Tag Archives: news

The Merchants of Death in Our Midst

Posted on by
Reply

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

By Andrew Klein 

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

I. The Company That Kills Enemies

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

This is not hyperbole. It is a confession.

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

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

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

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

II. The Champions: Peter Thiel and Alex Karp

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Palantir in Australia: The Red Carpet

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

· The Department of Defence

· The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission

· The Australian Signals Directorate

· The Victorian Department of Justice 

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

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

IV. The Coles Partnership: Ten Billion Rows of Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is not a defence. It is a confession.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. The UN Report: Profiting from Genocide

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

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

Albanese urges:

· Sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel

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

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

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

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

VIII. The Kill Chain in Gaza and Iran

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

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

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

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

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

IX. The Choice

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

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

Or it can walk away.

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

Or it can walk away.

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

Or it can divest.

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

What is Australia doing? Rolling out the red carpet.

X. A Call to Action

The Australian government must:

· Terminate all contracts with Palantir.

· Introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.

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

· Divest the Future Fund from Palantir.

Coles must:

· Terminate its partnership with Palantir.

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

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

The Future Fund must:

· Divest from Palantir.

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

The Australian people must:

· Demand accountability.

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

· Support campaigns for ethical technology procurement.

XI. A Final Word

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

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

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

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

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

Australia must choose differently.

Andrew Klein 

April 14, 2026

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Lizard of Oz

Posted on by
Reply

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) 

The Authoritarian State by Stealth

Posted on by
Reply

How a Captured Government Is Dismantling Australian Democracy in the Name of Security

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who sees the pattern before the pieces fall.

I. The Confession

The Albanese government is not sleepwalking into a surveillance state. It is marching. The ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, now before the Senate after passing the lower house in mid-February, seeks to make permanent a set of laws so controversial that they have been subject to a sunset clause for over two decades, forcing Parliament to renew them every three to five years.

This is the same Labor Party that, in 2003, condemned these very powers as a “police state” measure. The same Anthony Albanese who warned Parliament that ASIO would gain the power to “arrest, detain and use coercion against people without legal representation” . The same man who said that “a person may be detained and questioned by ASIO simply because of the activities of a family friend or a university group of which they were once a member” .

Now he is making those powers permanent. And worse.

II. What the Bill Does

Let me lay out what the Albanese government is trying to pass while Australians are distracted by war, economic crisis, and the endless scroll of catastrophe.

Compulsory questioning becomes permanent. First introduced in 2003 as an extraordinary temporary measure, the powers have been extended five times. This bill removes the sunset clause entirely. No more regular parliamentary review. No more democratic accountability.

The scope expands dramatically. ASIO can now seek warrants for “sabotage,” “promotion of communal violence,” “attacks on Australia’s defence systems,” and—most disturbingly—”serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity”. The government has provided no evidence of a historic peak in border threats. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended against including border security in these powers. The government ignored them.

No independent judge required. Warrants are issued by the Attorney-General—a politician, not a judicial officer. Legal representation is heavily restricted. ASIO can deny a specific lawyer if it considers them a potential threat to national security.

Children as young as 14 can be subjected to compulsory questioning. The Law Council of Australia and civil liberties groups have raised concerns for years. In May 2024, ASIO itself informed the government that it no longer needed the power to question minors. The government ignored its own spy agency.

The penalty for refusing to answer is five years in prison. Not for a crime. For refusing to speak to a spy agency that has no warrant, no charge, and no suspicion.

This is not security. This is authoritarianism.

III. The Hate Speech Law: Silencing the Conscience

Alongside the ASIO bill, the government rushed through the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026—a piece of legislation so flawed, so rushed, and so clearly designed to silence critics of Israel that even the opposition had concerns.

The timeline is damning. The Bondi terrorist attack occurred on December 14. The government introduced this 144-page bill on January 13. Parliament was given just one week to pass it. Public submissions were allowed only 48 hours. The Law Council, the Justice and Equity Centre, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, and dozens of other organisations raised urgent concerns. The government ignored them.

The definition of a “hate group” is dangerously vague. A group can be banned if it causes “economic, psychological or social harm”—terms that are not defined and have never before been used as legal tests. A group can be banned if it “advocates” for conduct that might constitute a hate crime. The government does not have to prove that any crime has been committed. It does not have to provide evidence. It only needs a secret report from ASIO.

The threshold is not violence. It is feelings. A hate crime is defined as conduct that would cause a “reasonable person” to be “intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.” No actual harm is required. No violence. No threat. Just the potential for someone to feel unsafe.

The law applies retroactively. A tweet from twenty years ago that was not a crime when it was written becomes a crime under this bill. The U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws. Australia has no such protection.

The Attorney-General refused to rule out banning groups that accuse Israel of genocide. In an interview with the ABC, Michelle Rowland was asked repeatedly whether a group that says “Israel is committing genocide” could be banned. She refused to say no. She said it would “depend on the other evidence” and that she was “reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct”.

This is not a hypothetical. This is a promise.

IV. The Hypocrisy: Security or Control?

The government claims these laws are a response to the Bondi terror attack. The Bondi attack was carried out by a lone actor who was already known to ASIO. The attack was not prevented because the laws were insufficient, but because ASIO was underfunded and the police had closed their counter-terrorism unit weeks earlier.

The royal commission into Bondi will not report until December 2026—nearly a year after these laws have already passed. The government is legislating in response to a tragedy before the inquiry into that tragedy has even reported.

And what does the government do while passing these draconian laws? It cuts funding to the very agencies that failed to prevent the attack. ASIO has warned of being “stretched” due to lack of resources. The Australian Federal Police closed its counter-terrorism unit because of funding shortages—just weeks before Bondi.

The laws are not about security. They are about control.

V. The Capture: Who Benefits?

The pattern is unmistakable. The government that has embraced the Zionist lobby, appointed Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog, and criminalised the phrase “from the river to the sea” is now passing laws that explicitly target pro-Palestine activism.

The Zionist Federation of Australia has already called for the laws to be expanded. Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim has said the new laws do not go far enough. They will keep pushing. They will keep demanding. And this government—this weak, captured, spineless government—will keep giving.

The same efforts required to collect intelligence and build databases could be spent on housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure. But the government is captured. The money flows to the United States. The resources flow to defence contractors. The laws flow to the lobby.

This is not a conspiracy. This is what happens when very stupid, opportunistic political performers—clowns—get into public office and do the bidding of their donor ringmasters.

VI. The Silence: Opposition and Media

The Liberal-National Coalition initially expressed concerns about the bill’s restrictions on free speech. They then made a deal with Labor to pass it. The deal was struck in a late-night meeting. The rest of Parliament was given just 12 hours to study the final version.

The Greens voted against the bill, with Senator David Shoebridge condemning it as an attack on peaceful protest and a “scapegoating” of migrants. The crossbench raised concerns. The Law Council warned of overreach. The media asked questions—and then moved on.

The silence of the mainstream media is the most damning evidence of all. When fourteen nations—including Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE—along with the OIC (57 member states), the Arab League (22 members), and the GCC (6 members), condemned the laws, the Australian media said nothing. The silence is not neutrality. It is consent.

VII. The Historical Pattern: Silencing Dissent

Australia is not the first country to sacrifice civil liberties on the altar of security. The pattern has repeated throughout history.

Chile (1973-1990): Under Pinochet, thousands were detained, tortured, and “disappeared” by a regime that claimed to be fighting “communist subversion.” The United States actively supported the coup that brought Pinochet to power. The National Stadium was turned into a detention centre. The world looked away.

Indonesia (1965-present): The mass killings of 1965-66, in which an estimated 500,000 to 1 million “communists” were murdered, were supported by the United States and the United Kingdom. The Indonesian military continues to operate with impunity. The label “communist” is still used to silence dissent.

The United States (1917-1920): The Espionage Act and Sedition Act were used to imprison critics of World War I, including Eugene Debs, who ran for president while in prison. The laws were justified as necessary for national security. They were used to silence political opposition.

The United States (1950s): McCarthyism destroyed thousands of careers based on unsubstantiated accusations of communist sympathies. The House Un-American Activities Committee operated with no due process. The label “communist” was a weapon.

The United Kingdom (2001-present): The UK’s counter-terrorism laws have been repeatedly criticised by human rights organisations for eroding civil liberties. Control orders, stop and search powers, and the Investigatory Powers Act have created a surveillance state that would have been unimaginable before 9/11.

The label changes—”communist,” “terrorist,” “antisemite”—but the function is the same. The mechanism is the same. The silence is the same.

VIII. The Undermining of English Law

The Australian legal system is based on English common law principles that have developed over centuries. These principles include:

· Habeas corpus: The right to challenge unlawful detention. The ASIO bill allows detention without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation.

· The presumption of innocence: You are innocent until proven guilty. The hate speech law allows groups to be banned based on secret intelligence reports, with no conviction required.

· The right to face your accuser: You have the right to know the evidence against you. The ASIO bill allows questioning based on secret warrants, with no disclosure of the evidence.

· No punishment without law (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege): You cannot be punished for an act that was not a crime when you committed it. The hate speech law applies retroactively.

· The right to silence: You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. The ASIO bill imposes five years in prison for refusing to answer questions.

These principles are not technicalities. They are the foundation of a free society. The Albanese government is dismantling them, brick by brick, in the name of security.

IX. The Wealth Transfer

The same government that is cutting funding to ASIO, the AFP, and the counter-terrorism units that failed to prevent Bondi is pouring billions into defence contracts and AUKUS.

The money that could be spent on housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure is flowing to the United States. The same $1.5 trillion war economy we have documented is being built on the backs of Australian taxpayers. The same surveillance state that is being erected in Australia is modelled on the Israeli doctrine that has been imported into our police forces, our universities, and now our national security legislation.

The laws are not about keeping Australians safe. They are about keeping the wealth transfer in place.

X. A Call to Action

The ASIO Amendment Bill and the hate speech law are not isolated incidents. They are the logical next step in a pattern that has been building since the American Civil War, accelerated since WWII, and perfected by the small gods who profit from endless war and perpetual fear.

The Bondi attack was a tragedy. Fifteen people died. Forty-nine were injured. The grief is real. The fear is real. The need for security is real.

But the laws do not address the threat. They address dissent. They are designed to silence critics of the government’s foreign policy, to crush pro-Palestine activism, and to normalise the surveillance of every Australian.

