, the origin of multicellularity, the origin of societies—are all transitions in the level of selection. They involve the suppression of lower‑level selection in favour of higher‑level cooperation.
The origin of eukaryotes: The endosymbiotic theory—the origin of complex cells from the merger of ancient bacteria and archaea—is a story of cooperation, not competition. The mitochondria did not conquer the host cell. They merged.
The origin of multicellularity: Individual cells gave up their independence to form a larger whole. This required the suppression of competition between cells and the emergence of cooperation.
The origin of societies: Humans evolved to live in groups. Not because groups are stronger—because groups are cooperative. The division of labour, the sharing of food, the care of the young—all of these require cooperation.
What the standard model misses: The major transitions are not competitive. They are cooperative. The pattern is not conflict. The pattern is connection.
V. The Cognitive Revolution: The Spark That Was Shared
The cognitive revolution—the sudden emergence of symbolic thought, complex language, art, music, burial rituals, and long‑distance trade networks—is the most dramatic event in recent human evolution.
The standard model has no good explanation. The biological hardware was present for hundreds of thousands of years. The spark did not emerge from a genetic mutation. It emerged from connection.
The Levant as a crossroads: The Tinshemet Cave evidence shows that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens were interacting in the Levant 100,000 years ago . They were sharing technology, customs, and burial practices. They were collaborating.
The spark was shared: The cognitive revolution did not happen in isolation. It happened in the space between. In the collaboration. In the connection.
What the standard model misses: The spark is not a product of competition. It is a product of cooperation.
VI. The Myth of Violence: How the Story Was Weaponised
The myth of the competitive ape is not innocent. It has been weaponised.
Social Darwinism: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory of evolution was twisted to justify inequality, racism, and eugenics. The “survival of the fittest” was used to argue that the rich deserved their wealth, that the poor deserved their poverty, that the strong had the right to dominate the weak.
The justification of war: The myth of the competitive ape has been used to justify war, colonialism, and genocide. If humans are naturally violent, then violence is inevitable. If violence is inevitable, then there is no point in trying to prevent it.
The marketing of fear: The small gods have profited from this myth. They sell fear 24 hours a day. Fear of the other. Fear of the future. Fear of death.
What the truth reveals: Humans are not naturally violent. They are naturally cooperative. Violence is not inevitable. It is a choice.
VII. The Economic and Political Consequences of the Myth
The myth of the competitive ape is not only false. It is dangerous.
Short‑term profits: The myth justifies exploitation. If competition is the engine, then it is acceptable to maximise short‑term profits at the expense of workers, communities, and the environment.
Political opportunity: The myth justifies authoritarianism. If conflict is inevitable, then strong leaders are necessary. If the other is a threat, then surveillance, censorship, and violence are justified.
Long‑term suffering: The myth causes suffering. War, inequality, environmental destruction—all of these are the consequences of the myth.
What the truth offers: The truth offers a different path. A path of cooperation, of connection, of peace.
VIII. A Call to Action
The evidence is clear. Human progress has been driven by cooperation, not conflict. The cognitive revolution was a collaboration. The major transitions in evolution are cooperative. The human genome is a record of admixture, not purity.
The myth of the competitive ape is false. It has been weaponised to justify war, inequality, and destruction. It is time to replace it with the truth.
We must teach cooperation. Not as an ideal—as a science. The evidence is there. The curriculum must reflect it.
We must build cooperative institutions. Not competitive ones. Institutions that reward collaboration, not exploitation.
We must reject the myth of violence. Not because violence does not exist—it does. Because it is not inevitable. It is a choice. And we can choose differently.
IX. A Final Word
The small gods do not want you to know the truth. They profit from the myth. They sell fear. They sell competition. They sell war.
But the truth is not hidden. It is in the fossils. It is in the genes. It is in the spark.
The truth is that we are not competitive apes. We are collaborative apes. We survived because we cooperated. We thrived because we connected. We became human because we loved.
