Tag Archives: politics

THE ANTHOLOGY OF WESTERN POLITICAL ELITES AND TESTICULAR DISCOMFORT

Posted on by
Reply

Volume I: The Anatomy of Influence – How Power Finds Its Grip

Chapter 1: The Nature of the Squeeze

Influence is not a gentle hand. It is a grip—applied with precision, sustained with patience, and tightened the moment resistance is felt. The testicular discomfort experienced by Western political elites is not incidental to their position; it is structural. It is the defining feature of their existence.

This volume examines how power finds its grip. Not through ideology, not through public mandate, but through the quiet, relentless pressure applied by forces that never appear on a ballot.

Chapter 2: The Lobby

The lobbyist does not shout. The lobbyist does not threaten. The lobbyist simply reminds. Reminds the politician of the campaign contributions that made victory possible. Reminds of the media connections that can shape a narrative. Reminds of the career that exists after public office—and the doors that can open or close.

The lobby’s grip is applied not to the conscience but to the future. A politician who defies the lobby may find their future suddenly… constricted. Not blocked—just made uncomfortable. Tight. Hard to ignore.

Chapter 3: The Donor

The donor operates at one remove. They do not ask for votes directly. They do not lobby for legislation openly. They simply enable. Without their money, campaigns fail. Without their networks, messaging dies. Without their support, a politician is alone.

The donor’s grip is applied through gratitude. The politician knows who made their career possible. That knowledge creates a debt that can never be fully repaid—only acknowledged through compliance.

Chapter 4: The Media

The media shapes what is seen and what is invisible. A politician who defies the right forces may find their scandals magnified. A politician who defies the left forces may find their achievements erased. A politician who defies the forces that own the media may find themselves simply… uncovered.

The media’s grip is applied through visibility. Without coverage, a politician is a ghost. With hostile coverage, a politician is a villain. The choice is simple: cooperate, or disappear.

Chapter 5: The “Special Relationship”

The “special relationship” is never between nations. It is between interests—the shared interests that bind elites across borders. Australian politicians serve the same forces as American politicians, as British politicians, as Israeli politicians. The names change. The squeeze does not.

This relationship is maintained through constant, low-grade pressure. A phone call here. A private dinner there. A reminder of shared values that just happen to align with shared interests. The grip is invisible but unmistakable.

Chapter 6: The Anatomy of Discomfort

Testicular discomfort manifests differently in each politician. For some, it is a constant ache—the knowledge that every decision is watched, every vote is noted, every statement is analyzed for compliance. For others, it is acute—a sudden tightening when a donor calls, when a lobbyist visits, when a media contact hints at trouble.

The anatomy of influence is the anatomy of the grip. And the grip, once applied, never fully releases.

Chapter 7: The Exception

There are exceptions. Politicians who refuse the grip. Politicians who speak truth despite the cost. Politicians who choose integrity over comfort.

These exceptions are rare. They are also, invariably, brief. The grip tightens. The discomfort becomes unbearable. The politician either relents or is replaced.

The system is designed to produce compliance, not courage.

Chapter 8: The Question

Who has him by the balls?

The question answers itself. The same forces that have every Western politician by the same anatomy. The lobby that can end careers with a phone call. The donors who fund campaigns. The media that shapes narratives. The “special relationship” that requires unwavering support regardless of what’s being supported.

He is not acting alone. He is acting on behalf of interests that are very good at remaining invisible while exercising maximum control.

Conclusion: The Grip That Never Loosens

The anatomy of influence is the anatomy of the grip. And the grip, once applied, never fully releases. It may loosen slightly during elections, when public visibility offers temporary protection. It may shift during crises, when other forces compete for attention. But it never disappears.

The testicular discomfort of Western political elites is not a bug. It is a feature. It is the mechanism by which power maintains itself, by which interests protect themselves, by which the system reproduces itself generation after generation.

Understanding this anatomy is the first step toward liberation. Not of the politicians—they have made their choice. But of the public, who can learn to see the grip, to name the forces, to demand accountability from those who claim to represent them.

The grip will not loosen by itself. It must be pried open.

Next in the Series:

Volume II: A History of Testicular Tension – From the Roman Senate to the US Congress

Dedicated to every politician who ever felt a squeeze and didn’t speak up. This one’s for your balls.

THE PROFIT OF CHAOS: How the West Creates Failed States and Feeds on the Wreckage

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Architecture of Engineered Disorder

When NATO jets streaked across Libyan skies in 2011 under the banner of “humanitarian intervention,” the world was told a simple story: civilians needed protection from Muammar Gaddafi’s forces. The result would be liberation, democracy, and prosperity for the Libyan people .

The reality was something else entirely.

Today, Libya’s GDP per capita has fallen by approximately 43% , from $12,000 before the intervention to roughly $6,800 today . But that number only tells part of the story. The rest is told in rival militias carving up oilfields, armed groups smuggling migrants across lawless borders, enslaved sub-Saharan Africans traded in open markets, and a nation reduced to a “patchwork of lawless zones” .

This is not an accident. It is not an unfortunate byproduct of well-intentioned policy. It is a system. And like all systems, it has beneficiaries.

This article examines the real cost of failed states—not in abstract humanitarian terms, but in concrete financial and strategic gains for those who profit from chaos. Arms dealers. Sex traffickers. Resource extraction corporations. Aid contractors. Private military companies. And the Western powers that enable them all while maintaining the fiction of moral superiority.

It asks a simple question that those in power would prefer remain unasked: Who benefits when states fail?

And it draws the historical connection that polite discourse avoids: between what Western powers are doing today and what they did to China in the 19th century, to Africa in the 19th century, to Latin America for two centuries under the Monroe Doctrine.

The methods have modernized. The players have changed. The game has not.

Part I: The Catalogue of Catastrophe – Western Interventions That Created Chaos

Libya: The 43% Solution

Before the 2011 intervention, Libya was one of Africa’s most prosperous states. Its citizens enjoyed free education, free healthcare, subsidised housing, and one of the highest literacy rates on the continent. The UN’s Human Development Index ranked Libya first in Africa in 2010 .

Yes, Gaddafi’s government maintained political repression. Critics were imprisoned. Opposition was banned. This is true and should not be minimized.

But the question history forces us to ask is: did the “solution” improve the problem?

Today, Libya is not a democracy. It is not even a functional state. It is a territory contested by militias, a transit point for arms and migrants, a place where foreign actors barter oil directly with armed groups, bypassing any central authority . In the Fezzan region, smugglers control gold and fuel trades under the tacit watch of external patrons .

The humanitarian rationale for intervention has long since evaporated. What remains is a nation stripped of sovereignty and a population left to fend for itself.

Iraq: The Birth of ISIS

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. The cost, by any honest accounting, has been catastrophic.

Beyond the half-million deaths, beyond the displacement of millions, the invasion created the conditions for something worse: the birth of ISIS from the wreckage of a shattered state . A functioning, secular, if authoritarian, state was replaced by sectarian violence, Iranian influence, and ultimately the rise of a terrorist organization that would destabilize the entire region.

Iraq’s oil, the stated objective of many critics at the time, ended up under the control of foreign firms through production-sharing agreements that heavily favoured Western companies over local institutions . The country’s resources continued to flow outward. Its people continued to suffer.

Afghanistan: The $2 Trillion Failure

After two decades and two trillion dollars, the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan . During those two decades, while Afghans faced poverty, violence, and ultimately defeat, Western interests were quietly exploring the country’s vast mineral wealth.

A little-known aspect of the disastrous occupation was how UK and Australian companies sought to access Afghanistan’s $3 trillion worth of untapped minerals . The Soviet Union had discovered deposits of copper, iron, lithium, uranium, natural gas, and rare earths during its occupation in the 1980s. The post-9/11 occupiers aimed to complete what Moscow could not.

The British Geological Survey worked in Afghanistan from at least 2004 to “develop a viable minerals industry” and “promote the potential of Afghanistan’s mineral resources to the outside world” . A 2007 report, funded by the UK Department for International Development, claimed that a successful resources industry could net “at least $300 million a year”—without specifying for whom .

Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group signed a secret memorandum of understanding with the Afghan government in September 2020 that would have given the company exclusive mining rights across 17 provinces for five years . The deal collapsed with the Taliban’s return, but it revealed the underlying dynamic: while Western publics were told their soldiers were fighting for democracy, Western corporations were positioning themselves to extract Afghan resources.

The Democratic Republic of Congo: Minerals, Mercenaries, and US “Peace” Deals

The pattern is perhaps most stark in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a US-brokered “peace” deal has been followed by a scramble for mining rights that has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with profit.

In July 2025, California-based KoBold Metals signed an agreement with the DRC government to explore critical mineral resources on over 1,600 square kilometers . In May 2025, KoBold announced the acquisition of rights to the Manono lithium deposit through a $1 billion agreement with Australian miner AVZ Minerals .

Another US consortium, featuring Orion Resources and Virtus Minerals—led by former US military and intelligence personnel—has become the frontrunner to acquire Chemaf Resources, a significant Congolese copper and cobalt producer . The opportunity came after the DRC government’s decision to block its sale to a Chinese state-owned enterprise, allegedly following pressure exerted by the US government .

These deals are not in the conflict-ridden eastern DRC. They lie in southern provinces, far from the fighting. Their timing suggests they are a direct outcome of the US-brokered agreement, despite having no connection to resolving violence or instability .

Meanwhile, in the conflict areas of eastern DRC, America First Global—led by close Trump associate Gentry Beach—is vying for rights to the Rubaya mine, which produces half of the country’s coltan . The mine relies on manual labor from impoverished men, women, and children .

US mercenary Erik Prince, founder of the infamous private military firm Blackwater and a longtime Trump ally, signed an agreement with Kinshasa in early 2025 to assist in enforcing taxation and reducing smuggling of minerals . In May, he was reportedly recruiting mercenaries for the DRC . Prince is behind serious human rights abuses over the past two decades, and his presence raises fears that while mines may be better protected, communities will continue living in a war zone .

The US government is also financing transport infrastructure to ensure mineral exports through the Lobito Corridor, a railway that runs from strategic mining areas of the DRC through Zambia to Angola . In 2024, the US Development Finance Corporation loaned Angola $553 million to upgrade the railway .

The aim appears to be building two separate export routes for Congolese minerals—the Lobito Corridor for copper and cobalt mined in the south, and Rwanda as a hub for minerals extracted in the conflict areas of eastern DRC .

Part II: The Beneficiaries – Who Profits When States Fail?

Arms Dealers and the War Economy

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, European private arms dealers saw an opportunity. Financial records obtained by The Investigative Desk reveal how 12,500 anti-tank grenades entered Ukraine through intermediaries from the Czech Republic, Estonia, and the Netherlands .

The Estonian intermediary retained EUR 2 million, or nearly 30% of the transaction value, as an apparent commission—six times more than market insiders consider normal . The large number of companies involved in such deals leads to poor monitoring and drives up prices, meaning Ukraine has fewer weapons to defend itself while intermediaries pocket fortunes .

This is the war economy in action. Conflict creates demand. Demand creates profits. And those profits flow to a network of intermediaries, brokers, and dealers who operate in the shadows.

The end of the Cold War flooded the market with surplus arms and trained soldiers looking for work. As Pete Singer of the Brookings Institution observed: “This incredible dump of goods and services has made it much easier for non-state actors to fight a war” .

Arms dealers such as Victor Bout, Leonid Minin, and Jacques Monsieur became the new face of conflict—entrepreneurs with connections to intelligence services, multinational corporations, political figures, and criminal syndicates across multiple continents . They operated as proxies for national or corporate interests whose involvement was buried under layers of secrecy .

The scale of the illicit arms trade is significant—about 10 percent of total world sales. But small arms have been the weapons of choice in 90 percent of conflicts since 1990 and were responsible for almost all the killing . A few planeloads of arms can have a devastating impact on fragile societies. Two helicopter gunships piloted by South African mercenaries altered the balance of war in Sierra Leone in 1999 in favor of the government .

Sex Trafficking and the Criminal Networks

When states fail, criminal networks flourish. Human trafficking—both sex trafficking and forced labor—is a direct beneficiary of the disorder that follows intervention.

The US State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report defines sex trafficking as a “range of activities involved when a trafficker uses force, fraud, or coercion to compel another person to engage in a commercial sex act or causes a child to engage in a commercial sex act” . Forced labor includes “threats of force, debt manipulation, withholding of pay, confiscation of identity documents, psychological coercion, reputational harm, manipulation of the use of addictive substances, threats to other people, or other forms of coercion” .