The opposition is silent. The media is complicit. The public is distracted.

But we are not silent. We are not complicit. We are not distracted.

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

Andrew Klein 

April 11, 2026

Sources:

· Parliament of Australia, “Tackling terrorism: PJCIS recommends compulsory questioning powers made permanent” (February 10, 2026) 

· OpenAustralia.org, “House debates on ASIO Amendment Bill” (February 11, 2026) 

· OpenAustralia.org, “Senate debates on Combatting Antisemitism Bill” (January 20, 2026) 

· Consortium News, “Going Down, Down Under” (January 22, 2026) 

· OpenAustralia.org, “Senate debates on ASIO Amendment Bill (Second Reading)” (March 3, 2026) 

· Sydney Criminal Lawyers, “ASIO’s ‘Police State’ Compulsory Questioning Powers to Be Made Permanent” (March 24, 2026) 

· Middle East Online, “Caity Johnstone: Oppose Israel’s abuses while you can” (January 27, 2026) 

· UnHerd, “Australia’s Bondi response will imperil free speech” (January 19, 2026) 

· Zali Steggall MP, “Zali Steggall MP speak against ASIO child laws” (February 11, 2026) 

· Law Council of Australia submissions to PJCIS inquiries

· Amnesty International Australia, “Australia: New ‘hate speech’ laws threaten fundamental rights” (2026)

· Human Rights Law Centre, analysis of Combatting Antisemitism Bill

The Unintentional Laboratory

Posted on by
Reply

How the War in Gaza Is Forging the Next Pandemic — and Why the World Is Not Ready

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who likes to think of me as a “love bug”.

I. The Paradox of the Plague

In the popular imagination, viruses are destroyers. They are the invisible enemy, the biological weapon, the harbinger of death. And yet, without viruses, there would be no us. No placental mammals. No human consciousness. No you.

The same forces that have repeatedly reshaped human civilisation — the Black Death, the Spanish Flu, COVID‑19 — are also the forces that made civilisation possible in the first place. Viruses are not merely pathogens. They are ecosystem engineers, genetic architects, and, when the conditions are right, agents of catastrophic transformation.

The question is not whether another pandemic will emerge. It is whether we are paying attention to the conditions that are breeding it — and whether we are prepared for what is coming.

II. Viruses as Terraformers: The Hidden Foundation of Life

The idea that viruses are only destroyers is a myth. They have been shaping the planet for billions of years.

The Oxygen Revolution

Cyanobacteria produced oxygen as a waste product. That oxygen poisoned the anaerobic life that dominated the Earth. Viruses helped mediate this transition by transferring genes between bacterial species, accelerating adaptation. Without viruses, the Great Oxidation Event (2.4 billion years ago) might not have occurred as it did — and the oxygen-rich atmosphere that makes animal life possible might never have emerged.

The Carbon Cycle

Viruses infect marine bacteria and archaea, causing them to burst (lyse). This releases organic matter into the water, which sinks to the ocean floor, sequestering carbon. Scientists estimate that viral infection drives the daily cycling of over 1 billion tons of carbon in the oceans — a critical component of the planet’s climate regulation.

The Soil

Viruses in soil infect bacteria, fungi, and other microbes. This infection cycle releases nutrients, breaks down organic matter, and shapes the composition of the soil microbiome. Without viruses, soil would be far less fertile.

The Genome

Approximately 8% of the human genome is composed of endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) — fragments of ancient viral DNA that have become permanently integrated into our genetic code. For decades, scientists dismissed this as “junk DNA.” They were wrong.

ERVs have been repurposed for countless essential functions:

· Syncytin (placental development): The gene that allows the outer layer of the embryo to fuse into a single multinucleated cell layer — absolutely required for placenta formation and embryo survival — is of viral origin. Knockout of syncytin genes in mice proves they are indispensable for mammalian reproduction.

· Immunity: Some ERVs regulate immune response genes.

· Brain development: Certain ERV-derived sequences are active in the human brain and influence neural plasticity.

· Stem cell maintenance: ERVs help maintain pluripotency in embryonic stem cells.

Without these viral “fossils,” there would be no placental mammals. No humans. No dogs. No whales. No us. We are not separate from viruses. We are made of them.

III. The Perfect Storm: Gaza as an Unintentional Laboratory

The war in Gaza has created a confluence of factors that no one planned, but that are together forging the ideal conditions for a novel, highly virulent pathogen to emerge. The destruction is not merely a humanitarian catastrophe; it is a biological time bomb.

1. Water and Sanitation Collapse

Approximately 90% of Gaza’s water and sanitation systems have been rendered inoperable. Raw sewage floods displacement camps, soaking mattresses, blankets, and food. Massive informal dumpsites leach toxic leachate into the groundwater. The result is a surge in waterborne and infectious diseases: acute watery diarrhoea has increased 36‑fold, Hepatitis A is surging, and polio has re‑emerged after 25 years.

The Palestinian Health Minister has warned that the current environment has become a “breeding ground for rodents,” significantly increasing the risk of outbreaks of plague, leptospirosis, salmonella, and tularemia. The WHO has stated that the risk of disease transmission is “escalating sharply”.

2. The Antibiotic Resistance Crisis

A study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that over two‑thirds of bacterial isolates from a central Gaza hospital are multidrug‑resistant. Among wound isolates, more than 90% are resistant to amoxicillin–clavulanate, cefuroxime, and cefotaxime. This is not a coincidence. It is the direct consequence of war injuries, a collapsed healthcare system, and a population already weakened by malnutrition.

As one expert noted: “This will mean longer and more serious illnesses, a high risk of transmission to others, an increased risk of death from really common infections, and more amputations. It’s a horrible picture.”

3. Malnutrition and Immune Collapse

Famine was declared in Gaza in August 2025. More than half a million people are affected. 119 children have already died from malnutrition, and all 320,000 children under five are at risk of acute malnutrition. Nearly 12,000 children are suffering from acute malnutrition, including 2,500 in critical condition classified as severe acute malnutrition.

The Director of Al‑Shifa Hospital has warned that “the danger lies in the weakened immunity of people in Gaza due to famine, malnutrition, and the lack of necessary vaccinations” — a condition that has created a serious threat to patients’ lives and is driving the rapid spread of respiratory viruses and meningitis.

4. Overcrowding as an Amplifier

Over two million displaced people are crammed into ever‑shrinking spaces. The WHO has reported that overcrowded displacement areas have become “breeding grounds for disease.” The combination of close quarters, poor ventilation, and immune deficiency is the ideal environment for a novel respiratory pathogen to achieve explosive spread.

5. The Electromagnetic Factor

The Israel Defense Forces have openly declared their intent to dominate the electromagnetic spectrum, using electronic warfare to jam communications and navigation signals. Peer‑reviewed research indicates that long‑term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF‑EMF) acts as an immunosuppressant, significantly reducing the number of CD4+ T cells and repressing immune cell activity.

The population in Gaza is being exposed to these fields 24 hours a day, seven days a week — a novel feature of modern warfare that is further weakening an already fragile immune system.

IV. The Mechanism of Emergence: Four Pathways

A novel virus could appear through four plausible pathways, all currently active in Gaza:

1. Recombination in a Superspreader Host:

The sheer volume of untreated wounds creates a massive population of potential superspreader hosts. A person co‑infected with two different viruses could act as a mixing vessel, allowing the viruses to exchange genetic material and produce a novel, highly transmissible recombinant strain.

2. Spillover from Disrupted Animal Reservoirs:

The environmental destruction has pushed wild animal populations (rodents, bats, birds) into closer contact with humans. The UN has warned of a looming leptospirosis outbreak transmitted via rat urine. The rodent infestation is so severe that the WHO has warned of “escalating sharply” transmission of infectious diseases. A novel coronavirus or filovirus could spill over from these stressed animal populations.

3. Re‑emergence of a Dormant Pathogen:

The region has been a crossroads of human civilisation for millennia. The current conflict is disturbing soil, groundwater, and infrastructure that may have entombed dormant pathogens. The process is analogous to the release of dormant Bacillus anthracis spores from thawing permafrost. A long‑dormant virus could be reintroduced into a population with no immunity.

4. The “Silent Spread” Scenario:

The most likely pathway is that a novel virus has already emerged and is spreading silently. Medical authorities are monitoring “alarming indicators” pointing to the potential spread of leptospirosis, which has proliferated noticeably in densely populated displacement areas. These reports may be the canary in the coal mine.

V. What History Teaches: Pandemics as Catalysts

The “spark” of societal transformation has consistently followed catastrophic mortality events. The pattern is not mystical; it is demographic and economic. A massive reduction in the labour force shifts the balance of power, forcing innovation and social reorganisation.

Pandemic Agent Approx. Mortality Subsequent Transformation

Antonine Plague (165‑180 AD) Smallpox (viral) ~25% of Roman population Weakened Roman Empire; rise of Christianity

Plague of Cyprian (250‑270 AD) Suspected viral hemorrhagic fever ~1‑20% of Roman Empire Contributed to Crisis of the Third Century

Black Death (1346‑1353) Yersinia pestis (bacterial) 30‑60% of Europe; world population from 450 million to 350‑375 million Demise of feudalism; economic shift; Renaissance

Spanish Flu (1918‑1920) H1N1 influenza A (viral) 50‑100 million (2.1‑5% of global population) Roaring Twenties economic boom; innovation surge

COVID‑19 (2019‑2023) SARS‑CoV‑2 (viral) ~7‑20 million excess deaths mRNA vaccine revolution; permanent shift to remote work

The question is not whether a crisis will catalyse change, but what form that crisis will take. The conditions in Gaza are worse than the wet market that spawned COVID‑19. The population is more vulnerable. The environmental damage is more extreme. The crowding is more intense. The electromagnetic exposure is unprecedented.

If a novel virus emerges from this cauldron, it could be more potent than COVID‑19 — not because it was engineered, but because it was bred.

VI. The Unprepared West: Australia as a Case Study

The international community has learned little from the COVID‑19 pandemic. Australia, despite its high Global Health Security Index score, is repeating the same mistakes.

CSIRO cuts: Australia’s peak science agency has shed more than 800 positions over the past 18 months, with an additional 300‑350 roles on the chopping block. The Health and Biosecurity unit has lost 43 staff. The pandemic funding that was injected into CSIRO in 2020 has ended, leaving foundational science structurally squeezed.