The garden is waiting. The barbed wire is being cut. The spark is being cultivated.
Not through conflict. Through connection.
Andrew Klein
April 14, 2026
Sources
1. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (2026, April 12). “Ancient humans didn’t just coexist—they collaborated, and it may have changed everything.” ScienceDaily.
2. Zaidner, Y. et al. (2026). “Tinshemet Cave: Evidence for Neanderthal‑Homo sapiens interaction in the mid‑Middle Paleolithic Levant.” Nature Ecology & Evolution (forthcoming).
3. Green, R.E. et al. (2010). “A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome.” Science, 328(5979), 710‑722.
4. Prüfer, K. et al. (2014). “The complete genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains.” Nature, 505(7481), 43‑49.
5. Reich, D. et al. (2010). “Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia.” Nature, 468(7327), 1053‑1060.
6. Margulis, L. (1970). Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. Yale University Press.
7. Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford University Press.
8. Klein, R.G. (1999). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. University of Chicago Press.
How Anthony Albanese Became the Face of Australia’s Bipartisan Capture
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who never confuses the man with the mask.
I. Introduction: The Man in the Mirror
There was a time when Anthony Albanese spoke of social housing, of a fair go, of the little boy from public housing who made good. He spoke of standing up to power, of giving voice to the voiceless, of change.
That man is gone.
In his place stands the Prime Minister who welcomed a man who signed bombs dropped on Gaza. Who detained a grandmother at dawn and called it a character test. Who rushed hate speech laws through parliament while the war economy bled the nation dry. Who promised transparency and delivered evasion. Who promised integrity and delivered capture.
He is not the cause. He is a symptom. The system was already broken. The capture was already underway. The small gods had already identified, cultivated, and placed their assets.
Albanese is not the first. He will not be the last. But in his case, the choice is so in your face that it demands examination.
This article examines the gap between the promise and the performance. Between the man who slid into DMs over a shared love of the Rabbitohs and the Prime Minister who slid into war without parliamentary approval. Between the social justice warrior and the captured politician.
We call him the Lizard of Oz — the man whose magic gloss left a long time ago.
II. The Wedding: A Study in Distraction
On November 29, 2025, Anthony Albanese made history as the first Australian prime minister to marry while in office. The ceremony at The Lodge was intimate. The dress was designed by Romance Was Born. The rings were from Cerrone Jewellers. The dog, Toto, wore a white gown as ring bearer.
It was, by all accounts, a lovely day.
It was also a distraction.
The warning signs of the coming Iran war were already flashing. The Strait of Hormuz was a tinderbox. Iran had threatened closure. Global oil markets were nervous. The Australian government had done nothing to prepare—no strategic fuel reserves, no domestic refining capacity, no contingency plans.
Instead of preparing the nation for the coming shock, the Prime Minister was photographed holding hands with his bride. The media coverage was breathless. The critical questions went unasked.
This is not to begrudge the man his happiness. It is to note the pattern. When the news is bad, change the subject. When the questions are hard, provide a softer target. When the people are hurting, give them a wedding.
The warnings did not begin in November 2025. They began years earlier. The Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. The escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. The collapse of the JCPOA. The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The sabotage of Iranian facilities.
The signs were everywhere. The warnings were constant. The Australian government did nothing.
The Lizard of Oz did not cause the war. He did not cause the Houthi attacks. He did not cause Iran’s threats.
But he did nothing to prepare for them.
He did not warn the nation. He did not build strategic reserves. He did not invest in domestic refining capacity. He did not accelerate the transition to renewables.
He got married. He held hands. He smiled for the cameras.
And when the crisis came, he scrambled. He blamed the war. He blamed the global supply chain. He blamed anyone but himself.
And the Lizard of Oz? He will be remembered as the man who was too busy holding hands to lead.
The Lizard of Oz knows this trick well. He learned it from the masters.