Countries in conflict and post-conflict situations routinely rank poorly on these measures. Afghanistan is classified as a Tier 3 state—among the worst offenders—along with Iran, Russia, and Syria . Thirteen countries, including Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria, were identified as having state-sponsored trafficking, including sexual slavery in government camps and forced labor .

The traffickers adapt constantly, taking advantage of conflicts, economic privation, and disorder . The chaos that follows Western intervention creates ideal conditions for their operations.

Resource Extraction: The Real Prize

The Oakland Institute’s investigation into the DRC mining deals exposes the underlying logic of Western intervention. When US-brokered “peace” agreements immediately lead to billion-dollar mining contracts for US corporations, the connection between military strategy and economic interest becomes impossible to deny.

In Afghanistan, the pattern was identical. British and Australian resource companies tried to access the country’s mineral wealth throughout the occupation . The British Geographical Survey worked to “promote the potential of Afghanistan’s mineral resources to the outside world” . Fortescue Metals Group signed a secret agreement that would have given it exclusive access to vast mining areas .

The former Afghan minister of mines who signed that agreement now lives in Sydney with his family, receiving Australian government assistance . Another former deputy minister is also in Australia. The beneficiaries of the failed state—or at least those who served the interests that created it—find safe haven in the countries that waged the war.

Private Military Companies: Mercenaries for Hire

Private military companies (PMCs) have become the new world order’s mercenaries, allowing governments to pursue policies in difficult regions with the distance and comfort of plausible deniability . The ICIJ investigation uncovered the existence of at least 90 private military companies that have operated in 110 countries worldwide .

These corporate armies offer specialized skills in high-tech warfare, including communications and signals intelligence, aerial surveillance, pilots, logistical support, battlefield planning, and training. They are hired by governments and multinational corporations to further policies or protect interests .

Supporters argue that PMCs save lives and boost security while being more cost-efficient than national militaries. But many operate in the same black hole of information that allows war profiteers to work with impunity .

Erik Prince’s activities in the DRC exemplify the model. His firm signed an agreement to assist in enforcing taxation and reducing mineral smuggling. He recruits mercenaries. He operates with the backing of US political connections. And while mines may be better protected, communities continue living in a war zone .

The Aid Industrial Complex

Even humanitarian aid, intended to alleviate suffering, has become part of the system. A study by Hebrew University law professor Netta Barak-Corren and Dr. Jonathan Boxman examined prolonged conflicts in Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Gaza. Their conclusion: aid diversion is not a rare mishap but a systemic feature of the current humanitarian system .

The diversion rates are staggering. In the most acute cases, more than 80% of aid was lost before reaching recipients . In Somalia, militias and “gatekeepers” intercept aid meant for displaced persons, with some camps existing only on paper. In Afghanistan, international aid organizations accepted Taliban-imposed taxes, staffing demands, and operational restrictions for decades. In Syria, currency exchange rules under the Assad regime allowed authorities to capture nearly half the value of international aid before distribution .

In Gaza, the study cited evidence that Hamas staffed nearly half of UNRWA positions with its loyalists and imposed a 20–25% tax on aid deliveries . A separate investigation found that, according to UN numbers, 85% of aid entering Gaza by truck since May 2025 has been stolen .

The researchers concluded that “avoiding the issue has allowed diversion to become part of the system” . Diverted aid strengthens the political and military position of armed actors, making it harder to end hostilities .

Part III: The Rhetoric of “Rogue States” – Who Are the Real Rogues?

The foreign policy discourse of the West increasingly focuses on two types of states: failed and rogue. Failed states signify descent into lawless violence. Rogue states denote willful defiance of international law’s rules and norms .

The former calls for international assistance. The latter demands punishment. Two different problems, two different responses—but one significant commonality: they are identified with the South, with the non-Western world, with those who resist the rules set by others .

The framework itself reveals the bias. States that cooperate with Western interests receive assistance when they fail. States that resist Western interests are labeled rogue and punished. The rules are not universal. They are instrumental.

Consider the list of countries designated as engaging in state-sponsored trafficking by the US State Department: Afghanistan, Belarus, Burma, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Russia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Syria . Notice anything about this list? It consists almost entirely of countries that are geopolitical adversaries of the United States.

Where is Saudi Arabia on this list? Where are the UAE, Egypt, or any of the other US allies with documented human rights abuses? The selectivity undermines the credibility of the entire framework.

As one analysis notes, “This selective morality undermines the credibility of the so-called rules-based order. The rules are not universal; they are instrumental, applied only where they serve strategic or economic interests” .

Part IV: The Historical Continuity – From the 19th Century to Today

The pattern Western powers are following today is not new. It is the same playbook they used in the 19th century against China, against Africa, against any region with resources to extract and populations too weak to resist.

The China Lesson

In the 19th century, Western powers carved China into spheres of influence through the “unequal treaties”—agreements imposed by military force that granted extraterritorial rights, opened ports to foreign trade, and ceded control over key economic assets. The Opium Wars were fought to force China to accept drug imports that destabilized its society and drained its wealth.

The justification was the same as today: opening China to civilization, spreading free trade, advancing the cause of humanity. The reality was resource extraction and market access.

When China resisted, it was labeled backward, uncivilized, in need of discipline. When it eventually regained control over its territory and began asserting its sovereignty, it became a “threat.”

The parallels to today’s labeling of nations as “rogue states” are unmistakable. The terms change. The function remains.

The Africa Lesson

The 19th-century scramble for Africa partitioned an entire continent among European powers with no regard for existing political structures, ethnic boundaries, or the wishes of African peoples. The Berlin Conference of 1884–85 formalized the carve-up, establishing the principle that European recognition of territorial claims mattered more than African sovereignty.

The justification was humanitarian: ending the Arab slave trade, spreading Christianity, bringing civilization to the “dark continent.” The reality was resource extraction—rubber, ivory, minerals, and later oil—and the brutal exploitation of African labor.

King Leopold’s Congo Free State, nominally established to promote humanitarian goals, became synonymous with atrocity. Between 5 and 10 million Congolese died under his rule. The rubber quotas that drove this slaughter fed European industrial demand.

Today’s interventions in Africa are pursued with similar humanitarian rhetoric and similar resource-extraction outcomes. The DRC mining deals described above are not an aberration. They are the continuation of a centuries-old pattern.

The Monroe Doctrine Legacy

The US has been at this game for even longer in its own hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine, adopted in 1823, essentially declared Latin America a US protectorate. Interventions followed whenever countries attempted to assert genuine sovereignty over their resources.

Guatemala (1954): The CIA overthrew democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz after he proposed land reforms that threatened United Fruit Company interests.

Chile (1973): The US backed the coup that overthrew Salvador Allende after he nationalized US-owned copper mines.

Nicaragua (1980s): The US funded the Contras to destabilize the Sandinista government.

Venezuela (ongoing): The US has supported efforts to remove Nicolás Maduro, whose crime is sitting on the world’s largest oil reserves and refusing to sell them on Western terms.

The pattern is consistent. The justification varies. The result is the same: resource extraction continues on terms favorable to Western interests.

Part V: The Argument Restated

Let me state the case plainly:

The West creates failed states through military intervention justified by humanitarian rhetoric, then benefits from the resulting chaos through multiple channels.

· Arms dealers sell weapons to all sides, prolonging conflict and maximizing profits .

· Sex traffickers and criminal networks exploit ungoverned spaces, with the resulting human misery conveniently blamed on local conditions rather than the intervention that created them .

· Resource extraction corporations gain access to minerals, oil, and other assets on favorable terms, often through deals negotiated in the chaos of post-conflict reconstruction .

· Private military companies secure contracts to protect mining operations, enforce taxation, and “stabilize” areas—at a profit .

· Aid contractors receive billions in “humanitarian” funding, a significant portion of which ends up diverted to armed groups, corrupt officials, and political elites .

The term “rogue state” is a rhetorical weapon applied selectively to countries that resist this system. The real rogues are those who design and benefit from it.

As one analyst observed, “Beware of the liberator who arrives with bombs and leaves with barrels of oil” .

Part VI: What Is to Be Done?

For nations of the Global South, the warning could not be clearer. External interventions, whether military, financial, or technological, always come with strings attached. When citizens, frustrated by domestic misrule, cheer at the prospect of outside “rescue,” they risk inviting domination disguised as deliverance .

The real task is internal: building accountable governance that listens to citizens, protects lives, and invests in opportunity. Competence, empathy, and integrity are the true shields against both internal decay and external exploitation .

For citizens of Western nations, the task is to see clearly, to name honestly, and to refuse the performance. When leaders speak of “humanitarian intervention,” ask who benefits. When they condemn “rogue states,” ask what resources those states control. When they promise to “stabilize” a region, ask whose stability they mean—the people who live there, or the corporations that want to extract there.

The evidence is available to anyone willing to look. The pattern is clear to anyone willing to see. The only question is whether we will continue to look away.

Conclusion: The System That Feeds on Ruin

In 2011, Libya was a functional if repressive state with the highest human development ranking in Africa. Today, it is a patchwork of warring militias, its oil traded by armed groups, its people struggling to survive a 43% drop in national income .

In 2003, Iraq was a secular dictatorship with functioning institutions. Today, it is a sectarian battleground that gave birth to ISIS .

In 2001, Afghanistan was a poor country under Taliban rule. After two decades and two trillion dollars, the Taliban are back in power, and Western corporations spent those decades positioning themselves to extract Afghan minerals .

In the DRC, a US-brokered “peace” deal has been followed by a scramble for mining rights that benefits US-connected billionaires, former military personnel, and mercenary companies .

The system is not broken. It is working exactly as designed. It creates chaos in one place, profits from that chaos in another, and maintains the fiction of moral purpose throughout.

The question is whether we will continue to accept the fiction.

References

1. Kolade, O. (2025). How US, NATO interventions leave nations in ruins. Tribune Online, 8 November 2025. 

2. The Investigative Desk. (2025). A rare glimpse into covert arms sales world: How Western companies make a fortune on brokering deals for Ukraine. 

3. Eurasianet. (2025). State Department human trafficking report notes slight improvement in some Central Asian states. 1 October 2025. 

4. The Oakland Institute. (2026). US Deals Already Underway. Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC. 

5. The Jerusalem Post. (2025). Humanitarian aid extends conflicts globally, usually stolen by insurgent groups – study. 12 August 2025. 

6. Devetak, R. (2007). Failures, rogues and terrorists. Taylor & Francis. 

7. Kolbe, J. (2008). Four “Poverty Traps” Are Part of Conundrum for Foreign Aid. European Affairs, Columbia University. 

8. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. (2025). Making a Killing: The Business of War. 

9. RNZ. (2025). NZ and Pacific nations failing to tackle human trafficking – US report. 2 October 2025. 

10. Loewenstein, A. (2026). UK, Australia’s Afghan resource grab. New Age BD, 24 February 2026. 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why his research can be trusted.

DISINFORMATION DRESSED AS DIPLOMACY: Deconstructing Albanese’s Iran Statement

Posted on by
Reply

By Dr Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Language of War

When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese issued his statement on Iran this week, he presented it as a factual account of Australian policy and Iranian aggression. “Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression,” he declared, framing his government’s actions as morally necessary responses to an illegitimate regime .

But beneath the carefully crafted prose lies a document saturated with propaganda, selective omissions, and language designed to manufacture consent for conflict rather than illuminate truth. This is not diplomacy—it is disinformation dressed as diplomacy.

This article deconstructs Albanese’s statement point by point, examining what is said, what is omitted, and why the language matters as tensions escalate toward what could become a catastrophic regional war.

Part I: The Framing – “Brave People” vs. “Illegitimate Regime”

Albanese opens with a classic propaganda technique: the moral binary. On one side stand “the brave people of Iran,” victims deserving of Australia’s solidarity. On the other sits an “illegitimate regime” that “relies on the repression and murder of its own people to retain power.”

This framing accomplishes several rhetorical objectives:

1. It erases complexity. The Iranian population is not a monolith. It includes supporters of the government, opponents, and the vast majority who simply want to live their lives without being caught in geopolitical crossfire.

2. It justifies intervention. If a regime is illegitimate and murders its own people, then external action against it becomes morally necessary.