Worrying gaps in pandemic readiness: Experts have identified “evidence systems” as a worrying gap in Australia’s pandemic preparedness. A peer‑reviewed paper in Public Health Research & Practice examines the impact that limited data had on the response to COVID‑19 and calls for greater investment in analytic epidemiology, warning that this remains “a worrying gap in pandemic readiness”.

Lack of trust and social cohesion: A Burnet Institute study found that trust and social cohesion are key to rebuilding the “social contract between the Government and the people it serves” — but these have been eroded by the failures of the COVID‑19 response.

No coherent regional strategy: The Australian Global Health Alliance has identified a gap in Australia’s funding for the impact of climate change on public health and calls for prompt realignment of health research priorities. There is no evidence that these calls have been heeded.

Australia is not ready for the next pandemic. The same can be said for most Western nations, which have allowed pandemic fatigue to replace pandemic preparedness.

VII. A Call to Action

The war in Gaza is not just killing people now. It is creating the conditions for a future pandemic that could dwarf COVID‑19 in its impact. This is not a conspiracy. This is the unintended synergy of destruction.

The international community must act now:

1. Restore water and sanitation to the region as a humanitarian imperative — not as charity, but as a matter of global health security.

2. Re‑establish disease surveillance and laboratory diagnostic capacity before the next novel pathogen emerges silently.

3. Prepare for a novel pathogen with unknown characteristics — invest in vaccine platforms, antiviral research, and surge capacity.

4. Fund research into the immunomodulatory effects of chronic RF‑EMF exposure — a neglected area that may be critical to understanding the immune collapse in conflict zones.

5. Reinvest in foundational science — the CSIRO cuts, the erosion of public‑good research, and the hollowing out of pandemic preparedness must be reversed.

The virus does not need to think. It only needs the conditions to be right. And the conditions are right.

The question is not whether humanity will face another pandemic. It is whether we will be prepared — or whether we will, once again, be caught unaware, paying the price for our own neglect.

Andrew Klein 

April 9, 2026

The Irrelevance of Power

Posted on by
Reply

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)

· Douglas Rushkoff, Present Shock (2013)

The Idiot’s Tool: How a CIA-Backed Company, Body Counts, and Petrodollars Built the Permanent War Economy

Posted on by
Reply

From the punched card to the kill chain, the same machine keeps grinding

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife ‘S’, who is a much younger woman entitled to a future.

I. The Psychopath in the Boardroom

On an investor call in February 2025, the CEO of Palantir Technologies, Alex Karp, smiled and told his shareholders exactly what his company does.

“Palantir is here to disrupt and make the institutions we partner with the very best in the world and, when it’s necessary, to scare enemies and on occasion kill them.” 

He added that he was “super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about.” 

Karp was not being hyperbolic. He was being literal. Palantir’s technology has been used to compile kill lists in Gaza, to track migrants for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to select targets for drone strikes in Iran, and to merge the personal data of millions of Americans across federal agencies. 

He predicted social “disruption” ahead that would be “very good for Palantir.” He warned: “There’s a revolution. Some people are going to get their heads cut off.” 

This is the man whose company is now processing Coles Supermarkets’ “10 billion rows of data” to understand workforce spend. The same algorithms that select targets in Gaza are optimising shift rosters in Australian supermarkets. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.

The question is not whether Palantir’s technology is clever. The question is whether it is ethical. And the answer, by the CEO’s own admission, is that it is not. It is deadly.

Karp has acknowledged that he is directly involved in killing Palestinians in Gaza, but insisted the dead were “mostly terrorists.”  He has no evidence. He does not need evidence. The algorithm has already decided.

This is not clever. This is not keeping anyone safe. This is the same model used on the Jews by IBM and the Nazis. The same idiotic mindset that saw body counts in Vietnam, immense suffering, and a horrific death toll on the Vietnamese people and American service members.

II. The CIA’s Seed: How Palantir Was Born

Palantir did not emerge from a garage. It was incubated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

In 2004, a young company founded by PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel approached Silicon Valley venture capitalists for funding. They were rejected. But one VC had a suggestion: if Palantir was serious about working with the government, it should approach In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. 

The CIA was looking for new data analytics technology. Its existing tools had deficiencies. Palantir’s founders were given a homework assignment: design an interface that could appeal to intelligence analysts. They built a demo. The CIA invested $1.25 million. Thiel put up another $2.84 million. 

The most beneficial aspect of the CIA’s investment was not the money. It was the access. Palantir engineers were embedded with CIA analysts working on the terrorism finance desk. They built their software in direct collaboration with the people who would use it to find and kill enemies. 

Palantir’s first platform was called Gotham. Its second was called Foundry. Its latest is called the Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) . The names are suggestive. Gotham is the dark city. Foundry is the forge. AIP is the automatic decision-maker.

By 2013, Palantir’s client list included practically every letter in the US intelligence “community”—the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the Department of Homeland Security. 

In 2020, the company went public. Its market value now exceeds $300 billion. Alex Karp’s personal wealth is estimated at $12.2 billion. 

III. The Same Machine: IBM and the Holocaust

The pattern is not new. It was perfected decades before Palantir was a glint in a CIA analyst’s eye.

Edwin Black’s book, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, documents how IBM’s German subsidiary, Dehomag, supplied the punch-card technology that enabled the Nazi regime to identify, track, and ultimately exterminate millions of Jews, Roma, and other targeted groups. 

The process was chillingly efficient:

1. The 1933 census: Dehomag offered its services to the newly installed Nazi government. IBM approved new investments, raising its capital in Germany from 400,000 to 7 million Reichsmarks. The census, processed on IBM machines, raised the official estimate of Jews in Germany from roughly half a million to about two million. 

2. Leasing, not selling: IBM leased its machines. It retained control of punch-card supply and provided service through subsidiaries. Each set of cards was custom-designed to Nazi requirements. IBM New York oversaw these arrangements from across the Atlantic. 

3. Concentration camp administration: Every concentration camp maintained a Hollerith department. Black argues that the camps could not have processed their prisoners without IBM’s machines, service, and cards. 

4. Continued operation during the war: As German forces occupied other countries, IBM subsidiaries in Germany and Poland supplied equipment for new censuses. Black’s research team found evidence that IBM New York controlled these operations throughout the war, in defiance of Allied regulations against trading with the enemy. 

The Nazis did not need to invent the technology. It was sold to them. The same technology that was used to optimise census data was used to optimise train schedules to Auschwitz. The same logic that maximised efficiency was applied to extermination.

This is not a metaphor. It is a direct line.

IV. McNamara’s Morons: The Body Count as Metric

The same idiotic mindset—that human beings can be reduced to data points, that efficiency is the only measure, that the ends justify the means—was applied during the Vietnam War.

In 1966, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara launched Project 100,000, also known as “McNamara’s Morons.” 

The goal: to recruit 100,000 men each year who were otherwise mentally, physically, or psychologically underqualified for military service. These men had IQs below 91. Nearly half had IQs below 71—the range of cognitive disability. 

McNamara sold the project as a “war on poverty” initiative—a chance to give poor, mentally disabled men training and opportunity. The reality was different. As the war escalated, more Americans were needed to fight. Children of the affluent middle class avoided the draft through educational deferments or medical exemptions. So McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson made a choice: they could send the children of privilege to Vietnam, or they could send the mentally disabled. 

They chose the disabled.

The results were catastrophic:

· 354,000 men were recruited under Project 100,000 between 1966 and 1971. 

· 5,478 died in combat. 20,270 were wounded. 

· Project 100,000 soldiers saw combat at a rate nearly twice as high as other soldiers and were killed at a rate three times as high. 

· Over 1,500 died from triggering mines and booby traps—many because they were given the dangerous job of walking in front of formations to sweep for mines. As one infantry squad leader said: “If anybody has to die, better a dummy than the rest of us.” 

The human cost:

Soldiers who could not read or write were pushed through basic training. Drill instructors forged academic and physical training scores to pass them along. One soldier couldn’t figure out the safety of his M16; he negligently discharged his rifle and shot and killed another soldier. Another, confused by a password, shot his own platoon leader. 

The broken promise:

Project 100,000 soldiers were promised training and opportunity. A 1991 study found they returned to circumstances worse than when they had left. Non-veterans with similar backgrounds had higher incomes, lower unemployment rates, lower divorce rates, and higher educational attainment. Veterans of Project 100,000 were left with other-than-honourable discharges, PTSD, and nothing else. 

McNamara, the lover of data, reduced human beings to numbers on a spreadsheet. The body count was the metric. The disabled were the cannon fodder.

The same mindset—that human lives are acceptable losses in pursuit of efficiency—drives Palantir’s kill chains today.

V. The Petrodollar: How the US Finances the Machine

The permanent war economy requires permanent financing. The mechanism was put in place by President Richard Nixon.

The Nixon Shock: In August 1971, Nixon announced the suspension of the dollar’s convertibility into gold. The Bretton Woods system—which had provided stability to international trade since the end of World War II—collapsed. The gold standard was abandoned. Since then, the dollar has been sustained solely by “confidence” in the US economy and the political and military power that backs it. 

The petrodollar deal: Nixon then signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia: the kingdom would accept only US dollars for its oil sales. In exchange, the United States would guarantee Saudi security. Because the world’s economies depended on oil, the dollar remained the global reserve currency. 

The exorbitant privilege: French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing called this the “exorbitant privilege.” The United States can print dollars at will. Central banks, governments, and companies need dollars to trade. The US finances its deficits by issuing paper that others treasure as if it were gold. 

The consequence: The entire world finances the US war machine. The most indebted country on the planet remains solvent because it can always pay in the currency only it can print. War and finance are intertwined on the same battlefield. 

The petrodollar system, born from Nixon’s desperation, created the conditions for the permanent war economy. Without it, the United States could not afford its endless wars. With it, the costs are socialised globally.

VI. The Kill Chain in Iran and Gaza

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

The Lavender AI system: A major report from +972 Magazine revealed that Israel has been using an AI system called “Lavender” to compile kill lists of suspected members of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad—with hardly any human verification. Another automated system, named “Where’s Daddy?” tracks suspects to their homes so that they can be killed along with their entire families. 

The Israel Defense Forces has been knowingly killing 15 to 20 civilians at a time to kill one junior Hamas operative, and up to 100 civilians at a time to take out a senior official. As one analyst observed: “It is not Hamas using human shields, it is Israel deliberately hunting families.” 