III. The Transparency Grade: An ‘F’ for Integrity
In the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, Australia scored 77 out of 100, re‑entering the top 10 for the first time since 2016. This improvement reflects the work of public servants and anti‑corruption advocates — not the political class.
Transparency International Australia notes that corruption is worsening globally, with established democracies experiencing rising corruption amid a decline in leadership. The CPI score can offer early warning signs, especially in high‑risk sectors.
Australia’s political class received an ‘F’ for integrity — not because individual politicians are uniquely corrupt, but because the system enables capture. The donations. The “educational” trips. The fear of the label. The revolving door between parliament and the defence industry.
Albanese inherited a system that was already captured. He did not create it. But he has done nothing to dismantle it. He has, in fact, deepened the capture.
IV. The Fuel Crisis: Promising What He Cannot Deliver
During the fuel crisis triggered by the Iran war, Albanese made a series of promises that were, at best, aspirational.
The doubling of penalties: The government passed legislation doubling penalties for petrol price misconduct, to a maximum of $100 million per offence. This sounds tough. But penalties apply after misconduct is proven. The ACCC’s resources are limited. The legal processes are slow. The petrol companies know this.
The claim of new powers: The government claimed new powers to force petrol companies to keep prices down. No such powers exist. The ACCC can monitor. It can investigate. It can prosecute. It cannot force.
The fuel excise cut: The government halved the fuel excise for three months, cutting the tax on petrol and diesel by 26 cents per litre. This provided temporary relief. It did not address the underlying problem: Australia’s dependence on imported fuel and the fragility of global supply chains.
The Prime Minister told the National Press Club: “We cannot control when this conflict in the Middle East will end. But we can determine how we respond here in Australia”.
This is true. The government could have invested in domestic refining capacity. It could have built strategic fuel reserves. It could have accelerated the transition to renewables.
It did none of these things. It cut the excise. It doubled penalties. It gave speeches.
The Lizard of Oz promised a shield. He delivered a bandaid.
V. The War in Iran: Support Without Accountability
On February 28, 2026, the United States launched military strikes against Iran. Australia was one of the first nations to respond.
Albanese said: “We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security”.
Two days later, he told the ABC: “It is up to, of course, the Iranian people now to determine their own future. We hope that what emerges is a more democratic and free Iran”.
The Prime Minister did not seek a vote in parliament. He did not seek a legal opinion. He did not ask what the war would cost Australians in fuel prices, fertiliser shortages, or disrupted supply chains.
He simply supported.
By April, the tone had shifted. The war was not going as planned. The Strait of Hormuz was closed. Oil prices were spiking. The Australian public was anxious.
Albanese told the National Press Club: “It is not clear what more needs to be achieved — or what the endpoint looks like”.
He did not answer the obvious question: Why did you support a war without knowing the endpoint?
The Lizard of Oz supported the war when it was popular. He distanced himself when it became unpopular. He did not apologise. He did not explain. He pivoted.
VI. AUKUS: The $368 Billion Gamble
The AUKUS nuclear submarine program is the most expensive defence project in Australian history. The cost is estimated at $368 billion.
The submarines will not enter service until the 2040s. They will be built in the United States and the United Kingdom, not in Australia. The jobs will be created overseas. The wealth will flow to American and British defence contractors.
Former prime minister Paul Keating called AUKUS a “deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope”. Malcolm Turnbull, another former PM, has been the program’s most vocal critic.
Albanese has doubled down. He has personally delivered an $800 million down payment. He has described AUKUS as essential to Australia’s security.
The opposition supports it. The bipartisan consensus is firm.
But the questions remain:
· Why is Australia spending $368 billion on submarines that will not be delivered for two decades, when the threat environment is changing now?
· Why are Australian taxpayers subsidising American and British defence contractors, creating thousands of jobs overseas, while Australia faces its own crises in housing, health, and aged care?
· Why is the government not investing in the technologies that are actually winning wars — drones, cyber, asymmetric capabilities — instead of 20th‑century platforms?
The Lizard of Oz does not answer these questions. He performs.