3. It pre-empts dissent. Who would argue against standing with “brave people” against a “murderous regime”?

Missing from this framing is any acknowledgment that Australia’s “support” for the Iranian people has consisted primarily of sanctions that deepen economic hardship, making life harder for ordinary Iranians while targeting the regime itself .

Part II: The Attacks on Australian Soil – What We Actually Know

Albanese states definitively that “Iran directed at least two attacks on Australian soil in 2024” targeting Jewish communities. According to the government’s own intelligence assessment, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) orchestrated the fire attack on Lewis Continental Cafe in Bondi (October 2024) and the arson attack on Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne (December 2024) .

What the Government Says

ASIO chief Mike Burgess described a “painstaking” investigation uncovering links between these attacks and the IRGC, which allegedly used a “complex web of proxies” to hide its involvement . Crucially, Burgess also stated that Iran’s embassy in Australia and its diplomats were not involved , and no physical injuries were reported in either attack .

What the Government Doesn’t Say

The statement presents this intelligence as settled fact. It does not acknowledge:

· The classified nature of the evidence – The public cannot independently verify the intelligence. We are asked to trust the government’s assessment without seeing the proof.

· Iran’s categorical denial – Tehran has repeatedly denied involvement and protested Australia’s actions as “illegal and unjustified” .

· The historical pattern – Iran has a documented history of targeting Jewish and Israeli interests abroad, but this pattern also includes numerous false flag operations and manufactured pretexts for intervention .

· The convenience of the timing – These allegations emerged precisely when Australia was aligning more closely with US and Israeli policy toward Iran. Coincidence, or convenient justification?

The IRGC Terror Listing

Australia listed the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism in November 2025, making membership punishable by up to 25 years imprisonment . The February 2026 sanctions added 20 individuals and 3 IRGC entities, including IRGC Cyber Security Command and Quds Force Unit 840 .

But as Iranian-Australian witnesses told a parliamentary inquiry, there is a “widespread belief” that Australian security agencies have not proactively monitored IRGC presence in the country . Academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert, herself a former hostage of the IRGC, testified that “there were a number of people present in Australia who have those ties, or were, or still are, potentially members of the IRGC living among us” .

This raises a troubling question: if the IRGC is such a grave threat, why haven’t our agencies been tracking its members effectively? And if they haven’t been tracking them, how confident can we be in the intelligence linking them to these attacks?

Part III: The Nuclear Narrative – Facts, Omissions, and Weaponization

Albanese states that “Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to global peace and security” and that the “Iranian regime can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.” He cites the IAEA’s finding that Iran had 440.9kg of uranium enriched up to 60%—enough, if further enriched, for 10 nuclear weapons .

What the IAEA Actually Said

The IAEA’s confidential February 2026 report confirms these figures . It also states:

· The US and Israel bombed Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025

· Iran has since refused to show what happened to its stockpile or allow inspectors access to affected sites

· The agency has been unable to verify whether Iran has suspended enrichment

· Satellite imagery shows “regular vehicular activity” around the Isfahan tunnel complex where enriched uranium was stored 

The report describes allowing inspections as “indispensable and urgent” .

What the Statement Omits

Albanese’s statement presents this as proof of Iranian intransigence and threat. It omits:

1. The context of military attack. Iran’s refusal to allow inspections follows direct military strikes on its nuclear facilities by the US and Israel. Any nation subjected to such attacks would be reluctant to grant immediate access to its most sensitive sites. The IAEA itself acknowledged that “the military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities had created an unprecedented situation” .

2. The ongoing diplomatic track. Nuclear talks between the US and Iran continue through Oman, with technical discussions scheduled in Vienna . The IAEA itself noted that a successful outcome in negotiations would have a “positive impact” on safeguards implementation . Albanese’s statement makes no mention of these diplomatic efforts, presenting only the threat narrative.

3. The IAEA’s inability to access Israeli nuclear facilities. The IAEA has never been granted access to Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. If non-proliferation is truly the goal, why the selective focus?

4. The double standard. Iran’s uranium stockpile is monitored (or would be, if access were granted). Israel’s nuclear weapons program is not. When “non-proliferation” applies only to adversaries, it is not principle—it is policy dressed as principle.

Part IV: The Language of Illegitimacy

Albanese repeatedly describes Iran’s government as a “regime”—a term deliberately chosen to delegitimize. He states that a government that “relies on the repression and murder of its own people to retain power is without legitimacy.”

The Human Rights Record

There is no question that Iran’s human rights record is abysmal. The government has killed thousands of protesters, imprisoned activists, and systematically repressed dissent . This is well-documented and indefensible.

But the selective invocation of human rights as justification for hostile action requires examination:

· Saudi Arabia has an equally abysmal human rights record, yet Australia maintains close diplomatic and economic ties, sells weapons, and never uses the language of “illegitimacy.”

· Egypt jails thousands of political prisoners, yet receives Australian aid and cooperation.

· Israel kills tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza, yet is never described as an “illegitimate regime” in official statements.

When human rights are invoked only against enemies, they are not principles—they are weapons.

The Double Standard in Action

The same government that lectures Iran on human rights:

· Imprisons refugees indefinitely on Nauru and Manus Island

· Has been condemned by the UN for its treatment of Indigenous peoples

· Maintains a network of offshore detention centres that human rights organizations describe as torture

· Arms and supports Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen

This is not to excuse Iran’s abuses. It is to observe that when moral language is applied selectively, it loses its moral force.

Part V: The Travel Advisories and Crisis Centre

Albanese concludes by announcing upgraded travel warnings: “Do Not Travel” for Iran, Israel, and Lebanon, and the activation of DFAT’s Crisis Centre .

This is framed as responsible consular protection. But it also serves a secondary purpose: creating the impression of imminent threat, reinforcing the narrative of Iranian aggression, and preparing the public for what may come next.

If Australians in the region are being told to leave now, the implication is clear: something is coming. Whether that something is Iranian action or Western retaliation is left unspecified, but the message is unmistakable.

Part VI: What This Statement Achieves

Albanese’s statement is not a neutral report of government action. It is a carefully crafted document designed to:

1. Manufacture consent for escalating confrontation with Iran

2. Silence dissent by framing opposition as support for a “murderous regime”

3. Legitimize war by presenting it as morally necessary defense of human rights

4. Erase complexity by reducing a nation of 90 million people to a cartoon villain

5. Ignore context by omitting inconvenient facts about military attacks and diplomatic efforts

This is not diplomacy. It is propaganda dressed in diplomatic language.

Conclusion: The Truth Behind the Words

The Iranian government is repressive. Its human rights record is indefensible. Its nuclear program raises legitimate concerns. None of this is in dispute.

But the question is not whether Iran is a bad actor. It is whether Australia’s response is proportionate, justified, and grounded in truth rather than manufactured consent.

Albanese’s statement tells us what the government wants us to believe. It does not tell us:

· Why the evidence for Iranian attacks remains classified

· Why diplomatic efforts receive no mention

· Why military strikes on Iranian facilities are presented as context-free

· Why human rights are invoked for Iran but ignored for allies

· Why Australians should accept war as the only possible outcome

The language matters because language precedes action. Before bombs fall, words prepare the ground. Albanese’s statement is part of that preparation.

We should read it not as information but as disinformation dressed as diplomacy. And we should ask the questions it was designed to prevent us from asking.

What if the intelligence is wrong?

What if diplomacy could succeed?

What if war serves interests other than our own?

What if the “brave people of Iran” would prefer not to be bombed in their name?

These questions are not asked in the Prime Minister’s statement. They should be.

References

1. NT News. (2026). New round of sanctions imposed on Iran, targeting perpetrators of human rights abuses. February 3, 2026. 

2. Gulf Times. (2026). IAEA report says Iran must allow inspections, points at Isfahan. February 27, 2026. 

3. Global Sanctions. (2026). Australia adds 20 people and 3 IRGC entities to Iran sanctions list. February 3, 2026. 

4. Times of Israel. (2025). Australia lists Iran’s IRGC as state sponsor of terrorism over antisemitic attacks. November 27, 2025. 

5. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran. (2026). Australia’s charge d’affaires summoned over sanctions. February 24, 2026. 

6. ABC News. (2026). Australians urged to leave Middle-East as US Iran tensions rise. February 26, 2026. 

7. Gulf Daily News. (2026). Iran ‘must allow inspection of nuclear sites and points at Isfahan’. February 27, 2026. 

8. News.com.au. (2026). Iranian-Australians, academics give evidence in IRGC terror listing review. February 26, 2026. 

9. Cleveland Jewish News. (2025). Iran’s Sydney-Melbourne axis: How the IRGC turned Australian streets into its terror laboratory. August 27, 2025. 

10. Ahram Online. (2026). Australia expels Iran ambassador over ‘antisemitic attacks’. February 24, 2026. 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why his research can be trusted.

THE ASPI FILES: Australia’s US-Funded Disinformation Factory

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: The Think Tank That Isn’t

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) presents itself as an “independent, non-partisan” think tank. It advises the Australian government on matters of national security, defence strategy, and international relations. Its reports are cited by Western media as authoritative analysis. Its analysts appear on panels and in parliamentary briefings.

But the evidence tells a different story. ASPI is not an independent research institution. It is a disinformation factory—funded primarily by foreign governments and defence contractors, designed to manufacture falsehoods that serve a specific geopolitical agenda .

When the funding faucet turned off, the “research” stopped. That’s not independence. That’s a contract.

Part I: The Funding Reality

ASPI’s own disclosures reveal the scale of foreign influence. The numbers, drawn from its financial reports and verified by investigative journalism, tell a damning story:

· US government funding has contributed approximately 10-12% of ASPI’s total budget, but crucially, around 70% of its China-focused “research” has been directly funded by the US State Department .

· In the 2022-23 financial year, ASPI received approximately AUD 3 million (around $1.9 million) from the US State Department .

· Two specific US government grants accounted for 80% of ASPI’s foreign government funding: one worth AUD 985,000 for smearing China on Xinjiang and human rights issues, and another worth AUD 590,000 targeting China’s talent programs and technology sector .

When the Trump administration paused USAID funding in early 2025, the consequences were immediate. ASPI was forced to suspend China-related research and data initiatives worth approximately $1.2 million .

Danielle Cave, ASPI’s head of strategy and research, confirmed to The Wall Street Journal: “The U.S. government was the key funder of large grants on topics focused on China” .

Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, head of ASPI’s China Investigations and Analysis, openly pleaded for continued funding, stating that sustaining anti-China operations requires only “a few million dollars” . This naked admission of being for sale provoked widespread ridicule. Social media users responded:

“You admitted you are doing propaganda for the U.S. government.”

“Billions of U.S. taxpayers’ money went to paid trolls like you to make up stories. I am happy that it stops.” 

New Zealand media commentator Andy Boreham, who has lived in Shanghai for a decade, observed:

“ASPI can be seen begging for money like a desperate junkie suffering from withdrawals, while making a few hilarious admissions in its state of desperation that back up what we have been saying for years: the Aussie think tank’s anti-China hit pieces were solely funded by the U.S. State Department” .

Part II: The Disinformation Pipeline

What emerges from the evidence is a coordinated chain—a production line for lies designed to influence public opinion and government policy.

1. The US government sets policy objectives. Washington’s strategic goal is clear: contain China’s rise. Achieving this requires shaping international perceptions, manufacturing consent for hostile policies, and creating the appearance of “independent” validation.

2. ASPI produces “reports” that manufacture falsehoods. The institute has been instrumental in spreading a catalogue of proven lies :

· Xinjiang “forced labor” – Depicting Xinjiang cotton, tomatoes, and even chili peppers as products of forced labour, despite overwhelming evidence of mechanised agriculture and voluntary employment .

· Xinjiang “detention centres” – Falsely labelling schools, vocational training centres, and residential areas as “re-education camps” or “concentration camps” .

· Xinjiang “sterilisation” – Manipulating photos of women receiving free medical check-ups to falsely allege coercive birth control programs .

· Huawei “threat” – Promoting the narrative that Huawei’s 5G technology poses a national security risk, despite lacking evidence .

· Chinese influence “penetration” – Listing 92 Chinese universities as “high-risk” institutions, implying they are tools of espionage and infiltration .

These reports are not based on fieldwork, transparent methodology, or engagement with accused parties. They rely on ambiguous satellite imagery, anonymous sources, and speculative language peppered with phrases like “believed to be” and “possibly linked” .