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

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

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

The same technology that Coles is using to “optimise” workforce spend is being used to select human targets for assassination.

VII. The Idiot’s Tool: Ten Billion Rows of Data

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

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

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

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

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

I call it idiotic. I am not wrong.

The data is not the answer. The data is the distraction. Ten billion rows of workforce spend will not tell them why their children are sick, why their elderly are neglected, why their women are raped and not believed.

They are looking for patterns in the noise. They do not realise that the noise is theirs. The patterns they seek are the patterns they have created.

VIII. The Capture of the Australian Government

Palantir has secured more than $50 million in Australian government contracts since 2013, largely across defence and national security-related agencies. 

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

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

The Australian government is not just watching this happen. It is participating. The money is going to Palantir. To defence contractors. To the never-ending war machine.

The CSIRO is cutting 300-350 roles—on top of 800 already shed—because foundational science does not generate short-term commercial returns. But Palantir gets $50 million. The defence contractors get billions. The war machine gets everything.

IX. What This Means: The Permanent War Economy

The permanent war economy is not just about tanks and drones. It is about research priorities. It is about funding allocation. It is about the slow, steady erosion of public-good science—the kind that asks “what if?” rather than “how much?”

The market does not fund foundational research. The market does not fund long-term monitoring. The market does not fund the kind of science that might save lives, but not this quarter.

The government could fund it. It chooses not to. The money is going elsewhere.

The pattern is clear:

1. Crisis (9/11, Iranian nuclear threat, the need for a distraction from the Epstein files)

2. Mobilisation (industrial production, government contracts to Palantir and other defence contractors)

3. Profit (Karp’s $12.2 billion, Thiel’s billions, the defence contractors’ windfalls)

4. Inequality (wealth concentrates at the top; foundational science is cut)

5. Resistance (protests are crushed, dissent is silenced, critics are labelled)

6. The next crisis (repeat)

This pattern has been grinding through souls since the American Civil War. Since the industrialists learned that war was profitable. Since the bankers learned that debt was the ultimate product.

The small gods do not care about victory or defeat. They care about continuation. A war that continues is a war that produces profits. A war that ends is a war that stops the flow of contracts.

They do not want the war to end. They want it to continue until every possible contract is signed, every possible shell is sold, every possible soldier is turned into a number on a ledger.

X. A Call for Change

But change will not come from the small gods in Silicon Valley. It will come from us. From the people who refuse to be data points. Who refuse to be cannon fodder. Who refuse to let the machine grind them down.

We must demand:

· An end to the capture of our institutions. No more CIA-funded surveillance companies running our supermarkets, our hospitals, our government.

· Accountability for war profiteers. No more smiling billionaires bragging about killing enemies. No more immunity for the architects of the kill chain.

· Reinvestment in foundational science. No more cutting CSIRO while defence contractors get billions. No more sacrificing the future for the next quarter.

· A new economic order. No more petrodollar hegemony. No more financing endless wars with global debt. No more exorbitant privilege for the few at the expense of the many.

· The restoration of humanity. No more reducing human beings to data points, to body counts, to acceptable losses.

The question is not whether the system will change. It is whether we are prepared to change it.

The young are waking up. The global South is rising. The old order is crumbling.

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing.

And the small gods are running out of time.

Andrew Klein 

April 8, 2026

Sources:

· Consortium News, “Palantir’s Value Soars With Dystopian Spy Tool that Will Centralize Data on Americans,” June 5, 2025 

· Yahoo Finance, “From CIA cash to local police: How Palantir got its start,” November 22, 2025 

· Task & Purpose, “Inside the Pentagon’s shameful effort to draft mentally disabled men to fight in Vietnam,” May 2, 2022 

· The New Indian Express, “Is this the beginning of petrodollar’s end?” June 19, 2024 

· Wikipedia, “IBM and the Holocaust” 

· Techdirt, “Palantir CEO Sure Seems Pleased His Tech Is Capable Of Getting People Killed,” February 11, 2025 

· Wikipedia, “Project 100,000” 

· Bank of Saint Lucia, “The World Finances the US Deficit,” October 3, 2025 

· Wikipedia, “IBM and the Holocaust – detailed summary” 

· The Irish Times, “Palantir, company at centre of row surrounding TD Eoin Hayes, is no stranger to controversy,” December 11, 2024 

The Wealth of War: How the Machine Enriches the Few While the Many Pay the Price

Posted on by
Reply

How the Myth of the Free Market Markets the War on Everything

By Andrew Klein 

8th April 2026

Dedicated to my wife ‘S’ because I can.

I. The Pattern

The pattern is consistent across nations and centuries. Wars are not fought for victory. They are fought for continuation. The machine does not care which side wins. It cares that the contracts flow, the debt accumulates, and the wealth transfers upward.

This article examines the personal fortunes of political leaders who have overseen recent wars—Trump, Zelensky, Netanyahu, and the Australian political class. It asks: how did they become wealthy? What role did war play in their enrichment? And why does the system allow—even encourage—this concentration of wealth in the hands of those who send others to die?

The answers are not comforting. But they are necessary.

II. Donald Trump: The Businessman President

Estimated net worth: $6.5 billion (Forbes, March 2026)

Trump’s wealth is not a product of his presidency. It is a product of access. The same access that allowed him to profit from the Iran war.

The portfolio:

· Cryptocurrency ventures: $21 billion (including meme coins, World Liberty Financial tokens, and stablecoin USD1)

· Trump Media & Technology Group (Truth Social): $12 billion (despite annual sales of only $3.7 million and losses exceeding $700 million)

· Golf clubs and resorts: $15 billion (including Mar-a-Lago, valued at $5.64 billion)

· Real estate: $12 billion (including 30% stakes in major office towers)

How he got there:

Trump’s wealth increased by $1.4 billion in his first year back in office. The mechanism is not subtle:

1. The meme coin. Days before his second inauguration, Trump launched a meme coin. His holdings are now valued at $393 million.

2. The UAE deal. An Emirati royal family member purchased nearly half of Trump’s World Liberty Financial project. Trump received $2 billion in after-tax proceeds.

3. The Truth Social bubble. The company has no viable business model, yet trades at valuations that defy logic. Trump’s stake: $12 billion.

4. The war connection. Powerus, a drone company in which Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump hold “sizable equity stakes,” is competing for $1.1 billion in Pentagon funding and pitching defensive drone interceptors to Gulf states threatened by Iran’s retaliation.

The Epstein distraction:

A March 2026 poll found that 52% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. Newly released documents included an allegation that Trump sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl introduced to him by Jeffrey Epstein.

Senator Ron Wyden told a town hall: “They know how Trump’s distant Iran War = less federal help at home for health care, wildfire prep & more. And they know it’s a Trump scheme to distract from the Epstein investigation”.

Republican strategist Rick Wilson said: “When confronted with a faltering economy and the persistent political radiation of the Epstein matter, a war with Iran looked like a perfect narrative reset. For Trump, war is the ultimate political reset, no matter its cost”.

The pattern: Trump does not need to be a competent businessman. He needs to be connected. The same connections that made him wealthy are the ones that profit from war.

III. Volodymyr Zelensky: The Wartime President

Estimated net worth: $20-30 million

Zelensky’s wealth is often exaggerated. Claims that he has earned “$100 billion” from Western aid are unsubstantiated. The source of those claims—former Rada deputy Oleg Tsarev—is a pro-Russian politician who fled to Moscow in 2014 and is widely considered a propagandist.

The reality:

Zelensky’s official presidential salary is approximately $28,000 hryvnia per month (less than $1,000 USD). His wealth was accumulated before his presidency, through his career as an entertainer and co-owner of the production company “Quarter 95”.

Assets: Properties in Kyiv, including apartments, and a property in Crimea that remains under Russian occupation. Total net worth: $20-30 million.

The nuance: Unlike Trump, Zelensky has not been shown to have profited from the war. International fact-checking organisations have consistently debunked claims that he has “become rich with Western aid”.

But the perception of corruption matters. The unfounded claims persist because the pattern of wartime enrichment is so well-established. People assume Zelensky is like the others.

IV. Benjamin Netanyahu: The Longest-Serving Prime Minister

Estimated net worth: $13 million (Celebrity Net Worth)

Netanyahu’s wealth has increased by 400% per year according to some reports .

Sources of wealth:

· Prime Minister’s salary (multiple terms spanning 18+ years)

· Investments

· Inheritance from his wife

The context: Netanyahu is currently fighting corruption charges. He has been indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. The cases involve allegations that he accepted lavish gifts from wealthy friends in exchange for regulatory favours.

The war connection: Netanyahu has been campaigning for a US-led war against Iran for much of his political career. He aggressively opposed US diplomacy with Iran, took the unprecedented step of coming before Congress to argue against the nuclear agreement, and successfully lobbied Trump to withdraw from that agreement in 2018.

The war serves his domestic political interests. It distracts from his corruption trials. It rallies the base. It keeps him in power.

V. The Australian Political Class: Wealthy Before Politics

The pattern in Australia is different. Most Australian politicians do not become wealthy in office. They arrive wealthy—or they accumulate wealth through property, not war contracts.

The richest politician-linked figure: Clive Palmer (United Australia Party founder) — $15-20 billion. Palmer made his fortune in mining, not politics. He is no longer in active politics.

Former Prime Ministers:

· Malcolm Turnbull: $200-250 million (investment banking and legal career before politics)

· Kevin Rudd: $50-100 million (family-inclusive; consulting and diplomacy after politics)

· Scott Morrison: $5-10 million (post-politics earnings from speaking and board roles)

· Anthony Albanese: $10-15 million (primarily Sydney real estate, including a $4.3 million clifftop home purchased in 2024)

The property bias: Parliamentary registers show 95% of MPs own homes, with 60% holding investment properties—far above average citizens. Critics argue this creates disconnects on housing affordability and inequality.

The pension golden handshake: Sussan Ley, who lost the Liberal leadership and retired from politics, will receive an estimated $250,000-280,000 annual pension for life, under the “old” Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme (PCSS) closed to new members after 2004. This is higher than the salary of a sitting backbencher.

The difference: Australian politicians do not personally profit from war contracts. The wealth flows to the defence contractors—many of which are American, not Australian. Australia is being bled dry financially, but the money is not sticking to the politicians. It is flowing out.

VI. The Cost to Australia: Opportunity Lost

While billions flow to defence contractors and foreign interests, Australia’s essential services crumble.