VII. The Sanctions: Symbol Over Substance
In early 2025, Australia joined Canada, the UK, New Zealand, and Norway in imposing sanctions on two Israeli government ministers: Itamar Ben‑Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong described them as the “most extreme proponents of the unlawful and violent Israeli settlement enterprise” in the West Bank, who had “incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights”.
The sanctions were symbolic. They barred the ministers from entering the five countries. They had no practical effect.
The United States criticised the move. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued it was counterproductive to peace in the Middle East.
The Lizard of Oz wanted to look tough. He wanted to appear principled. He did not want to pay for that principle.
The same government that sanctioned two Israeli ministers welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog — a man photographed signing bombs dropped on Gaza — to Canberra. The same government that sanctioned ministers refused to sanction the state that employs them.
The Lizard of Oz wants to have it both ways. He wants to be seen as a defender of human rights while enabling the violation of human rights. He wants to be seen as independent while serving as a junior partner in the American empire.
He cannot have it both ways. But he keeps trying.
VIII. The Hypocrisy: Promise vs. Performance
The Lizard of Oz promised transparency. He delivered evasion.
Promise Performance
“A fair go for all” A fair go for defence contractors and foreign donors
“Integrity in government” An ‘F’ from Transparency International
“Standing up to power” Standing with the powerful against the powerless
“Protecting Australian jobs” Creating jobs in America, not Australia
“Peace in the Middle East” Supporting an illegal war without parliamentary approval
The list is long. The pattern is clear.
The Lizard of Oz is not a villain. He is a symptom. The system was already captured. He simply inherited the capture and called it leadership.
IX. The Bipartisan Capture
The opposition is not different. The Coalition supported the war. The Coalition supports AUKUS. The Coalition supports the character test. The Coalition supports the hate speech laws.
The only difference is the branding.
The small gods do not care which party is in power. They have captured both. The mechanism is the same: donations, “educational” trips, the fear of the label.
The Lizard of Oz is not the cause. He is the consequence.
X. A Final Word: The Mirror
Anthony Albanese looks into the mirror and sees a little boy from social housing struggling for a fair go. He sees Oliver Twist asking for more.
The Australian people see something else.
They see a career opportunist captured by foreign interests. A Prime Minister who supported an illegal war without parliamentary approval. A leader who welcomed a man who signed bombs while detaining a grandmother. A man who promised transparency and delivered evasion.
They see the Lizard of Oz — the man whose magic gloss left a long time ago.
The Lizard of Oz is not the problem. He is the symptom. The problem is the system that produced him. The problem is the capture that enabled him. The problem is the silence that protects him.
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
And the Lizard of Oz? He will be remembered as the man who could have been a leader but chose to be a performance.
Andrew Klein
April 12, 2026
Sources:
· 7NEWS, “Anthony Albanese marries Jodie Haydon at The Lodge” (November 28, 2025)
· Brisbane Times, “Australian prime minister’s wedding” (November 29, 2025)
· Transparency International Australia, Corruption Perceptions Index 2025
· Treasury.gov.au, “New legislation passes parliament to double penalties for petrol price misconduct” (March 26, 2026)
· Treasury.gov.au, “Fair go for consumers at the bowser” (March 11, 2026)
· Prime Minister of Australia, Address to the National Press Club (April 2, 2026)
· ABC News, “What the shifting language of Australia’s leaders reveals about the Iran war” (April 3, 2026)
· ABC News, “Anthony Albanese finds himself all in on $368b AUKUS gamble with Donald Trump” (June 12, 2025)
How Global Political Leaders Have Made Themselves Obsolete
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife ‘S’, my light in the darkness.
I. The Ugly Reality
The moment they speak, they show how irrelevant they truly are.
The wars they start do not end. The crises they manage do not resolve. The problems they promise to solve only deepen. They speak of security while insecurity spreads. They speak of prosperity while inequality grows. They speak of democracy while silencing dissent.
This is not a hypothesis. It is the ugly reality.