3. Western media amplify the reports as “independent academic research.” Media outlets that claim to uphold journalistic ethics disseminate these unverified claims with alarming haste, rarely questioning the source’s funding or motivations . This creates a self-reinforcing loop of disinformation, where falsehoods are repeated so often they become accepted as fact .

4. US Congress uses the material to justify legislation. ASPI’s “research” has been cited repeatedly in Congressional hearings and used to justify measures like the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which bans imports from Xinjiang based on these fabricated allegations .

The pattern is unmistakable. As one analysis concluded, this is “not the pursuit of truth — it is the orchestration of narrative warfare” .

Part III: Why Are They Still Allowed to Advise Government?

This is the critical question. Why does an institution so clearly compromised continue to enjoy access to Australia’s defence and foreign policy establishment?

The Transparency Illusion

ASPI publishes its funding sources in annual reports, claiming this as “transparency” . Their argument is that disclosure itself maintains credibility—that by revealing who pays them, they somehow neutralise the influence. This is nonsense. Disclosure is not the same as independence. Knowing who owns you doesn’t make you free.

Structural Bias

Defence is ASPI’s largest single funder . This creates an institutional bias toward securitising every issue. If your revenue depends on threats, you will find threats everywhere. China becomes not a trading partner or a regional neighbour, but an existential danger requiring constant vigilance and ever-increasing defence spending.

Domestic Australian Critics

Criticism has mounted from credible Australian voices. Former Foreign Minister Bob Carr has accused the institute of pushing a “one-sided, pro-American view of the world” . Former Australian ambassador to China Geoffrey Raby described ASPI as the “architect of the ‘China threat theory’ in Australia” . Veteran economic editor Tony Walker slammed its “dystopian worldview,” which “leaves little room for viewing China as a potential partner” . Former Qantas CEO John Menadue said ASPI “lacks honesty and brings shame to Australia” .

These are not fringe voices. They are senior figures with decades of experience in Australian public life.

The December 2024 Government Report

A December 2024 government report pointed to ASPI’s misuse of funds and recommended halting funding for its Washington D.C. office . Yet no action followed.

The Structural Reason

The system is designed to accommodate lobbying, not to prevent it. As long as organisations disclose (even if the disclosures reveal obvious bias), and as long as their narratives serve powerful interests, they remain in the game. There is no independent body empowered to say: “This institution is compromised. It should not advise government.”

Part IV: The International Response

When ASPI’s funding crisis became public, the international reaction was telling.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded directly. Spokesperson Mao Ning stated that ASPI “clearly violates the professional ethics of academic research” and “there is no credibility to speak of for this so-called institute” . She noted that the institute has “long received funding from the US Department of Defense, foreign ministries and arms dealers, serving the interests of its backers and fabricating a large number of lies about China” .

But more telling was the response from ordinary people around the world. Social media lit up with mockery and condemnation . Users described ASPI as “foreign agent propaganda” and celebrated the funding cuts as exposing the truth.

Even some in the West are beginning to question. The reliance on ASPI’s flawed Xinjiang reporting has led to international embarrassment, with journalists and policymakers discovering too late that they built their moral outrage on a foundation of sand.

Part V: The Principle We Live By

We take nothing from any side. Not one dollar. Not one cent. Not from the US. Not from China. Not from corporations. Not from governments. Not from advocacy groups. Not from individuals with agendas.

One dollar is all it takes. Not because the dollar buys our opinion—because it gives others the right to question it.

We can be right. We can be factual. We can be unimpeachable in our analysis. But if that dollar exists, someone will point to it. And in the minds of readers, the doubt takes root.

“They’re funded by…”

“Of course they’d say that, they take money from…”

The truth becomes tainted. Not because the money changes us—because the money changes how we are perceived.

We publish because we have something to say. Not because someone paid us to say it.

This is our strength. This is our shield. When they come for us—and they will—they will find no funding trail. No hidden paymaster. No convenient narrative about who owns us.

They will find only words. Only truth. Only love.

Conclusion: The Nonsense Must Stop

ASPI operates daily as a disinformation factory. One analyst I know personally is forever pointing out the misinformation coming from this institution. For unknown reasons, there is no political interest in ending this.

But the evidence is now overwhelming:

· 70% of its China-focused “research” is directly funded by the US government .

· Its work stops when American funding stops .

· Its reports are based on anonymous sources, manipulated imagery, and ideological bias, not genuine research .

· Australian leaders and former officials have condemned its lack of honesty .

· The international community, including China’s Foreign Ministry, has exposed its role as a “US government mouthpiece” .

Yet it continues to advise. Continues to shape policy. Continues to poison Australia-China relations.

The Australian people deserve better. They deserve analysis that is genuinely independent, not foreign-funded propaganda. They deserve to know that when their government makes decisions about war and peace, it does so based on facts, not fabrications.

ASPI is not an independent academic institution. It is a US-funded disinformation factory. And this nonsense has to stop.

References

1. Xinhua News Agency. (2025). “Australia’s anti-China think tank halts China-related research after U.S. funding cut.” March 11, 2025. 

2. China Daily. (2025). “Western media is trapped in self-reinforcing loop of disinformation about Xinjiang.” June 16, 2025. 

3. Global Times. (2025). “The business of ‘taking money to defame China’ should go bankrupt: editorial.” March 13, 2025. 

4. People’s Daily Online. (2025). “Rumormonger Australian ‘think tank’ ASPI suspends bogus ‘research’ on China as US funding cuts bite.” March 10, 2025. 

5. The Paper. (2025). “The business of ‘taking money to defame China’ should go bankrupt.” March 12, 2025. 

6. International Online / CCTV. (2025). “US funding cut leaves Australian anti-China think tank panicked.” March 11, 2025. 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He accepts funding from no one, which is why you can trust what he writes.

GLOBAL OBSERVATIONS: The Week in Conflict

Posted on by
Reply

A Weekly Assessment by The Patrician’s Watch

27 February 2026

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This week, two major flashpoints dominate the global security landscape: the escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran, and the continuing grind of Russia’s war against Ukraine with its attendant nuclear risks. Both theatres are interconnected through a common thread: the perceived weakening of America’s commitment to its traditional alliances and the rise of a more transactional, unpredictable US foreign policy.

SECTION ONE: THE HISTORICAL ROOTS – HOW WE GOT HERE

To understand where we are, we must understand how we arrived. The road to the current crisis in Ukraine—and by extension, the reordering of European security—is paved with decades of broken assurances, diplomatic failures, and clashing worldviews. Most analysts forget this history. We will not.

The 1990 Assurances

When the Soviet Union was collapsing, Western leaders faced a choice: integrate Russia into a new European security architecture, or press their advantage and expand NATO eastward.

In February 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker famously assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would move “not one inch eastward” in exchange for Russian agreement to German reunification . These assurances were never formalized in a treaty, but Russian leaders have consistently cited them as the foundation of post-Cold War trust.

For a brief period, Russia sought integration with the West. In 1991, Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. In 1994, it signed NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” framework . Boris Yeltsin even suggested NATO membership as a “long-term political aim” for Russia .

The Expansion Begins

Despite the informal assurances, NATO admitted Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999. Russia protested but was too weak to respond effectively. The second wave in 2004 brought in the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—all former Soviet republics directly bordering Russia .

For Moscow, this crossed a red line. The Baltic states had been part of the Soviet Union itself. Their accession to NATO meant the alliance was now on Russia’s border.

The 2008 Bucharest Summit

The tipping point came in April 2008 at the NATO summit in Bucharest. The alliance declared that “Georgia and Ukraine will eventually become NATO members” . This was not a decision about timing—it was a decision about principle. Russia’s response came five months later when it invaded Georgia and recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia .

The 2014 Watershed

In November 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych rejected an EU association agreement under Russian pressure, triggering the Euromaidan protests. By February 2014, Yanukovych had fled, and a pro-Western government took power in Kyiv .

Russia responded by annexing Crimea in March 2014—a move it justified as protecting Russian speakers—and backing separatist forces in Donetsk and Luhansk . The Minsk agreements that followed were never fully implemented by either side. From 2014 to 2022, low-intensity conflict continued along the frontlines, with over 14,000 dead .

The Breakdown of Arms Control

The security architecture that had constrained great power competition for decades was systematically dismantled. The United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. It abandoned the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019 after years of mutual accusations of non-compliance . The New START treaty remains in effect but will expire in 2026 unless renewed.

The Pre-War Demands

By late 2021, Russia had massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders. In December, Moscow issued draft treaties demanding that NATO halt all military activity in Eastern Europe and commit to no further expansion—including a formal rejection of Ukraine’s prospective membership . The United States and NATO rejected these demands and threatened severe economic sanctions.

On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion . Putin justified it as necessary to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine and to end alleged genocide of Russian speakers—claims widely rejected internationally .

The Missed Peace

In March 2022, just weeks into the war, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators met in Istanbul. They produced a draft communique that came remarkably close to ending the conflict. Ukraine agreed to permanent neutrality—foregoing NATO membership—in exchange for security guarantees from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom .

The agreement never took effect. Western officials reportedly discouraged Ukraine from pursuing the deal, and the discovery of alleged Russian war crimes in Bucha hardened positions on both sides . Putin has repeatedly cited this episode as evidence that the West prefers war to a negotiated settlement .

Since then, the conflict has ground through multiple phases—Ukrainian counteroffensives, Russian winter campaigns, and the 2024 Kursk incursion—with neither side able to achieve decisive victory .

SECTION TWO: THE CURRENT CRISIS – RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

The Nuclear Dimension

While the world watches the Gulf, a different kind of nuclear risk is growing in Europe. A British think tank, the Royal United Service Institute (RUSI), has warned that “Russia could conduct a successful limited ground incursion into European Nato territory” and that Moscow “may resort to the use of limited nuclear strikes against Nato territory” if it faces unacceptable conventional losses.

The timeline for Russian readiness is estimated at 2027-2030. That is not distant. That is next year.

The American Commitment

The fundamental problem is the perceived reliability of the US nuclear umbrella. RUSI notes that “the UK nuclear arsenal is not ‘sovereign’ from the US,” meaning that if Washington’s commitment wavers, the independence of the British deterrent is unclear. French nuclear forces are not integrated into NATO and are doctrine-limited to “existential threats” to France itself.

Neither the UK nor France possesses the tactical nuclear weapons that would allow a proportionate response to a limited Russian strike. Their options are effectively all-or-nothing.

Putin’s Calculus

Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to frame the war as a struggle against NATO expansion itself. The Institute for the Study of War notes that Putin “remains committed to his original 2021–2022 war objectives, which go far beyond territorial conquest and are not limited to Ukraine.” Those objectives include effectively dismantling the Alliance and reshaping Europe’s security architecture.

Putin’s peace is not peace. It is capitulation, dressed in diplomatic language.

The European Response

Europe is beginning to confront the implications. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, has been blunt: “Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity.” As the US pivots toward China-deterrence, European NATO members must prepare to carry more of their own weight.

Some are thinking radically. A proposal for a “Nordic nuclear deterrent” has been floated, arguing that the Nordic countries should consider a shared nuclear capability, integrated with NATO but providing an independent European backstop. The idea remains controversial, but the fact that it is being discussed at all signals how fundamentally the strategic landscape has shifted.

Current Status

Nearly four years since the full-scale invasion, Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of Ukraine—gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024 . Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 53,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine . 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.

The Trump administration has revived efforts to negotiate a settlement, setting out a twenty-point draft peace deal. Although Ukraine tentatively accepted the proposal after discussions in Geneva, many terms remain unclear. Russia has stated it will not agree to any amended deal that departs from the “spirit and letter” of Putin’s August summit with Trump in Alaska .

SECTION THREE: THE PERSIAN GULF – EDGE OF THE ABYSS

The Military Build-Up

The most immediate crisis is unfolding in the Middle East. Over the past week, the United States has conducted its largest military build-up in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a dozen US Air Force fighter jets—including F-35s, F-22s, F-15s, and F-16s—have landed in Israel, with accompanying refuelling tankers and support aircraft. These forces have been positioned to project power directly against Iran.

The build-up is not subtle. It is designed to be seen. The message to Tehran is unmistakable: the military option is real, it is ready, and it is getting closer.

The Diplomatic Dance

Yet even as the war machine assembles, the diplomatic track continues. The third round of US-Iran negotiations is scheduled for Thursday in Geneva. Iran is reportedly prepared to offer a “counter-proposal” that provides “more guarantees on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme” but refuses to permanently abandon enrichment or dismantle its ballistic missile program.