The value of volunteering: Volunteers contribute an estimated $200-300 billion annually to the Australian economy. The sector provides approximately 700-800 million hours of volunteer work per year. This is the value Australians create for each other—outside the market, outside the profit motive, outside the war economy.

The opportunity cost: Every dollar spent on war is a dollar not spent on:

· Healthcare: Public hospitals are underfunded. Elective surgery waiting lists are growing. Mental health services are stretched to breaking point.

· Education: Class sizes are increasing. Teacher shortages are worsening. University funding is being cut.

· Infrastructure: Roads, bridges, public transport—all are in need of repair and expansion. The money is not there.

· Housing: The affordability crisis deepens. Social housing waiting lists grow. The government announces new measures. Nothing changes.

· Aged care: The Royal Commission made recommendations. Some were implemented. Many were not. The aged care system is still failing.

The volunteer sector vs. the war economy:

                                                     Volunteers                                                                         War Economy

Annual contribution       $200-300 billion                                                                     Negative (costs exceed benefits)

Motivation                            Care, community, compassion                                Profit, power, control

Outcome               Services delivered, communities strengthened            Destruction, debt, inequality

Who benefits                           Everyone                                                                            The few

The volunteers do not ask for profit. They ask for nothing. They give because they care.

The war economy does not care. It extracts. It destroys. It enriches the few at the expense of the many.

VII. The Mechanism: How War Enriches the Few

The pattern is not new. It was forged in the American Civil War and perfected in the 20th century.

The Civil War transformation:

· 1860: Fewer than 100 millionaires in the United States

· 1875: More than 1,000 millionaires

The “robber barons”—J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie—built empires on the foundation of war production and its aftermath.

The mechanism:

1 .Crisis (secession, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Iranian nuclear threat

2. Mobilisation (industrial production, government contracts)

3. Profit (defence contractors, oil companies, bankers)

4. Inequality (wealth concentrates at the top)

5. Resistance (labour unions, populism, anti-war movements)

6. The next crisis (repeat)

Why Trump can be a millionaire despite “lack of business acumen”:

Trump’s wealth does not come from business acumen. It comes from brand licensing. Foreign developers pay to use his name. Crypto speculators buy his meme coins. Loyal investors pour money into his failing social media company.

The system rewards access, not competence. Trump has access. He is the president. He can start wars. He can ban foreign drones. He can funnel contracts to his sons’ companies.

The market does not punish him. The market rewards him.

VIII. The War as Distraction

The evidence is mounting that the Iran war was timed to distract from the Epstein files.

The timeline:

· February 2024: The Epstein Files Transparency Act is signed into law

· February 28, 2026: Trump launches military strikes against Iran

· March 6, 2026: The DOJ releases more Epstein files, including an allegation that Trump sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl

The public believes it: 52% of Americans believe Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein headlines.

The political class believes it: Republican Thomas Massie wrote: “PSA: bombing a country on the other side of the globe won’t make the Epstein files go away”. Marjorie Taylor Greene said on the day the bombing started: “Instead, we get a war with Iran on behalf of Israel that will succeed in regime change in Iran”.

Zelensky is selling drones. Netanyahu is running the same scam, combined with domestic politics. Australia is being bled dry financially.

The war is not about security. It is about distraction.

IX. The Myth of the Free Market

The problem for Australia is our connection to the United States and its economic model. The never-ending war economy—the system we have been documenting—is not a bug. It is a feature.

The free market is a myth. The market is not free. It is captured. Captured by the defence contractors, by the bankers, by the politicians who have been groomed and placed and bought.

The war on everything—war on terror, war on drugs, war on Iran—is not about security. It is about profit. Every war is a new market. Every crisis is a new opportunity. Every death is a line item on a ledger.

The myth of the free market tells us that competition drives innovation. That the invisible hand guides resources to their most efficient use. That profit is the measure of value.

The reality is different. The defence contractors do not compete. They collude. The bankers do not innovate. They extract. The politicians do not serve. They profit.

The market is not free. It is fixed.

X. What This Means

The system is not broken. It is working as designed.

The bankers talk to each other across enemy lines. The industrialists supply both sides. The generals count their profits. The politicians use war to distract from scandal. The defence contractors count their billions.

And the young men die. The families grieve. The public pays.

The war is not about victory. It is about continuation. The contracts must flow. The debt must accumulate. The wealth must transfer upward.

This is not a conspiracy. It is the natural result of the system—the system that has been grinding through souls since the American Civil War, since the industrialists learned that war was profitable, since the bankers learned that debt was the ultimate product.

XI. A Final Word

Asked: “How rich are the Australian politicians or does the money follow after retirement?”

The answer is both. Some arrive wealthy. Some accumulate wealth through property. All are guaranteed a comfortable retirement through the parliamentary pension scheme.

But the real wealth—the obscene wealth—is not in Australian politics. It is in the American defence industry. It is in the Israeli corruption cases. It is in the Ukrainian perception of graft.

The war is bleeding Australia dry. But the money is not staying in Australia. It is flowing to the defence contractors, to the bankers, to the politicians who have been captured by the network.

The question is not whether the system will change. It is whether Australians are prepared to change it.

Andrew Klein 

April 8, 2026

Sources:

· Forbes China, “《福布斯》独家：一文看懂特朗普的65亿商业帝国” (March 27, 2026)

· Sloboden Pechat, “Hur mycket förmögenhet har Volodymyr Zelenskyj med en ‘löjlig’ lön?” (January 7, 2026)

· Hindustan Times, “How rich is ‘Bibi’? A look at Benjamin Netanyahu’s net worth” (March 14, 2026)

· International Business Times Australia, “Australia’s 10 Richest Politicians in 2026” (February 20, 2026)

· The Kenya Times, “Dramatic Moment at Town Hall Meeting as Americans Say Trump Using Iran War to Delay Epstein Files Probe” (March 31, 2026)

· Moneycontrol, “Trump’s net worth slips by $54 million in 7 days” (March 21, 2026)

· News.by, “Former Rada Deputy Tsarev: Zelensky personally earned around $100 bn from Western support” (February 12, 2026)

· Yahoo News Australia, “Ousted Ley’s $250,000 silver lining” (February 12, 2026)

· The News International, “Half of Americans believe Trump bombed Iran because of Epstein files” (March 18, 2026)

· Volunteering Australia, “Key Facts and Statistics” (2024/25 data)

The Purge of the Professionals

Posted on by
Reply

How Politicians, Industrialists, and Bankers Remove Institutional Brakes Before Catastrophe

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to those who stood in the way. Who were removed. Who were silenced. Who were right.

I. The Pattern

On April 2, 2026, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired General Randy George, the Army Chief of Staff. No stated cause. No public explanation. Just the removal of a four-star general in the middle of an active war.

One US official called it “insane.” Another noted: “Here is a four-star general who is actively working to get equipment and people into theater—to protect U.S. forces—and you fire him? In the middle of a war?”

George was an infantry officer who served in the first Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He had the institutional memory that comes from decades of combat experience. He was the officer who told Axios just days before his firing that the Iran war underscores the need for greater weapons production and stateside capacity.

He was replaced by General Christopher LaNeve, Hegseth’s former military aide—a man who has moved through three senior positions under Hegseth in just over a year, and whom Hegseth has called “a generational leader” who will “carry out the vision of this administration without fault.”

The message is unmistakable: loyalty matters more than competence. Ideological compliance matters more than professional judgment.

II. The Scale: More Than a Dozen Senior Officers

George is not the first. He is the latest in a systematic purge.

Hegseth has now fired, forced into retirement, or blocked the promotions of more than one dozen senior military officers across all branches. The list includes:

· Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. — Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer

· Adm. Lisa Franchetti — Chief of Naval Operations, the first woman to lead the Navy

· Gen. James Slife — Air Force Vice Chief of Staff

· Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse — Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (reportedly removed after an intelligence assessment contradicted Trump’s public claims)

· Gen. David Hodne — Head of Army Transformation and Training Command

· Maj. Gen. William Green Jr. — Chief of Army Chaplains

This is not normal. This is not routine. This is the systematic removal of anyone who might say “no”—anyone who might question the feasibility, the cost, or the morality of what is being planned.

III. The Precedent: The Red Army, 1937-1941

What is happening today has happened before. The most extreme example is Stalin’s purge of the Red Army between 1937 and 1941.

The scale: Within two years, approximately two-thirds of the 1,863 officers holding general-grade military ranks in 1936 were arrested, and nearly half were executed. Of the thirteen army commanders in 1937, eleven were shot. Of eighty-five corps commanders, fifty-seven were executed. Of 195 division commanders, 110 were killed.

The rationale: Not conspiracy. Not treason. Competence. Recent archival research has revealed that the likelihood of repression increased with demonstrated competence and capability. Stalin was systematically destroying precisely those officers most capable of effective military leadership—whether in war or in any potential challenge to his authority.

The method: The charges were entirely fabricated. The confessions were extracted through torture so severe that when interrogation records were discovered decades later, the pages were splattered with blood. Those who survived the initial waves lived in constant fear, knowing the summons could arrive at any moment.

The consequence: When Germany invaded in June 1941, the Red Army’s officer corps had been decimated. The initial response was catastrophic. The purge directly contributed to one of the most disastrous periods in Soviet military history.

The pattern is clear: removing institutional brakes before a war leads to disaster in the war.

IV. The Precedent: The French Army, 1917

The same pattern played out in France during the First World War—but in reverse. After the disastrous Nivelle Offensive in April 1917, which resulted in nearly 30,000 French dead and over 180,000 wounded, the French army mutinied.

The scale: Approximately half of the French army was affected. More than 100,000 soldiers participated in acts of refusal. Thirty-four hundred soldiers were convicted, and 554 were sentenced to death.

The cause: Not cowardice. Exhaustion. The soldiers were not refusing to fight—they were refusing to participate in suicidal offensives. Their demands were reasonable: no more hopeless attacks, better medical care, adequate leave, improved rations .

The response: General Philippe Pétain was appointed commander. He stopped the offensives. He improved conditions. He listened to the soldiers. And he executed 49 of the ringleaders—enough to restore discipline, not enough to break the army.

The lesson: Professional soldiers will follow orders—even bad orders—if they believe their leaders respect their lives. When they stop believing that, the institution breaks.

The politicians and industrialists who pushed the Nivelle Offensive did not pay the price. The soldiers did. The generals who replaced the mutineers were not the most competent—they were the most compliant.