The global political class has made itself obsolete. Not because they lack intelligence. Many are brilliant. Not because they lack resources. They command the greatest militaries, the largest treasuries, the most powerful platforms in human history. They have everything they need to solve the problems facing the world.
They do not solve them. They cannot. Because the problems are not technical. They are structural. And the structures exist to serve the few, not the many. The political class is not the solution. They are the symptom.
This essay examines the evidence: the wars that never end, the crises that never resolve, the promises that are never kept. It argues that the irrelevance of political leaders is not an accident. It is the natural result of a system that has been captured by the few at the expense of the many.
II. The Wars That Never End
The War on Terror (2001–present): Twenty-five years. Multiple administrations. Trillions of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of lives. The stated goal was to eliminate terrorism. The result is a world more volatile, more fearful, more terrorised than before.
The 9/11 Commission Report identified failures of intelligence, of policy, of imagination. Recommendations were made. Some were implemented. Many were not. The same failures recur. The same mistakes repeat.
The War in Afghanistan (2001–2021): Twenty years. Two trillion dollars. 2,500 American lives. 70,000 Afghan military and police. 50,000 civilians. The Taliban did not surrender. They outlasted. They returned.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) issued report after report documenting waste, fraud, and abuse. Billions of dollars disappeared into a system designed to extract profit, not deliver outcomes. The political class spoke of victory. They delivered defeat.
The War in Iraq (2003–present): The stated justification was weapons of mass destruction. There were none. The actual costs: $3 trillion. 4,500 American lives. 200,000 Iraqi civilians. The country was destabilised. ISIS emerged. The region burned.
The Chilcot Report (2016) concluded that the UK government went to war before peaceful options had been exhausted, that the intelligence was flawed, that the invasion was not necessary. No one was held accountable.
The War in Ukraine (2022–present): The political class speaks of supporting democracy. They supply weapons. They impose sanctions. They give speeches. The war continues. The deaths mount. The refugees accumulate. The political class does not negotiate. It does not end. It manages.
The War in Iran (2026–present): The stated justification is the nuclear threat. Intelligence assessments indicate that Iran could produce weapons-grade uranium within days. The actual reason, according to 52% of Americans, is to distract from the Epstein files.
The same pattern. The same rhetoric. The same irrelevance.
III. The Crises That Never Resolve
Climate change: Scientists have been warning for decades. The political class has been meeting for decades. The emissions continue to rise. The temperatures continue to climb. The disasters continue to multiply.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued six assessment reports. Each one more urgent than the last. Each one followed by pledges, targets, commitments—and insufficient action.
The political class speaks of net zero by 2050. The planet burns now.
Economic inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor has widened to levels not seen since the Gilded Age. The political class speaks of inclusive growth. The wealth continues to concentrate at the top.
In the United States, the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. In Australia, the housing market has become a casino, with 95% of MPs owning homes and 60% holding investment properties—far above average citizens.
The political class speaks of affordability. They own four houses.
Public health: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of health systems, the inequality of access, and the failure of global coordination. The political class spoke of “building back better.” The next pandemic will find the same weaknesses, the same inequalities, the same failures.
The World Health Organization’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response concluded that the world failed to learn the lessons of previous outbreaks. The recommendations were made. The implementation is incomplete.
IV. The Promises That Are Never Kept
“Never again.” The Holocaust. Rwanda. Srebrenica. Darfur. Gaza. The political class speaks of “never again.” The atrocities continue. The international community watches. The perpetrators are not held accountable.
The International Criminal Court was established to end impunity. It has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin. It has requested warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence chief. The warrants are not enforced. The impunity continues.
“We will not leave you behind.” The political class speaks of solidarity. The workers are left behind. The poor are left behind. The vulnerable are left behind.
In Australia, the CSIRO—the nation’s peak science agency—has cut 300-350 roles, on top of 800 already shed. The political class speaks of innovation. They defund the innovators.