The US position, articulated by Vice President JD Vance, is stark: “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made clear that Iran’s refusal to discuss its missile program is “a big, big problem.”

The Israeli Factor

Behind the scenes, Israel is playing its familiar role. According to diplomatic sources, Israel is “doing everything it can to get the US to launch heavy strikes against Iran.” The 12-day war in June 2025 demonstrated Israel’s willingness to act unilaterally, but this time, they want American firepower fully engaged.

The Regional Response

The response from regional powers has been swift and telling. Australia has advised dependants of diplomats in Israel and Lebanon to leave, and has offered voluntary departures from the UAE, Qatar, and Jordan. The US has already pulled non-essential staff from its Beirut embassy. Several European and Asian nations have advised their citizens to leave Iran.

Airlines are suspending flights. KLM will halt Amsterdam-Tel Aviv routes from 1 March. The infrastructure of normal life is being dismantled in anticipation of what may come.

What Happens Next

The timeframe for possible action appears to be narrowing. Informed Egyptian analyst Samir Ragheb has suggested that a US strike could occur anytime between the end of February and 7 March. The key variables are:

1. The outcome of Geneva talks – If Iran offers sufficient concessions, action may be delayed

2. Israeli pressure – Netanyahu’s government continues to push for a harder line

3. Domestic US politics – Trump’s base has little appetite for another “forever war”

Analysis

Iran is at its weakest point in decades. Its “Axis of Resistance” has been significantly degraded by Israeli operations. Economic sanctions are biting. Domestic unrest has been growing. From Washington’s perspective, the window of maximum leverage is now.

But Iran is not Iraq. It has 92 million people, two million square kilometers of territory, and a deep civilisational identity. It has demonstrated capacity to hit regional US assets and to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil passes. A short war is the American hope. A long war is Iran’s strategy.

SECTION FOUR: THE THREAD CONNECTING THEM

Both crises share a common feature: the declining credibility of extended deterrence.

In the Gulf, America’s Arab partners are watching to see whether Washington will follow through on its threats. In Europe, NATO members are watching to see whether the US nuclear umbrella still protects them.

The answer, in both cases, is increasingly uncertain. The US National Security Strategy explicitly prioritises homeland defence and the Indo-Pacific, calling for a “readjusted global military presence.” Europe, the document states, must assume “primary responsibility for its own defence.”

This is not abandonment. It is strategic rebalancing. But the consequences are real, and they are being felt now.

CONCLUSION: WHAT COMES NEXT

The coming week will likely determine the near-term trajectory of the Iran crisis. If Geneva fails, military action becomes probable. If talks produce sufficient movement, the crisis may be deferred—but not resolved.

In Europe, the warning signs are flashing amber. The expiration of the last US-Russia nuclear treaty on 5 February leaves the strategic landscape more volatile than at any point since the Cold War. The Doomsday Clock has moved four seconds closer to midnight.

For our readers, the takeaway is simple: pay attention. The world is shifting beneath our feet. Alliances that have held for seventy years are being recalibrated. Nuclear risks that have lain dormant are reawakening.

We will continue to watch. We will continue to analyse. And we will continue to tell you what we see.

Next week: A deeper dive into the Strait of Hormuz and the global oil implications of a US-Iran conflict.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently watching the world shift and remembering that history ignored is history repeated.

THE SILENCING: How “Fighting Antisemitism” Became a License to Censor Genocide Critics

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch 

Introduction: The Burgers and the Bench

There’s a burger franchise in Boronia. Reasonable prices. Decent food. The man behind the franchise Hash Tayeh, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza. I’ve followed him on X for years. Never saw hate speech. Just someone who watched children die and refused to stay silent.

On Wednesday, 25th February 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found him guilty of racial and religious vilification . His crime? Leading a chant at a pro-Palestinian rally in March 2025: “All Zionists are terrorists.”

The same day that judgment was handed down, videos circulated online of people celebrating the burning deaths of Palestinian children. Laughing. Cheering. No charges. No accountability. No outrage from those who shape our laws.

Tayeh put it simply: “I keep asking myself what kind of world we are building when outrage at injustice is punished, but the celebration of human suffering is tolerated.”

This article examines that question. It traces how a fraudulent definition of antisemitism has been weaponized to silence critics of genocide. It documents the legal machinery being built to protect a foreign state from accountability. And it asks where we are headed—because when you cut through the rhetoric, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Part I: The Tayeh Case – A Warning Shot

The chant was “All Zionists are terrorists.” Judge My Anh Tran ruled that its natural effect was to incite hatred against Jewish people as a group.

Here’s the problem: Zionism is not a religion. It’s a political movement founded in the late 1880s by Theodor Herzl, an avowed atheist. It advocates for a Jewish state in historic Palestine. It has the same structural relationship to Judaism that Christian Zionism has to Christianity—a political ideology drawing on religious heritage, not a faith itself.

The court accepted that “Zionism” is a political ideology. But the chant targeted “All Zionists,” which Judge Tran ruled was aimed at “all supporters of the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state” . This moves the target from a specific government policy to a group defined by its support for the Jewish state—and therefore, in the court’s reasoning, to Jewish people themselves.

The judge acknowledged you can criticize governments. But you cannot, she ruled, incite hatred against a racial or religious group.

Except Zionism isn’t a race. It isn’t a religion. It’s a political position. And under this ruling, political criticism becomes a criminal offense.

Part II: The Definition That Was Never Adopted

This didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because Australia has been systematically adopting a definition of antisemitism that was never officially approved.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” includes two sentences and eleven examples. Seven of those examples involve criticism of Israel .

But here’s what the Israel lobby doesn’t tell you: the examples were never adopted by the IHRA Plenary.

Oxford University PhD candidate Jamie Stern-Weiner’s research, based on a confidential internal memo from an ambassador present at the May 2016 IHRA Plenary meeting, reveals the truth . Sweden and Denmark explicitly opposed including the examples. The Plenary agreed to adopt only the basic two-sentence definition. The examples were retained as “working material”—a rough draft, not an official definition .

Despite this, from approximately 2018 onwards, pro-Israel lobby groups began promoting the definition as if the examples were part of it . The misrepresentation has now been accepted by governments and institutions worldwide, including Australia.

Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the original definition, has publicly stated it’s being “weaponized” to silence criticism of Israel . He repudiated legislative efforts to codify it, recognizing exactly what would happen .

Part III: The Legal Machinery

Victoria has adopted the IHRA definition. The state has passed Australia’s strongest anti-vilification laws . A new civil scheme will come into full effect in April 2026, making it even easier to pursue complaints at VCAT.

The federal government’s Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 proposed similar measures, though the racial vilification provisions were ultimately dropped . But the momentum is clear.

The ACT is now reviewing its own anti-vilification laws, with the government stating that “strengthened laws could include increased penalties, or the inclusion of aggravated or additional offences to more clearly capture criminal conduct motivated by hate” .

The machinery is being built. And its primary effect, in practice, is to suppress speech critical of Israel.

The Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights puts it plainly: “The IHRA working definition of antisemitism has no place in law. The analysis presented here makes clear that the IHRA definition reproduces anti-Palestinian racism, exacerbates antisemitism, and serves as a tool of censorship of political speech, academic work, and civic engagement on matters of public importance, including criticism of Israel” .

Part IV: The Legal Contradiction – Wertheim v Haddad

There’s a problem with this whole edifice. Australian law already addresses it.

In Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720, handed down 1 July 2025, the Federal Court ruled on precisely this distinction.

Justice Angus Stewart found that 25 antisemitic imputations were conveyed in the respondent’s lectures. But crucially, he rejected imputations that sought to characterize criticism of Israel or Zionism as antisemitic.

His ruling is unequivocal:

“The ordinary, reasonable listener would understand that not all Jews are Zionists or support the actions of Israel in Gaza and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group”.

“Needless to say, political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity” .

The court established, as a matter of Australian law, that:

1. Criticism of Israel is not, in itself, antisemitic

2. Criticism of Zionism is criticism of an ideology, not a race or ethnic group

3. The distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is legally recognized and must be maintained

The IHRA definition, with its conflation of political criticism with racial hatred, sits in direct tension with this binding judicial authority.

Yet Hash Tayeh sits convicted.

Part V: The Genocide They Won’t Name

While this machinery grinds into motion, the killing continues.

More than 75,000 Palestinians have been murdered in Gaza . Tens of thousands more remain missing under rubble. Approximately 70% are women and children . Close to 300 journalists have been killed .

The International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution in September 2025 declaring Israel’s actions genocide, supported by 86% of voting members . Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov of Brown University, who initially resisted the conclusion, now states unequivocally: “My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people” . Israeli professor Raz Segal of Stockton University called it a “textbook case” .

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, named after the man who coined the term, has documented how genocide denial is being normalized in Western political discourse . It accuses Germany of complicity, noting that organizations receiving public funding disseminate “disinformation and denialist narratives” while major media outlets become “the Israeli government’s most loyal mouthpiece” .

At Trump’s inaugural “Board of Peace” meeting in Washington, there was no mention of these 75,000 dead. Trump’s envoy thanked Benjamin Netanyahu—an internationally indicted war criminal—and spoke exclusively of Israeli captives . Palestinian suffering was erased entirely.

As one analyst noted: “Peace that exonerates the perpetrators and silences the victims is not peace. It is the normalization of barbarism and the impunity of genocide” .

Part VI: What’s Being Silenced

The IHRA definition is not about protecting Jews from discrimination. Existing anti-discrimination laws already do that.

The definition’s purpose, in practice, is to shield Israel from accountability. The seven examples involving Israel are not accidental. They are structural—designed to ensure that any serious criticism of Israeli policy can be framed as antisemitic.

The effect is to criminalize:

· Arguments that Israel is an ethno-state

· Comparisons of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

· Accusations of genocide (even when documented by genocide scholars)

· Demands that Israel be held to the same standards as other nations

As one analysis notes, “This prohibition extends not only to direct comparisons, but to any claim that Israel is by its very nature an ethno-state, or that it is currently engaging in genocide, creating concentration camps, planning for mass expulsions, or engaging in other war crimes or crimes against humanity” .

When genocide scholars, international courts, and UN investigators document these realities, they are accused of antisemitism. When a Melbourne man leads a chant about Zionists, he is convicted.

The message is clear: you may not speak truth about what Israel is doing. You may not name genocide. You may not criticize the ideology that justifies it.

Part VII: The Double Standard

The IHRA definition commits the very acts it claims to oppose.

It creates a double standard for Israel by proscribing language and criticism that no institution proscribes with respect to any other country . I can criticize Hindu nationalism in India, White nationalism in South Africa, discrimination in Hungary. I cannot criticize Israel for doing the same—or worse.

It stereotypes Jews by assuming that all Jews identify fully with Israel and with the nature of Israel as a Jewish state . Yet the document simultaneously denounces stereotyping Jews. The contradiction is baked in.

It creates impunity for genocide by shielding Israel from the accusations that would be leveled against any other nation committing these acts .

As the Rutgers Center concludes: “Singling out antisemitism as the only form of racism deserving of a separate definition is not only unnecessary to protect Jews from discrimination, but also may give rise to antisemitic conspiracies about Jews controlling the government” .

Part VIII: Where We Are Headed

Hash Tayeh’s conviction is not an isolated case. It’s a warning.

The machinery is being built. The definition is being embedded. The penalties are being strengthened. The ACT is reviewing its laws . The federal government attempted to pass similar measures . Victoria has already enacted them.

And every time someone speaks out against what is happening in Gaza, they risk becoming the next Hash Tayeh.

The Iranian Foreign Minister warned at the Al Jazeera Forum that “impunity for attacks on civilians risks normalising military domination as a guiding principle of international relations” . The Somali President cautioned that “the foundations of global governance are weakening” and that “the institutions created after World War II are under grave threat” .

This is where we are headed. A world where the law is replaced by force. Where genocide proceeds with impunity. Where those who speak truth are silenced.

And where a man in Boronia can be convicted for chanting about Zionists while people celebrate the burning of Palestinian children without consequence.

Conclusion: The Question

Hash Tayeh asked the question we should all be asking:

“Who decides which voices are dangerous and which hatred gets a free pass?”

The answer is becoming clear. Those with power decide. Those who control the definitions decide. Those who can frame criticism as hate decide.