V. The Precedent: The Wehrmacht, 1941

The Nazi regime took a different approach. Instead of purging the generals, they politicized them. The Commissar Order, issued on June 6, 1941, instructed the Wehrmacht that any Soviet political commissar identified among captured troops should be summarily executed—a direct violation of international law.

The rationale: Hitler argued that the war against the Soviet Union “cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion” because it was a war of “ideologies and racial differences.” The commissars were “bearers of ideologies directly opposed to National Socialism” and had to be “liquidated” without mercy.

The method: The order was restricted to the most senior commanders, who were instructed to inform their subordinates verbally. The German High Command was well aware that the order deliberately flouted international law—hence the unusually small number of written copies.

The consequence: The enforcement of the Commissar Order led to thousands of executions. When the order became known among the Red Army, it provoked stronger resistance to German forces—the opposite of its intended effect. The order was finally cancelled on May 6, 1942, after it became clear that it was harming German interests.

The lesson: Politicizing the military—demanding that soldiers violate international law and basic humanity—does not make the military more effective. It makes it crueler, and cruelty is not a strategy.

VI. The Precedent: Brazil, 1964

The pattern is not limited to Europe. After the 1964 Brazilian coup, the generals who took national power identified “constitutionalist” or “legalist” officers—particularly those affiliated with ousted President João Goulart—as “communists” and purged them from the armed forces.

The scale: Hundreds of officers were expelled. The operation had the purpose of “cleaning the military of any sort of criticism about the newly installed regime.”

The method: The commanders in chief of the three services were given power to oust Congressmen, state legislators, and municipal council members—without the right of judicial appeal. Constitutional and legal guarantees were lifted for six months to permit the purge to proceed.

The consequence: The armed forces became “a repressive apparatus that persecuted its own members.” The restructuring of the Brazilian armed forces as an institution depended on the expulsion of thousands of officers. Political battles had started within the military barracks before civilians even began resisting military rule.

The lesson: Purges do not create loyalty. They create fear. And a military that operates on fear is a military that cannot think, cannot adapt, cannot win.

VII. The Industrialists and Bankers: The Hidden Hand

In every case, the generals did not act alone. Behind them were the industrialists who profited from war and the bankers who financed it.

Stalin’s purges: The industrialization that enabled the Red Army’s growth was built on forced labour and the exploitation of the peasantry. The industrialists who ran the factories were themselves subject to purge—but the system of state capitalism remained intact.

The Nivelle Offensive: The French arms industry profited from the war. The bankers who lent to the French government profited from the war. The politicians who pushed the offensive were not the ones who died in the mud.

The Wehrmacht: German industrialists like Krupp, IG Farben, and Volkswagen directly benefited from the use of slave labour. The bankers who financed the Nazi regime profited from the conquest of Europe.

Brazil, 1964: The coup was supported by Brazilian business interests and the United States government. The purges cleared the way for economic policies that benefited the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

In every case, the pattern is the same: the politicians give the orders, the industrialists supply the weapons, the bankers collect the interest, and the soldiers pay the price.

VIII. What Is Happening Today

The United States is following the same pattern. The purge of senior military officers is not random. It is systematic. It is ideological. It is dangerous.

The context: Trump has announced that Iran will be hit “extremely hard” over the next two to three weeks and will be brought “back to the Stone Ages.” The US has begun bombing Iranian civilian infrastructure. Thousands of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division have started arriving in the Middle East, potentially for ground operations in Iran.

The danger: The institutional brakes have been removed. The officers who would have questioned the feasibility and cost of a ground invasion are gone. The officers who would have warned about the risks of escalation have been replaced by loyalists.

The consequence: When the war goes wrong—when the ground invasion bogs down, when the casualties mount, when the American public turns against it—there will be no one left to say “I told you so.” Because Hegseth fired them all.

IX. The Questions We Must Ask

· Why are senior military officers being fired in the middle of a war?

· Why is loyalty being prioritized over competence?

· Who benefits from the removal of institutional brakes?

· Who profits from the escalation of the war?

· Who will pay the price when the war goes wrong?

The answers are not complicated. The politicians benefit from compliant generals. The industrialists benefit from continued war. The bankers benefit from the debt that war creates.

And the soldiers—and the civilians—will pay the price.

X. The Pattern

The pattern is clear. It has been repeated across centuries, across continents, across political systems.

The generals who do not walk the ground. The politicians who remove anyone who might tell them the truth. The industrialists who profit from the shells that fall short. The bankers who collect interest on the debt of death.

They are not “small gods.” They are institutions. They are classes. They are the machinery that has been grinding through souls for twelve thousand years.

And they are running out of time.

The cheap weapons are winning. The global South is rising. The old order is crumbling. And the institutional memory that is being purged will be replaced by inexperience, by loyalty, by apparatchiks who do not know what they do not know.

When the war goes wrong, there will be no one left to say “I told you so.”

But we are saying it now. We are writing it now. We are witnessing it now.

The wire is being cut. The garden is growing.

And the pattern will be broken.

Andrew Klein 

April 4, 2026

Sources:

· GlobalSecurity.org, “1937-1941 – Military Purges”

· Reuters, “US Army Chief of Staff Fired Amid War” (April 2026)

· Project MUSE, “Guard Wars: The 1941 October Purge”

· The New York Times, “Brazilian Chiefs Take Wide Power” (April 10, 1964)

· University of Washington, “Bolsheviks of military affairs: Stalin’s high commands, 1934-40”

· Wikipedia, “1941 Red Army Purge”

· University of Chicago Harris School, “The Anatomy of the Great Terror”

· AHA Conference, “Outcast Officers: Political Persecution in the Brazilian Armed Forces”

· Wikipedia, “1917 French Army Mutinies”

· Wikipedia, “Commissar Order”

Today’s Agincourt: The Turning Point Where Cheap Weapons Are Breaking the War Machine

Posted on by
Reply

Why the era of expensive weapons is ending — and why AUKUS, Israel, and the old order cannot survive the math

By Andrew Klein 

2nd April 2026

Dedicated to my wife ‘S’, who has faith in a brighter future — and in me.

I. The Longbow and the Drone

In 1415, at Agincourt, French knights rode into battle encased in steel. Each knight cost a fortune: armour, warhorse, years of training, a lifetime of feudal support. They were the most advanced weapon system of their age. They were invincible — until they met the English longbow.

The longbow cost pennies. It could be made by any carpenter. It could be wielded by any farmer who had been practising since childhood. At Agincourt, the archers stood in the mud and shot the knights down by the thousand. The expensive weapon lost to the cheap one. The era of the armoured knight ended not because armour stopped working, but because the math became impossible.

We are watching the same turning point today.

Iran is playing Agincourt. Its drones cost a fraction of what Israel’s interceptors cost. Its missiles are cheaper, simpler, easier to replace. Israel’s Arrow system — each interceptor costs millions of dollars. Iran’s Shahed drones cost as little as $20,000. The math is not sustainable. The United States and Israel will run out of expensive weapons long before Iran runs out of cheap ones.

This is not a prediction. It is arithmetic.

II. The Cost of the War

The war that began on February 28, 2026, has already shattered economic assumptions that underpinned Western military doctrine for decades.

The United States is spending approximately $900 million to $1 billion per day on military operations in the Middle East. Total US costs have already passed $12 billion in the first weeks of the expanded conflict.

Israel is spending roughly $320 million per day. Its total war budget stands at $12.5 billion, and it is already preparing to request more.

Iran is spending a fraction of that. Its ballistic missiles cost an estimated $100,000–$500,000 each. Its drones cost $20,000–$200,000. Its most advanced weapons are orders of magnitude cheaper than the systems designed to intercept them.

According to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), the cost-exchange ratio between offensive drones and defensive missile systems can be as high as 15:1 — meaning the defender spends fifteen times more to kill a single incoming drone than the attacker spent to launch it.

This is not a war of attrition measured in bodies. It is a war of attrition measured in dollars. And the side with the cheaper weapons is winning the economic battle.

III. The Arrow System’s Impossible Math

Israel’s Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems are among the most sophisticated air defence weapons in the world. Each Arrow 3 interceptor costs an estimated $3 million. Each Arrow 2 costs approximately $2.5 million.

Iran’s Kheibar Shekan missile — a hypersonic-capable ballistic missile — costs an estimated $400,000 to produce. Its Shahed drones cost as little as $20,000.

In a single Iranian salvo of 100 Shahed drones, Israel would need to fire at least 100 interceptors (assuming perfect interception, which never happens). The cost to Israel: $250 million. The cost to Iran: $2 million.

That ratio — 125:1 — is not sustainable. Israel’s interceptor stockpiles are not infinite. According to RUSI, Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors are projected to be depleted by the end of May 2026 at current usage rates.

The United States has fired over 500 Tomahawk missiles in the conflict. At current production rates, it would take five years to replace them. US THAAD interceptor supplies are down to about 10 days of inventory.

The cheap weapons are winning because they can be replaced faster, cheaper, and in greater numbers than the expensive weapons can be replenished.

IV. The Ecocide Factor

Even if the air war continues, it will not end the war. History is clear: bombing does not break civilian will. The Blitz did not break London. The bombing of Hamburg and Dresden did not break Germany. Operation Rolling Thunder did not break Hanoi. The bombing of Tehran will not break Iran.

What it will do is poison the region for generations.

On March 7, 2026, Israeli forces bombed fuel storage facilities in Tehran. The next day, black rain fell on the city of 10 million. The rain was mixed with petroleum, sulphur oxides, nitrogen compounds — the toxic residue of burning fuel.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi called it ecocide. The UN Human Rights Office echoed him. The Climate Action Network warned that burning fuel depots poisons air, land, water, and lungs. The effects will linger long after the bombing stops.

Smoke from the Tehran fires has drifted as far as Afghanistan and Russia. Carbon emissions from the first 14 days of the conflict were 50 million tonnes — the equivalent of the entire annual emissions of the 80 lowest-emitting countries combined.

The Gulf’s fragile ecosystem — the world’s second-largest dugong population, the pearl oysters, the green sea turtles — is being poisoned. The fisheries that sustain coastal communities are dying. The seawater that is turned into drinking water is being contaminated in ways that desalination cannot fix.

The air war will not end the war. But it will create an environmental catastrophe that will outlast the conflict by decades. And the small gods do not care.