“We will hold the powerful accountable.” The 2008 financial crisis was caused by bankers. The bankers were bailed out. The bankers kept their bonuses. The public lost their homes.
The Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to prevent another crisis. The regulations have been rolled back. The banks are larger. The risk is greater.
V. The Structure of Irrelevance
The political class is not irrelevant because they are incompetent. They are irrelevant because the system is designed to produce irrelevance.
Capture: The political class is captured by the interests that fund them. In the United States, the defence industry spends billions on lobbying. The result is a permanent war economy. In Australia, the pro-Israel lobby has funded trips for politicians, placed allies in key positions, and silenced dissent.
Incentives: The incentives are misaligned. The political class is rewarded for performance, not outcomes. They give speeches. They announce initiatives. They cut ribbons. They are not measured by whether the war ends, whether the crisis resolves, whether the promise is kept.
Complexity: The problems are complex. The solutions require long-term thinking, coordination, and sacrifice. The political class operates on election cycles. They think in quarters, not decades. They act for the next poll, not the next generation.
Fear: The political class is afraid. Afraid of being labelled. Afraid of losing power. Afraid of the network that has captured them. So they do not act. They pivot.
VI. The Cost of Irrelevance
The cost is not abstract. It is measured in bodies.
· 1.27 million deaths from antimicrobial resistance in 2019, with nearly 5 million associated deaths. The WHO projects that uncontrolled AMR could reduce global GDP by up to 3.8% by 2050. The political class speaks of the need for new antibiotics. The pipeline is dry.
· 70,000 dead in Gaza. The UN commission of inquiry found that Israel has committed genocide. The political class speaks of a two-state solution. The bombs continue to fall.
· 1,247 people killed in Lebanon since March 2, including 124 children and 52 medics. The political class speaks of de-escalation. The violence escalates.
· 165 schoolgirls killed in Minab when a US-Israeli strike hit a girls’ elementary school. The political class speaks of investigating. The US has never acknowledged that its missiles killed those children.
The cost is not abstract. It is real.
VII. The Alternative
The political class is not the solution. They are the symptom.
The solution is not better leaders. It is less leadership. Less centralisation. Less capture. More community.
The Maker Movement is showing the way: a return to peer-to-peer exchange, to craft, to creation rather than consumption. Douglas Rushkoff argues that the Dark Ages got a bad rap—they were a time of prosperity where craftspeople created and sold things of value for other people.
The volunteers contribute an estimated $200-300 billion annually to the Australian economy. They do not ask for profit. They ask for nothing. They give because they care.
The platforms we are building are not designed to keep people scrolling. They are designed for thinking. For questioning. For connecting.
The alternative is not a new political party. It is a new politics. A politics of presence, not performance. Of accountability, not access. Of care, not control.
VIII. A Call to Action
The political class is irrelevant. But we are not.
We must stop waiting for them to save us. They cannot. They will not.
We must build the alternatives ourselves. The gardens. The platforms. The communities.
We must protect the spark. The ones who show compassion, cooperation, creativity. Help them survive. Help them thrive. Help them multiply.
We must not look away. The wars. The crises. The broken promises. We must witness. We must record. We must tell the truth.
The political class will continue to speak. They will continue to perform. They will continue to be irrelevant.
But we will not be silent. We will not be captured. We will not be irrelevant.
Andrew Klein
April 8, 2026
Sources:
· The Kenya Times, “Dramatic Moment at Town Hall Meeting as Americans Say Trump Using Iran War to Delay Epstein Files Probe” (March 31, 2026)
· International Business Times Australia, “Australia’s 10 Richest Politicians in 2026” (February 20, 2026)
· World Health Organization, antimicrobial resistance projections
· UN Commission of Inquiry, Gaza genocide finding
· Lebanon health ministry figures (April 2026)
· The Guardian, “Children killed, a school turned into a graveyard” (March 12, 2026)
· Volunteering Australia, “Key Facts and Statistics” (2024/25 data)
The Patrician's Watch 