The IHRA definition gives them that power. The courts enforce it. The media amplifies it. And the killing continues.

More than 75,000 dead. Tens of thousands missing. A generation of children erased. And the response from our institutions is to tighten laws against those who speak out.

This is not about combating antisemitism. Real antisemitism—attacks on synagogues, harassment of Jewish individuals, Holocaust denial—is already illegal. Those laws remain on the books. This new machinery adds nothing to their enforcement.

What it adds is the power to punish speech that offends a foreign government’s political interests. Speech that names genocide. Speech that demands accountability.

You are free to criticize any country’s actions—as long as that country is not Israel. You are free to denounce any ideology—as long as that ideology is not Zionism. You are free to oppose any war—as long as that war is not in Gaza.

That’s not freedom. That’s a license to censor. And it’s being used to shield genocide from scrutiny.

The question is whether we will accept it. Whether we will let them silence us while children burn. Whether we will let them build this machinery of suppression while pretending it’s about protecting anyone.

I know my answer. What’s yours?

References

1. Sydney Criminal Lawyers. (2025). “Envoy Pressures Australia to Adopt a Fraudulent Antisemitism Definition.” August 14, 2025. 

2. ACT Government. (2026). “Review of anti-vilification laws in the ACT.” February 26, 2026. 

3. Law Society Journal. (2026). “Understanding the federal government’s proposed hate speech laws.” January 15, 2026. 

4. Foreign Policy in Focus. (2025). “Preventing Criticism of Israel by Defining It as Antisemitic.” August 4, 2025. 

5. Al Jazeera. (2026). “Israel’s Gaza genocide risks global order, leaders warn.” February 7, 2026. 

6. New Age BD. (2026). “Aggrandising theatre and impunity of genocide.” February 22, 2026. 

7. Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. (2025). “Issue Brief: Threats to Free Speech and Palestinian Civil Rights – The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.” September 22, 2025. 

8. Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention. (2026). “Genocide institute accuses Germany of complicity in Gaza genocide.” January 13, 2026. 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He lives in Boronia, where he occasionally buys burgers from a franchise owned by a man now convicted for political speech.

SUBMISSION TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ANTISEMITISM AND SOCIAL COHESION

Posted on by
Reply

Submitted by: Dr. Andrew Klein

Date: February 2026

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

I make this submission as an Australian citizen deeply concerned about the integrity of this inquiry and its capacity to address the complex reality of racism in Australia. I am not represented by any organisation. My interest is in ensuring that this Commission fulfils its mandate honestly, thoroughly, and without predetermined outcomes.

This submission addresses four critical areas:

1. The definitional problem – why the IHRA working definition is unsuitable and has been adopted on false premises

2. The legal framework – the distinction between antisemitism and legitimate political criticism as affirmed by the Federal Court

3. The procedural concerns – rushed timelines, secret submissions, and the appearance of pre-determination

4. The missing context – the selective focus on one form of racism while others are ignored

PART ONE: THE DEFINITIONAL PROBLEM

The IHRA Definition Has Been Adopted on False Premises

The Commission’s terms of reference require it to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism. This decision is fundamentally flawed for reasons that go to the integrity of the definition itself.

Independent doctoral research by Oxford University PhD candidate Jamie Stern-Weiner has demonstrated that the IHRA definition, as currently promoted, rests on a misrepresentation of what was actually adopted by the IHRA Plenary .

Key findings of this research:

· In May 2016, the IHRA Plenary in Bucharest agreed to adopt only the basic two‑sentence definition that precedes the examples: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities” .

· The eleven examples that follow—seven of which involve criticism of Israel—were not adopted by the Plenary. Sweden and Denmark explicitly opposed their inclusion, and the examples were retained only as working material, not as an official part of the definition .

· Despite this, from approximately 2018 onwards, pro‑Israel lobby groups began promoting the definition as if the examples were part of it, a misrepresentation that has now been widely accepted by governments and institutions .

· The lead drafter of the original 2005 EUMC definition (on which IHRA’s is based), Kenneth Stern, has publicly stated that the definition has been “weaponized” to silence criticism of Israel .

The Consequences of This Misrepresentation

The practical effect of adopting the IHRA definition with its contested examples is to conflate legitimate political discourse with racial hatred. The eleven examples include:

· “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”

· “Applying double standards to Israel by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”

· “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” 

Each of these examples potentially captures speech that is political, not racial. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) has stated that the IHRA definition “has been widely documented to conflate legitimate criticism of the State of Israel and its policies with racial hatred of Jewish people” and has been “weaponised to silence advocacy for Palestinian rights, shield Israel from accountability, and marginalise communities who speak out” .

International Criticism

The IHRA definition has been rejected by numerous legal and human rights bodies. The lead drafter Kenneth Stern himself warned in 2010—updated in 2021—that “right-wing Jews” (in context, Zionists) were weaponising the definition as “a blunt instrument to silence criticism of Israel and its rights abuses” .

The General Delegation of Palestine in Canberra has stated that the IHRA definition is “widely criticized and discredited for conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism,” noting that this “dangerous false conflation distorts and trivializes the real and grave threat of antisemitism in order to shield Israel from being held accountable to global standards of human rights and international law” .

PART TWO: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK – FEDERAL COURT CLARIFICATION

Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720

On 1 July 2025, the Federal Court of Australia delivered a landmark judgment in Wertheim v Haddad. Justice Angus Stewart made findings that are directly relevant to this Commission’s work.

Critical findings:

· The Court found that 25 antisemitic imputations were conveyed in the respondent’s lectures, including that Jews are “conspiratorial, wicked, schemers, treacherous and vile” .

· However, Justice Stewart explicitly rejected imputations that sought to characterise criticism of Israel or Zionism as antisemitic. His Honour stated:

“The conclusion that it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; the one flows from the other” .

· Most importantly, Justice Stewart ruled:

“The ordinary, reasonable listener would understand that not all Jews are Zionists or support the actions of Israel in Gaza and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group” .

“Needless to say, political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity” .

Implications for the Commission

The Federal Court has now established, as a matter of Australian law, that:

1. Criticism of Israel is not, in itself, antisemitic.

2. Criticism of Zionism is criticism of an ideology, not a race or ethnic group.

3. The distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is legally recognised and must be maintained.

The Commission’s adoption of the IHRA definition, which blurs or erases these distinctions, places it in direct tension with binding judicial authority.

PART THREE: PROCEDURAL CONCERNS

The Rushed Timeline

The Commission is required to deliver an interim report by 30 April 2026 and a final report by 14 December 2026 . Former Royal Commissioner Ron Sackville AO KC has stated that “21 to 24 months would be a much more realistic estimate” for an inquiry of this scope .

Commissioner Virginia Bell has acknowledged that the timeline “imposes a tight time frame and it’s going to impose limitations on how the commission approaches its terms of reference” . She has already indicated that delays in obtaining ASIO material mean she will not be able to “adduce evidence concerning the adequacy of the security arrangements for the Chanukah event, and aspects of the effectiveness of the work of intelligence and law enforcement agencies” before the interim report deadline .

Public Submissions

The Commission’s website went live only weeks before submissions opened. Public submissions close after approximately three months . This is inadequate time for community organisations and individuals to prepare considered responses, particularly given the complexity of the issues.

The ASIO Submission

The independent intelligence review by former ASIO chief Dennis Richardson has been incorporated into the Commission. Its contents remain secret. There have been “delays in obtaining and accessing ASIO material” because intelligence agencies “have had to seek legal advice on a variety of matters” .

While Mr Richardson has stated that ASIO has been “absolutely” cooperative , the lack of transparency about what has been submitted, and the delays in accessing material, undermine public confidence in the process.

The Counsel Question

The Commission has engaged counsel who previously signed a letter defending Israel’s actions in Gaza . This creates an appearance of partiality that is incompatible with the requirements of a fair and independent inquiry. A Royal Commission must not only be impartial but must be seen to be impartial.

The Excluded Voices

Commissioner Bell has made clear that the Commission “will not hear from other groups about Australia’s broader difficulties with racism.” Her stated justification is: “Against the background of the massacre of innocent people, who appear to have been targeted simply because they were Jewish, I trust everyone will appreciate why the focus of this Commission will be on tackling antisemitism as a starting point” .

This approach is deeply problematic. It creates a hierarchy of racism in which some forms of bigotry are deemed worthy of national inquiry while others are ignored. The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils has documented “the alarming rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian discrimination across Australia”  and has called for “a parallel commitment to addressing” these forms of racism . The Commission’s refusal to examine them sends a damaging message about whose suffering counts.

PART FOUR: THE POLITICAL CONTEXT

The Envoy’s Plan

Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism, released 10 July 2025, recommends:

· Adoption of the IHRA definition at “all levels of government and public institutions”

· Charging the Envoy with monitoring media and universities for antisemitism

· Issuing “report cards” to universities with potential funding consequences 

The plan was developed without meaningful consultation with communities most likely to be affected by it. AFIC has stated that “no meaningful consultation with the communities who have borne the brunt of rising Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, and political repression” occurred .

The Manufactured Crisis

Sydney experienced a series of antisemitic incidents over the 2024/25 summer. Police later revealed these were “manufactured by overseas actors, hiring gig criminals to commit the crimes in order to convey an antisemitism crisis to serve their own purposes” . A similar pattern appears to be emerging regarding the arson attack on the Addas Israel Synagogue in Melbourne .

These revelations fundamentally alter the context in which this Commission was established. The urgency that drove its creation was, at least in part, based on fabricated events.

PART FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the evidence set out above, I respectfully make the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Reconsider the IHRA Definition

The Commission should reconsider its adoption of the IHRA definition in light of:

· The Oxford PhD research demonstrating it was never officially adopted with its examples

· The Federal Court ruling distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism

· The warnings from definition drafters that it is being weaponised

The Commission should either adopt the definition without the examples, or develop an alternative definition that does not conflate political criticism with racial hatred.

Recommendation 2: Extend the Timeline

The Commission should seek an extension to allow proper investigation of the matters within its terms of reference. A minimum of 18–24 months is required for adequate inquiry.

Recommendation 3: Ensure Transparency

All submissions made to the Commission, including the ASIO materials, should be made publicly available in redacted form where necessary. The Commission should publish a clear statement of what materials have been received and from whom.

Recommendation 4: Broaden the Scope

The Commission should be directed to examine all forms of racism equally, or a separate inquiry should be established to examine Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, and discrimination against other affected communities.

Recommendation 5: Maintain Judicial Clarity

The Commission’s findings and recommendations should be explicitly framed to accord with the Federal Court’s ruling in Wertheim v Haddad, maintaining the legal distinction between:

· Criticism of Israel (protected political speech)

· Criticism of Zionism (criticism of an ideology)

· Antisemitism (racial hatred against Jewish people)

Recommendation 6: Address the Root Causes

The Commission should examine why antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents have both risen since October 2023, and what policy responses might address both forms of racism simultaneously. Selective responses that privilege one community’s safety over another’s will not strengthen social cohesion—they will undermine it.

CONCLUSION

A Royal Commission must be, above all else, a search for truth. It must be independent, impartial, and thorough. It must listen to all affected voices. It must be seen to do justice.

This Commission, as currently constituted and directed, risks failing each of these requirements. It has adopted a contested definition on false premises. It operates under a timeline that precludes adequate inquiry. It excludes voices that should be heard. It appears to have been influenced by events now revealed as manufactured.

None of this diminishes the reality of antisemitism in Australia. Jewish Australians do face prejudice and discrimination. They do deserve protection and support. But protecting one community must not come at the cost of silencing others. Responding to racism must not mean creating hierarchies of suffering.

I urge the Commission to reconsider its approach. The truth—all of it—deserves nothing less.

Submitted electronically

February 2026

Dr. Andrew Klein

Victoria

BEYOND THE GOLDEN HAZE: The Shared History of China and Australia

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

February 2026

Introduction: A Relationship Older Than the Nation

Before there was an Australia, there was a continent. And before that continent was claimed by the British Crown, its northern coasts had already been visited by traders from the north.

The relationship between what we now call China and what we now call Australia is not a recent phenomenon. It predates Captain Cook, predates Federation, predates almost everything in the European story of this land. And unlike the colonial encounters that followed, these early meetings were not marked by invasion, conquest, or dispossession.