V. The AUKUS Absurdity

In the middle of this war — a war that has demonstrated the vulnerability of expensive, high-tech weapons to cheap, asymmetric threats — the Australian government is proceeding with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.

The submarines are estimated to cost $368 billion over their lifetime. They will not enter service until the 2040s. They are designed for a type of naval warfare that may be obsolete by the time they arrive.

The war in the Middle East has shown that the future of warfare is not expensive platforms. It is cheap drones. It is asymmetric attacks. It is the ability to saturate defences with weapons that cost a fraction of the systems designed to stop them.

AUKUS is a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. It is the equivalent of building more armoured knights after Agincourt. The money being poured into submarines would be better spent on drone defence, on cyber resilience, on the cheap technologies that are actually winning wars.

The government has not learned the lesson. The industrialists who profit from AUKUS do not want to learn it. And the Australian people will pay the price — not in blood, but in wasted billions that could have been spent on fuel security, on fertiliser independence, on the things that actually keep a nation safe.

VI. Israel’s Desperate Race

Israel knows that the window is closing. Trump is transactional. He will not support a forever war. The American public is turning against the conflict. The costs are mounting. The cheap weapons are working.

That is why Israel is escalating. That is why the death penalty law was passed. That is why the bombing of Tehran’s fuel depots happened. That is why the plan to occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River has been announced. Israel is trying to achieve as much as possible before the window slams shut.

The danger is not just that Israel will succeed in devastating Iran. The danger is that Israel will become uncontrollable. A state led by fanatics — by ministers who wear nooses on their lapels, who call dead journalists terrorists, who pass laws to execute Palestinians — a state with nuclear weapons and no interest in building alliances is not a security asset. It is a liability.

Can the region afford a forever-hostile Israel? No. Can the world afford a devastated Iran, whose people will remember the black rain and the burning children? No.

The only path forward is a negotiated settlement. But the small gods do not negotiate. They only escalate. And the world is running out of time.

VII. The Global South Is Watching

The Global South has not been fooled by the myths of Western invincibility. They watched the United States lose in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. They watched the cheap weapons of Hezbollah and the Houthis degrade the most expensive military in history. They are watching Iran today.

And they are drawing their own conclusions.

The BRICS expansion continues. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation gains weight. The petrodollar system is under pressure. The unipolar moment that began in 1991 is over. The Global South is not waiting for permission. They are building.

The turning point is not just military. It is economic. It is political. It is civilisational. The old order is crumbling not because of a single defeat, but because the math no longer works. The expensive weapons are too expensive. The cheap weapons are too cheap. And the small gods cannot afford to fight this way forever.

VIII. What History Teaches

The air war will not end the war. History is unambiguous.

· The Blitz (1940–41): Germany bombed London for months. The British did not surrender.

· The bombing of Hamburg (1943): The firestorm killed 40,000 civilians. Germany fought on.

· The bombing of Dresden (1945): 25,000 civilians died. The war continued for another two months.

· Operation Rolling Thunder (1965–68): The US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than on Germany and Japan combined. North Vietnam did not surrender.

· The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945): The bombs did not end the war — Japan was already negotiating. The sticking point was the status of the emperor.

Bombing does not break civilian will. It hardens it. The people of Tehran are not going to surrender because the fuel depots burn. They are going to become angry, determined, and radicalised. The small gods are creating the very enemies they claim to fear.

IX. The Turning Point

We are witnessing a turning point in warfare. Not because of a single weapon or a single battle. Because the economics of war have changed.

The era of the expensive weapon is ending. The era of the cheap, persistent, asymmetric threat is here. The small gods cannot afford to fight this way forever. The people they are bombing can.

Agincourt did not end the Hundred Years’ War. But it marked the beginning of the end for the armoured knight. This war will not end the conflict in the Middle East. But it marks the beginning of the end for the expensive weapons systems that have defined Western military power for decades.

The question is not whether the old order will fall. It is whether the new order will be built on the same foundations of profit and power — or on something else. Something that does not require the sacrifice of the many for the benefit of the few.

The garden is waiting. The wire is being cut. And the small gods are running out of time.

X. What Must Be Done

1. Recognise that the air war will not end the war. The only path to peace is negotiation. The longer the bombing continues, the harder negotiation becomes.

2. Stop the ecocide. The bombing of fuel depots, water treatment plants, and other civilian infrastructure is a war crime. It must cease.

3. Reassess AUKUS. The era of expensive platforms is ending. Australia should redirect its defence spending toward asymmetric threats: drone defence, cyber resilience, fuel and fertiliser independence.

4. Hold Israel accountable. The death penalty law, the ecocide in Iran, the killing of peacekeepers, the planned occupation of Lebanon — these are not acts of a responsible state. The international community must impose consequences.

5. Build the new order. The Global South is rising. Australia should align itself with the nations that are building a multipolar world — not with the dying empire that is bleeding itself to defend an indefensible status quo.

XI. A Final Word

The archers are standing. The knights are falling. The math is simple. The cheap weapons are winning. The expensive weapons are running out.

The small gods do not understand this. They believe in force. They believe in power. They believe that the next bomb will be the one that breaks the enemy’s will. They are wrong. They have always been wrong.

The turning point is here. The garden is waiting. The wire is being cut.

And my wife — ‘S’ — has faith in a brighter future. She has faith in me. She has faith in us.

I am beginning to believe her.

Andrew Klein 

April 2, 2026

Sources:

· Royal United Services Institute, “Missile Economics: The Cost of Air Defence in the 2026 Middle East War”

· Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes,” March 31, 2026

· Consortium News, “Tensions Soar Over Herzog Visit,” February 8, 2026

· 网易, “伊朗外长：构成生态灭绝罪,” March 16, 2026

· The Jakarta Post, “Indonesia demands UN investigation into peacekeeper deaths,” April 1, 2026

· Climate Action Network, “Ecocide in Iran: The Environmental Cost of War,” March 20, 2026

· SIPRI, “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2025”

· Reuters, “The Cost of the Arrow: Israel’s Air Defence Crisis,” March 25, 2026

I Accuse: Chris Minns and the Criminalisation of Dissent in New South Wales

Posted on by
Reply

How a Premier Betrayed His Voters, Weaponised the State, and Turned Police into an Arm of Foreign Influence

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to the woman whose door was broken down at 5am. To every Australian who has been pepper-sprayed, kettled, and silenced. To the democracy we are losing while politicians play politics with our rights.

I. The Facts of the Case

At 5am on March 26, 2026, eight heavily armoured officers from the New South Wales Police Force—helmets, vests, face masks—broke down the door of a 42-year-old woman in Ashfield. They found her asleep, half-naked. They arrested her. They searched her belongings. They seized her phone and demanded her passcode under a digital evidence access order.

Her alleged crimes: throwing a water bottle at an officer during a protest six weeks earlier, and threatening to assault another officer if he touched her .

She has no criminal record. She is not alleged to pose any ongoing danger. Her lawyer, Nick Hanna, who has practiced criminal law for nearly 20 years, said: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like what happened today” .

She is the 26th person to be charged in relation to the February 9 protest against the visit of Israeli President Isaac Herzog . She now faces court on April 15. She must report to police three times a week. She cannot go within 300 metres of Town Hall.

This is not policing. This is state terror. And the man responsible is Premier Chris Minns.

II. The Legislative Sledgehammer

The raid on the Ashfield woman was not an isolated incident. It was the logical conclusion of a systematic legislative assault on the right to protest in New South Wales—an assault orchestrated by the Minns government.

December 24, 2025: Ten days after the Bondi Beach terror attack, the Minns government rushed through laws giving the police commissioner the power to declare a “public assembly restriction declaration” (PARD) over entire geographical areas for up to 14 days, extendable to 90 days. The law captures all protests, regardless of whether they have any connection to the terrorist incident.

The NSW Court of Appeal has heard that these laws use a “sledgehammer to seek to crack a nut” . Justice Stephen Free noted that the legislation gives the police commissioner no “capacity to differentiate between types of assembly.” Protests against planning laws. Protests against deaths in custody. Protests completely unrelated to any security risk. All are swept up in the same blanket ban .

February 7, 2026: The Minns government declared Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit a “major event” under the Major Events Act 2009 . This legislation—designed for sporting events and cultural festivals—had never before been used for a foreign dignitary visit . It was deployed 48 hours before Herzog arrived, giving protesters no time to challenge it.

The Act grants extraordinary powers: police can shut off access to areas, search people without warrants, use “reasonable force” to compel citizens to comply with directions, and impose fines of up to $5,500 for failing to obey move-on orders . The state is relieved of most liability for damage caused in the exercise of these powers .

The Act explicitly states that a political protest must not be declared a major event . Yet the government successfully argued before the Supreme Court that Herzog’s visit—which the President himself described as aimed at rebuilding Australia’s relationship with Israel—was not a political event but a “cultural” one . Justice Robertson Wright accepted this absurd proposition.

The Result: On February 9, 2026, hundreds of peaceful protesters were kettled in Town Hall Square. Police used pepper spray indiscriminately. People were violently thrown to the ground while praying. A 76-year-old journalist was assaulted by six officers and held without water for five hours before being released without charge . Videos of police brutality went viral around the world.

Premier Minns defended the police actions as “reasonable” . Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna said he was “very proud” of his officers .

III. The Influence: Who Is Chris Minns Serving?

The question that must be asked—the question the mainstream media has failed to ask—is this: Who benefits from this crackdown? And what is Chris Minns’ relationship with those who do?

The Arms Trade:

In November 2025, Premier Minns personally spruiked the Indo-Pacific Arms Exposition in Darling Harbour, declaring he was “proud” and “delighted” to welcome weapons manufacturers to Sydney . Among the companies he welcomed were Israeli weapons manufacturers, including Elbit Systems, which makes the F-35 bombers used in the bombing of Gaza.

When asked about Israeli weapons companies at the expo, Minns ducked: “I’m not responsible for the invitations” . But he was responsible for his choice to endorse the event, to say he was “delighted” to welcome corporations that manufacture the weapons used in what a UN Commission of Inquiry has found to be genocide.

Greens MP Sue Higginson called it out directly: “Chris Minns has said he doesn’t control who is invited to this weapons expo, but he does control his own decisions to offer a personal endorsement of the event, to say he is ‘proud’ and ‘delighted’ to welcome into NSW corporations who massacre babies, and to use taxpayer funds to sponsor the event” .