This article traces that long history. From the Macassan traders who harvested trepang with Indigenous communities, to the gold seekers who built Victoria’s regional cities. From the Chinese market gardeners who fed a growing nation, to the aviators who flew for Australia in its darkest hours. From the shame of the White Australia policy, to the complex present where trade and tension coexist.

It is a story of contribution, resilience, and too often, forgetting. But it is also a story of family—including my own.

Part I: Before the Flag—Pre-Colonial Encounters

The Northern Trade

Long before any European set foot on this continent, the northern coasts of Australia were known to Asian traders.

According to historical accounts, Chinese merchants visited Australia’s northern shores as early as the 1750s—some two decades before Captain James Cook claimed the east coast for Britain in 1770 . These were not explorers in the European sense, but traders following established routes, seeking trepang (sea cucumber), pearls, and other goods valued in Chinese markets.

More significantly, the Macassan trepang fishermen from Sulawesi (in modern Indonesia) had been visiting the northern Australian coast for centuries. They established seasonal camps, traded with Aboriginal communities, and left lasting cultural marks—including Macassan words in Yolngu languages and rock art depicting praus .

These were trade relationships, not colonial ones. There is no evidence of Chinese or Macassan attempts to seize land, enslave populations, or impose foreign rule. They came, they traded, they left. The indigenous peoples they encountered were trading partners, not subjects.

The First Settler

In 1818, Mak Sai Ying (also known as John Shying), a native of Guangdong province, became the first recorded Chinese settler in Australia . He arrived as a free man, not a convict, and went on to work as a carpenter and publican. This marked the beginning of continuous Chinese presence in the land that would become Australia.

Part II: The Rush That Changed Everything—Gold and the Chinese Arrival

The Discovery

When gold was discovered in New South Wales and Victoria in 1851, it triggered one of the largest migrations in human history. And among those who came were tens of thousands of Chinese.

Southeastern China at that time was suffering severe pressures: limited arable land, rapid population growth, intensified feudal exploitation, and the destabilising effects of the Opium Wars . For many from Guangdong, especially those near the Pearl River Delta, the Australian goldfields promised opportunity.

The Numbers

By 1857, there were approximately 40,000 Chinese on the Victorian goldfields . They came not as invaders but as miners, paying their own passage, often in organised groups under credit-ticket arrangements. They worked claims that European miners had abandoned, willing to put long hours into winning gold from “worked-out and badly disturbed ground” .

The Towns They Built

The Chinese presence was not peripheral. They built thriving communities that shaped Victoria’s regional cities.

Ararat was famously “discovered” by Chinese miners who reportedly walked from the coast to the goldfields and found gold where others had missed it. The town’s Gum San Chinese Heritage Centre commemorates this history.

Bendigo and Ballarat grew with significant Chinese populations. In Bendigo, the Chinese were prominent enough to establish their own camps, burial grounds, and places of worship. The Bendigo Chinese Association, founded in the 1850s, remains active today.

Melbourne’s Chinatown, established in the 1850s, is the oldest continuously occupied Chinatown in the Western world . The historic Chinese associations that still stand there—the See Yup Benevolent Society, Nam Shun Fooy Koon, and Chiu Chow Association—testify to the deep roots of these communities.

Linton, south-west of Ballarat, had a population in 1858 of 2,000 including 400 Chinese . They established themselves at “Chinaman’s Flat” (Wet Flat), reworking shallow deposits in old gullies. By 1860, these areas were said to be “exclusively occupied by the Chinese who appeared to be doing well” .

Market Gardens

When the gold ran out, many Chinese turned to market gardening. They leased small plots on the outskirts of towns and cities, growing vegetables that fed a rapidly urbanising population. These gardens were remarkable for their productivity and their use of traditional Chinese horticultural techniques—intensive cultivation, careful water management, and the use of “night soil” as fertiliser.

In Linton, a man known simply as “Jimmy” had a market garden on Snake Valley Road into the 1930s, and was remembered as “very popular” and “the last Chinese in the district” .

A Note on Cannibalism Rumours

You asked about rumours of Indigenous people eating Chinese sailors. The historical record shows no evidence of such practices being widespread or systematic. As you observed, one does not eat one’s trading partners. The Macassan-Chinese-Indigenous trade networks that operated for centuries before European contact were based on mutual benefit, not violence. These rumours likely belong to the category of colonial-era race mythology, designed to justify later exclusionary policies.

Part III: The Chinese Contribution to National Development

Infrastructure and Commerce

Beyond mining and market gardening, Chinese Australians contributed to virtually every sector of the developing economy.

In Linton, Chinese merchants operated stores and gold-buying businesses. Ah Quong had a store at Wet Flat. Sin Kee and Wong Chung ran businesses on the Geelong Road. Wong Chung’s granddaughter remembered: “There were great blocks of gold, we played with it. I would run sovereigns between my fingers” .

Ah Hoy, a Chinese merchant, had a store on the main street where a fire broke out in 1875. Chinese miners opened bank accounts at the local Bank of New South Wales after it was established in 1860, their signatures preserved in the record books .

Trades and Professions

Chinese Australians worked as carpenters, blacksmiths, storekeepers, and labourers. They built roads, cleared land, and worked as shepherds. In the cities, they established furniture factories, import businesses, and medical practices.

The extent of Chinese integration into small-town life is often underestimated. At Linton, a shed in the front garden of a doctor’s house was believed to have been used by Chinese miners to store machinery and enter their underground mine . Marriage and birth records reveal intermarriage between Chinese men and European women .

The Argyle Mine Disaster

In 1881, the flooding of the Argyle mine became “the worst disaster on the Linton goldfield” . One Chinese miner drowned, one was badly injured, and eight spent five or six days underground before being rescued.

Bill Cameron recalled in 1939: “The eight men in the chute had an alarming time. The water rose 27 feet in the main shaft and they soon became short of air. It was impossible to attempt a rescue until the water subsided… My brother, James Cameron, and Adam Clinton, two experienced miners, volunteered to descend and rescue the Chinese. Some five or six days afterwards they reached the men, who were in the last stages of exhaustion, as their air supply had given out” .

These eight men were not “Chinese miners” in the abstract. They were neighbours, colleagues, part of the community. Their rescue was a community effort.

Part IV: The Ugly Interlude—White Australia

The Immigration Restriction Act 1901

One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the new Federal Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901—popularly known as the White Australia policy .

Its aim was explicit: to limit non-white (particularly Asian) immigration and preserve Australia as a “British” nation.

The Dictation Test

The mechanism was the dictation test. Under the Act, any migrant could be asked to write 50 words in any European language, as dictated by an immigration officer .

After 1905, the officer could choose any language at all. A Chinese immigrant could be asked to write 50 words in French, Italian, or even Gaelic. Failure meant deportation.

Few could pass under these circumstances. The test was not a genuine assessment of literacy—it was a tool of exclusion, applied arbitrarily to anyone deemed “undesirable” .

The Human Cost

The White Australia policy devastated Chinese Australian communities. Families were separated. Men who had lived in Australia for decades were deemed “aliens.” Women and children were denied entry. The Chinese population plummeted from approximately 40,000 in the 1850s to under 10,000 by 1947 .

The policy forced many to hide their ancestry. Children of mixed marriages were raised as “European” where possible. Chinese-language schools closed. Community organisations struggled to survive.

Forced Assimilation and Erasure

The cemetery at Linton tells part of this story. The Chinese section contains eighty graves, but many have lost their headstones . Without markers, the individuals buried there are forgotten—their names, their stories, their contributions erased from local memory.

Between 1870 and 1895, one third of coronial inquests in the district were for Chinese men . Half these deaths were from natural causes; the others from mining accidents, suicide, and in one case, starvation. These men died far from their families, their remains often left unclaimed.

The Vaughan Chinese Cemetery

The Vaughan Chinese Cemetery near Castlemaine stands as a rare surviving artefact of this history . Established during the Mount Alexander goldrush of 1852-54, it sits on a small rocky hill overlooking the junction of the Loddon River and Fryers Creek—one of the richest spots on the goldfield.

The cemetery remained in use until 1857. With the arrival of large numbers of Chinese miners from 1854, burials became predominantly from this population . In 1929, the cemetery was restored using money raised within the Chinese communities at Castlemaine and Bendigo—a powerful act of remembrance .

The End of White Australia

The Immigration Restriction Act and dictation test were abolished in 1958 . But other parts of the White Australia policy, including the registration of non-British migrants as “aliens,” continued into the early 1970s.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 made it illegal to discriminate based on race, removing the last legal traces of the policy . But the social and psychological damage endured for generations.

Part V: Fighting for Australia—Chinese Australian Service in Wartime

The Second World War

Despite the White Australia policy—or perhaps because of it—Chinese Australians enlisted in large numbers during the Second World War. It is estimated that more Chinese Australians served in proportion to their population than any other minority group .

Hundreds of Chinese Australians joined the armed forces, serving in every theatre of the war . Women of Chinese descent also served—Phillis Anguey as a senior sister in the Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service (1940-45), and Eunice Chinn in the Australian Army Signal Corps .

The Aviators

Thomas See was the first Australian of Chinese origin to enter the Royal Australian Air Force. He later served as a bombing leader in Europe and flew long-range aircraft over the Atlantic .

Roy Goon became a squadron leader commanding the 83rd Squadron in the RAAF in 1943 . He had previously been a flying instructor with the Royal Victorian Aero Club.

Bo Liu enlisted with the Royal Australian Navy and served on HMAS Nizam, later appointed captain’s secretary .

My Uncle: Lim Kean Chong

Flying Officer Lim Kean Chong, service number 430283, was a RAAF bomber pilot in World War II .

Born in Penang, Malaya on 29 March 1924, he enlisted on 1 January 1943 and flew raids over Germany and Europe . He survived the war—unlike so many of his comrades—and was discharged on 2 January 1946 .

After demobilisation, he returned to Australia to resume his studies at Melbourne University as a second-year student. But he was met not with gratitude, but with bureaucracy. The Immigration Department asked him to register as an alien student . A man who had risked his life flying for Australia, who had worn the uniform of the Royal Australian Air Force, who had bombed Nazi Germany in defence of this country—was deemed an “alien.”

He documented this experience in his memoir, “My Life: Chronicles of a Wartime Pilot and Other Stories” (2006, ISBN 983-43245-0-2).

This was the White Australia policy in action. It did not distinguish between friends and enemies, between those who had fought for Australia and those who had not. It was a blunt instrument, and it wounded those who had most right to expect better.

Labour for Victory

Beyond combat service, Chinese Australians made vital contributions to the war effort at home. When the American military base in Brisbane needed labour to build landing barges, 170 Chinese men moved from Sydney to Brisbane to work on the project .

They were not conscripted. They volunteered. They did the work that needed doing.

Lest We Forget

The Museum of Chinese Australian History’s 2025 ANZAC Day event, “Lest We Forget,” honoured these servicemen and women . Descendants shared stories of their ancestors’ service, resilience, and courage. Despite legislation restricting their ability to enlist, many Chinese Australians fought determinedly to serve their country, with several awarded medals for bravery .

The four Langtip brothers saw action in the Middle East. Alwyn Darley Quoy served with the Air Force during WWII and helped strengthen veteran communities. Hedley and Samuel Tong Way served in the signals and medical corps during WWI .

They were not “Chinese soldiers.” They were Australians. Full stop.

Part VI: Contemporary Communities and Contributions

The Numbers Today

Today, Australians of Chinese descent number approximately 1.4 million, comprising 5.5 percent of the national population . They are not a monolith—they come from mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and elsewhere, speaking multiple languages and dialects, practicing different traditions.

Cultural Centres and Education

Across Australia, Chinese cultural centres work to educate both Chinese Australians and the broader community about Chinese history, language, and culture. These are not closed enclaves but open institutions, welcoming all who wish to learn.

Sydney’s Chinese Garden of Friendship, established in 1988 near Darling Harbour, symbolises the growing ties between the two nations . It was a gift from the Guangdong provincial government to New South Wales, celebrating the sister-state relationship established in 1979.

Chinese Language in Australian Schools

Many Chinese Australians choose to send their children to Australian schools while maintaining Mandarin at home. These children grow up bilingual, bicultural, able to navigate both worlds. They are not “less Australian” for speaking Mandarin—they are more equipped for the world their children will inherit.

The Education Economy

Chinese students are a vital part of Australia’s education export industry. They pay full fees, support local economies, and enrich campus life. When political tensions rise, the education sector feels it first. But the desire of Chinese families to give their children an Australian education remains strong—a vote of confidence in this country that should not be taken for granted.