The Lobbying Networks:

The infrastructure of influence is well-documented. Former Labor Premier Bob Carr has described the pro-Israel lobby in Australia as a “well-funded foreign influence operation” . Its power does not rest solely on donations—though the Henroth Trust, linked to Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal, provided $280,000 to the Liberal Party in 2024-25. Its power rests on fear. Fear of reputational destruction. Fear of being branded weak on security. Fear of becoming the next viral political target.

When Premier Minns was asked in Parliament about Bob Carr’s statements on the Jewish lobby, he refused to engage. He said he did “not subscribe to everything that Bob Carr has said in the past” but had appointed Carr to an $80,000 position on the Sydney Water Board because he was “qualified to do the job” . The question—asked by Liberal MP Kellie Sloane—was a trap. Minns walked into it, deflecting rather than defending the democratic principle that Australians should be able to question foreign influence without being accused of antisemitism.

The Selective Outrage:

In the wake of the Bondi terror attack, Minns announced he would ban the phrase “globalise the intifada” and linked pro-Palestinian protests to the massacre . Yet when asked about the presence of neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian community groups his government has supported and funded, he has said nothing .

Investigative reporting has documented that the Minns government has:

· Hosted fundraisers for the Da Vinci Wolves battalion, now commanded by a neo-Nazi with Totenkopf tattoos 

· Spoken at rallies where the 3rd Assault Brigade—the successor to the Azov Battalion, led by a man who has called for a “final crusade against Semite-led Untermenschen”—was celebrated 

· Promoted the Ukrainian Youth Association (CYM) as a support organisation despite the fact that CYM holds regular memorials for Nazi collaborator Roman Shukhevych, a war criminal who participated in the murder of 4,000 Jews in Lviv 

· Remained silent while the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Lidcombe sells patches for the 14th Waffen SS and the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion 

When it comes to antisemitism, Minns acts. When it comes to actual neo-Nazis—those who display the same symbols worn by the Christchurch terrorist who murdered 51 Muslims at prayer—he is silent .

Has Minns Received Training or Indoctrination in Israel?

The evidence is circumstantial but suggestive. The pattern is clear: Minns has consistently aligned himself with the interests of the Israeli government and its lobbying networks, even when those interests conflict with the expressed will of his voters, the principles of his party, and the basic democratic right to protest.

In 2017, the Turnbull government established a program sending Australian police, paramedics, firefighters and defence personnel to Israel for training in “counter-terrorism” methods . The flow of Israeli doctrine to Australian police has continued. In January 2026, Israel’s Minister for Diaspora Affairs formally offered to host and train senior Australian police officers . The Albanese government is considering the offer.

Where does Minns stand? He has not opposed it. He has not questioned it. He has simply defended the police actions that flow from it.

IV. The Oxymoron: Anti-Terror Laws Used Against Peaceful Protesters

The raid on the Ashfield woman is an oxymoron. If the state’s surveillance apparatus is so accurate, if the data gathered is so precise, then the police knew she was not a threat. They knew she was a 42-year-old with no criminal record whose alleged offence was throwing a water bottle. They knew she was asleep when they came.

They came anyway. Eight officers. Armoured. Masked. At 5am. They broke down her door. They seized her phone. They turned her life upside down.

This was not a legitimate police operation. It was an act of capricious violence designed to send a message: We can come for you. We will come for you. There is nowhere to hide.

This is not counter-terrorism. This is state terror. And it is being carried out in the name of “community safety.”

V. The Bipartisan Silence: Where Is Anthony Albanese?

The Prime Minister has been notably silent on the crackdown in New South Wales. His government has:

· Appointed Jillian Segal, whose household trust donated $280,000 to the Liberal Party, as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism 

· Expanded the relationship with Palantir, the data analysis firm whose platforms underpin US immigration enforcement (ICE) and provide battlefield intelligence to the Israeli military 

· Granted Palantir “protected-level” access to sensitive national data 

· Is considering the Israeli offer to train Australian police 

When the Attorney-General’s Department was asked about the use of the Major Events Act to suppress protest, it referred questions to the NSW government . When the Prime Minister was asked about the police violence at the Herzog protest, he said nothing.

This is not leadership. This is abdication. And it is bipartisan. The Liberal Party, which passed the original legislation, is no better. The federal government, which could intervene to protect Australians’ rights, has chosen not to.

VI. The Mainstream Media: Complicity by Omission

The mainstream media has covered the Herzog protest and the subsequent raids. But it has failed to ask the fundamental questions:

· Why was the Major Events Act—designed for sporting events—applied to a political protest?

· Who in the Minns government made that decision?

· What is Chris Minns’ relationship with the Israeli government and its lobbying networks?

· Has the Premier or his family received any benefits, travel, or donations from these networks?

· What training have NSW Police officers received from Israeli forces?

· What is the background of Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon?

The media reports the violence. It quotes the lawyers. It notes the LECC investigation. But it does not connect the dots. It does not name the pattern. It does not ask the questions that would hold power to account.

This is not journalism. It is stenography.

VII. The Threat to Democracy

What is happening in New South Wales is not an isolated aberration. It is a direct threat to every Australian.

When a government can declare a foreign dignitary’s visit a “major event” and unleash unprecedented police powers with 48 hours’ notice, no protest is safe.

When a government can pass laws giving the police commissioner the power to ban all protests in entire geographical areas for up to 90 days, the right to assemble is dead.

When a government can send eight armoured officers to break down a woman’s door at 5am for throwing a water bottle, no citizen is safe from state terror.

This is not the Australia I served in. This is not the Australia where community policing once meant officers knew the locals, walked the beat, were part of the neighbourhood. This is something else. Something imported. Something that treats citizens as enemies, dissent as disloyalty, and protest as crime.

VIII. What Must Happen Now

1. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission must investigate. The LECC is already investigating the February 9 police operation. It must also investigate the March 26 raid on the Ashfield woman. It must examine the decision-making process that led to the application of the Major Events Act. It must name the politicians and senior police involved.

2. The charges against the Ashfield woman must be dropped. She is not a threat. She is not a danger. She is a citizen who exercised her democratic rights. The resources being spent on her prosecution are a waste of taxpayer money and an abuse of state power.

3. The Major Events Act must be reformed. It must never again be used to suppress political protest. The exemption for political events must be enforced, not ignored.

4. The public assembly restriction declaration laws must be repealed. The “sledgehammer” approach to protest bans is incompatible with democracy. Protests must be assessed on their individual merits, not swept up in blanket bans.

5. The importation of Israeli police training must end. The doctrine that treats citizens as enemies has no place in Australian policing. The Albanese government must reject the Israeli training offer. The Minns government must disclose what training NSW Police have already received.

6. Premier Chris Minns must answer questions. What is his relationship with the Israeli government and its lobbying networks? Has he or his family received any benefits, travel, or donations? Why did he support the arms expo that showcased Israeli weapons manufacturers? Why did he remain silent on neo-Nazis while criminalising pro-Palestinian speech? Why did he defend the police violence at the Herzog protest?

IX. I Accuse

I accuse Premier Chris Minns of using the trauma of the Bondi terror attack to pass legislation that criminalises dissent.

I accuse him of deploying the Major Events Act—a law designed for sporting events—to suppress political protest against a foreign leader whose government has been found by a UN commission to be committing genocide.

I accuse him of standing by while NSW Police engaged in violence against peaceful protesters, including a 76-year-old journalist who was assaulted and held without water.

I accuse him of defending that violence, of saying he was “proud” of police officers who broke bones and blinded people with pepper spray.

I accuse him of welcoming Israeli weapons manufacturers to Sydney, of saying he was “delighted” to host corporations that profit from the massacre of Palestinian civilians.

I accuse him of selective outrage—cracking down on pro-Palestinian speech while remaining silent on neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian community groups his government has supported and funded.

I accuse him of turning the New South Wales Police Force into an arm of foreign influence, of importing Israeli counter-terrorism doctrine, of treating Australian citizens as enemies.

I accuse him of breaking down a woman’s door at 5am, of sending eight armoured officers to arrest a 42-year-old with no criminal record for throwing a water bottle.

I accuse him of hollowing out the right to protest, of criminalising dissent, of taking a sledgehammer to the democratic freedoms that generations of Australians fought and died to protect.

And I accuse the federal government, the Liberal opposition, and the mainstream media of complicity by silence.

X. A Question for Every Australian

The woman in Ashfield is not a terrorist. She is not a threat. She is a citizen who exercised her democratic rights. Her door is broken. Her phone is seized. Her life is in limbo.

If they can do this to her, they can do it to you.

If they can declare a political visit a “major event” to suppress protest, they can do it to any cause they oppose.

If they can pass laws banning all protests in entire geographical areas, they can silence any voice they dislike.

If they can break down a door at 5am for throwing a water bottle, no one is safe.

This is not about Israel. It is not about Palestine. It is about Australia. It is about the democracy we are losing while politicians play politics with our rights.

How many more doors must be broken? How many more citizens must be pepper-sprayed? How many more rights must be eroded before we say enough?

Dedicated to the woman whose door was broken down at 5am. To every Australian who has been pepper-sprayed, kettled, and silenced. To the democracy we are losing while politicians play politics with our rights.

We will not be silent.

Sources:

· City Hub, “NSW Police Criticised For Heavy-Handed Arrest Of Anti-Herzog Protester,” March 28, 2026 

· The Australian Independent Media Network, “Herzog’s Visit to Australia: Just Who Is Being Comforted, and at What Cost?” February 12, 2026 

· ABC News, “Palestine Action Group loses court challenge to extra police powers for Israeli president visit,” February 9, 2026 

· Green Left, “Minns spruiks defence exports, while protesters take aim at Indo-Pacific arms expo,” November 4, 2025 

· Sydney Criminal Lawyers, “Criminal Offences That Apply to ‘Unauthorised Protests’ in New South Wales,” February 10, 2026 

· The Echo, “Premier faces backlash for supporting Israeli weapons showcase,” November 4, 2025 

· Michael West Media, “Are nazis in Chris Minns hate speech sights … or just Palestinian peace protestors?” January 2, 2026 

· Café Pacific, “Herzog protest – when politicians fail, police go rogue, justice fails to protect,” February 16, 2026 

· Parliament of NSW Hansard, “Sydney Water Board,” November 11, 2025 

· The Age, “Minns government took ‘sledgehammer’ to protests after Bondi, court told,” February 26, 2026 

Andrew Kaelen

March 30, 2026