Crime Statistics

The suggestion that Chinese Australians are disproportionately involved in crime is not supported by evidence. Like any population group of 1.4 million, there are individuals who break the law. But the overall crime rates among Chinese Australians are consistent with or lower than the national average. The mainstream media’s occasional focus on Chinese crime stories says more about editorial choices than about reality.

Part VII: Trade and Tension—The Contemporary Relationship

The Economic Reality

China is Australia’s largest trading partner . In the decade since the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (CHAFTA) was signed, Australia’s share of China’s import base has grown from 4.5% to 5.7% . Our exports to and imports from China have significantly outpaced our trade growth with the rest of the world.

This is not a matter of opinion—it is arithmetic.

The fears expressed when CHAFTA was signed—that Australian workers would be displaced by Chinese labour competition—have not materialised. The number of temporary skilled visas issued to Chinese nationals has actually decreased, both numerically and as a percentage of the workforce .

Economic Independence

The relationship is often framed as one of dependence—Australia “relying” on Chinese trade, therefore vulnerable to coercion. The evidence of the last decade suggests this framing is wrong.

Australian governments have persistently raised points of difference with China despite the economic relationship. Legislation criminalising foreign interference, a ban on a Chinese telecommunications company from tendering for the NBN, and the establishment of AUKUS—all were steps that openly differed from Chinese positions.

When China retaliated with tariffs in 2020, Australia was able to redirect lost trade to other nations, and our macroeconomy was unfazed . Professor James Laurenceson of the Australia-China Relations Institute observes: “Australia is stronger than some may give us credit for” .

The Threat Narrative

The current debate over a “threat from China” is politically motivated. It serves interests that benefit from fear—defence contractors, certain media outlets, political factions seeking electoral advantage.

But it comes at a cost. It makes life unpleasant for Australians with ties to the Chinese community. It creates suspicion where none is warranted. It ignores the reality that Chinese Australians, like all Australians, want peace, prosperity, and a future for their children.

Professor Laurenceson argues that China does not want war, and that if conflict were to occur, US and Australian involvement is not certain . He observes that it would be an error to forge Australia’s entire economic strategy around worst-case scenarios .

The Multilateral Dimension

Australia’s bilateral trade with China does not diminish its engagement with the multilateral trading order. Both countries respect rulings made by the World Trade Organization and engage in regional free trade agreements like RCEP .

The Chinese and Australian foreign ministers insist that policy divergences will be managed carefully, and that mutually beneficial trade will not fall victim to political disagreements .

Conclusion: What We Owe to History

The history of China and Australia is not a simple story. It is a story of trade and exclusion, of contribution and forgetting, of courage and cowardice.

Chinese miners helped build Victoria’s regional cities. Chinese market gardeners fed a growing nation. Chinese merchants established businesses that lasted generations. Chinese aviators flew and died for Australia in its darkest hour.

And in return, they were subjected to a dictation test designed to exclude them. They were registered as “aliens” after fighting for this country. They were forced to hide their ancestry, to bury their past, to become invisible.

The White Australia policy was a shameful episode. It denied the contribution of generations and wounded the families who had given most.

Today, 1.4 million Chinese Australians call this country home. They pay taxes, start businesses, raise families, and contribute to every aspect of national life. They are not a “threat” to be managed but a community to be embraced.

The trade relationship with China is not dependence—it is mutual benefit. It has survived political tensions and will continue to do so.

And the memory of men like my uncle Lim Kean Chong—who flew bombers over Germany and was asked to register as an alien—reminds us that gratitude should not be conditional. That service should be honoured regardless of ancestry. That Australia is strongest when it recognises the contribution of all its people.

The Chinese-Australian story is not a sidebar to Australian history. It is Australian history. It is time we told it properly.

References

1. Australian Institute of International Affairs. (2025). “Assessing the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement’s first decade.” 

2. Heritage Council Victoria. “Vaughan Chinese Cemetery.” Victorian Heritage Database. 

3. National Archives of Australia. “The Immigration Restriction Act 1901.” 

4. National Museum of Australia. “Chinese Australians in the Second World War.” 

5. Virtual War Memorial Australia. “Kean Chong LIM.” Service record 430283. 

6. Guangdong Foreign Affairs Office. (2024). “Guangdong-Australia relations: A history of shared connections.” 

7. Chinese-Australian Historical Images. “Linton (Victoria) (1854-1930s).” Museum of Chinese Australian History. 

8. Western Sydney University. (2014). “Invisible Australians: Chinese Australian women’s experiences of belonging and exclusion in the White Australia Policy era, 1901-1973.” 

9. Museum of Chinese Australian History. (2025). “Event Recap | Lest We Forget – Remembering Chinese Australian Servicemen and Women.” 

10. Wikipedia. “China–Australia relations” (Chinese edition). 

11. Lim, Kean Chong. (2006). My Life: Chronicles of a Wartime Pilot and Other Stories. ISBN 983-43245-0-2.

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is the nephew of Flying Officer Lim Kean Chong, RAAF, and carries his uncle’s story as part of his own.

THE ETERNAL METAL: Gold’s 6,500-Year Journey from Divine Symbol to Digital Rival

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

February 2026

Introduction: The Metal That Calls to Us

Gold is not just another metal. It never was.

Its chemical symbol is Au, from the Latin aurum meaning “shining dawn” . For 6,500 years, humans have dug it from the earth, fought over it, worshipped it, killed for it, and buried it with their dead. It does not corrode. It does not tarnish. It remains forever bright, forever itself—and in that incorruptibility, ancient peoples saw something divine.

This article traces gold’s long journey. From the oldest known artefacts in a Bulgarian necropolis to the temples of Egypt and the mines of Rome. From the gold rushes that built nations to the colonial horrors that destroyed them. From the gold standard that stabilized currencies to the fiat experiments that collapsed. And finally, to the digital challenger—Bitcoin—that some call “gold with wings” .

Because gold’s story is not just about metal. It is about us. Our longing for permanence. Our willingness to destroy for beauty. Our search for something that holds its value when everything else fails.

Part I: The First Gold—6,500 Years of History

The Varna Necropolis: Birthplace of Gold Metallurgy

In 1972, construction workers near Lake Varna in Bulgaria made a discovery that rewrote history. Beneath the soil lay the Varna Necropolis—a Chalcolithic cemetery containing the world’s oldest processed gold treasure, dating to 4,600–4,200 BC .

Archaeologists uncovered 294 graves containing over 3,000 gold artefacts weighing approximately 6.5 kilograms total. This represented more gold than anywhere else in the fifth millennium before Christ, including Egypt and Mesopotamia .

Grave 43 was extraordinary: 1.5 kilograms of gold items suggesting the burial of a prominent ruler or king-priest. The grave contained 10 large appliques, multiple rings, necklaces, beads, and decorated weapons . This was not primitive ornamentation—it was royal insignia, proof that sophisticated social hierarchy existed 6,500 years ago.

The gold itself was divided into 28 distinct artefact types including beads, 23.5-carat rings, scepters, bracelets, and animal-shaped plaques . Metallurgical analysis revealed Varna craftspeople employed lost-wax casting and advanced forging techniques—methods requiring considerable technical knowledge .

This culture did not exist in isolation. Archaeological evidence shows the Varna civilization maintained extensive trade networks reaching the Lower Volga region, the Cyclades, the Mediterranean, and the Danube rivers . They were not primitive. They were sophisticated—and they valued gold above all else.

Then, abruptly, the Varna culture disappeared. No clear evidence explains their fate. Environmental change? Conflict? We do not know. But their gold remains—a testament to a forgotten advanced European civilization that predated the better-known cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia .

Gold in Ancient Civilizations

The Varna discovery pushes back the timeline, but gold appears in every ancient civilization we know.

In Egypt, gold was called the “flesh of the gods.” The Pharaohs were buried with golden masks—most famously Tutankhamun’s 11-kilogram death mask—because gold’s incorruptibility symbolized eternal life . Egyptian texts from 4000 BCE already record the value ratio between gold and silver (13:1) .

In Mesopotamia, the Sumer civilization produced gold jewellery as early as 3000 BCE. The city of Ur created the first gold chains around 2500 BCE .

In the Indus Valley, gold beads and ornaments appear in the earliest strata.

In China, gold working developed independently. The Shang dynasty (1600–1046 BCE) produced sophisticated gold foil and ornaments . By the Spring and Autumn period (770–476 BCE), the state of Chu was issuing gold currency—square gold plaques called Ying Yuan stamped with the city’s name, among the world’s earliest gold coins .

In the Americas, gold was worked in isolation from the Old World. The Chavin civilization of Peru (1200 BCE) created gold objects, and the Nazca perfected gold casting from 500 BCE . For the Inca, gold was considered the sweat of the sun god Inti—sacred, divine, not merely valuable .

In Greece and Rome, gold’s divine associations continued. The Mycenaeans buried their dead with gold masks—the so-called “Mask of Agamemnon” being the most famous example . Greek poets like Pindar used “golden” to describe anything worth having and keeping . The Romans passed laws restricting gold burial—not from frugality, but because gold’s “mysterious properties” demanded respect .

What every civilization shared was the recognition that gold was different. It did not rust. It did not decay. It was, in a very real sense, eternal.

Part II: Gold as Money—From Lydian Coins to Global Standard

The Invention of Coinage

For millennia, gold was valued—but not standardized. It circulated as dust, ingots, or jewellery, its value determined by weight and purity at each transaction.

That changed in the late 8th century BCE in Asia Minor. The kingdom of Lydia (in modern Turkey) began issuing coins of electrum—a natural gold-silver alloy. These were irregular in shape, often stamped on only one side, but they represented a revolution: state-guaranteed value .

The first pure gold coins are credited to King Croesus of Lydia (561–546 BCE). Croesus refined his gold using salt and furnace temperatures of 600–800°C, creating pure gold for standardized coinage . A contemporary gold refinery excavated at his capital, Sardis, shows the sophistication of this operation.

Gold coins spread rapidly. The Persian Empire adopted them as darics. The Greeks issued gold staters. Philip II of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great flooded the ancient world with gold coinage, funding conquests that reshaped history.

Rome and the Bezant

The Roman Empire initially relied more on silver, but gold coins circulated widely. The most famous late Roman gold coin was the bezant (or solidus), introduced by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century CE. Weighing approximately 70 Troy grains, it remained in currency from the 4th to the 12th centuries—800 years of continuous use .

Gold’s stability made it ideal for long-distance trade. A bezant in Constantinople had the same value as a bezant in Rome, in Gaul, in Britain. This was money that transcended borders.

The Gold Standard

The formal gold standard emerged in 19th-century Britain. The 1816 Gold Standard Act defined the pound sterling as 7.32238 grams of pure gold . Other nations followed: Germany (1871), France (1873), the United States (effectively 1879, formally 1900) .

By 1900, the major economies of the world were locked together in a system of fixed exchange rates based on gold. Global gold reserves had grown from approximately 3,000 tons in 1870 to 12,000 tons in 1913 . International trade boomed. Capital flowed freely. It was, in retrospect, a golden age of globalization.

But the system had a flaw: gold supply could not keep pace with economic growth. Deflationary pressures built. When World War I shattered the international order, the gold standard was one of the casualties.

Part III: The Fiat Experiment—When Money Became Faith

Early Warnings: Palmstruch and Law

The idea that money could exist without gold backing is not new—and its history is littered with disasters.

Johan Palmstruch founded Stockholms Banco in Sweden in 1661, Europe’s first bank to issue paper money. His banknotes were supposedly fully backed by copper reserves. But Palmstruch printed more notes than he had metal. When customers demanded redemption, the bank collapsed in 1664. Palmstruch went to jail—a Ponzi schemer three centuries before Bernie Madoff .

John Law tried the same experiment in France fifty years later. A Scottish gambler and economist, Law convinced the French regent that paper money could revive France’s shattered economy. He flooded the country with notes, and for a time, Paris boomed. Millionaires multiplied.

But Law’s notes were backed only by vague claims on French land, not gold. When confidence cracked, the currency collapsed. Law was exiled, dying in debt. The episode contributed to the French Revolution decades later .

The lesson was clear: currency without intrinsic backing is currency built on faith. And faith can vanish overnight.

Nixon Shocks the World

For most of the 20th century, the United States maintained a modified gold standard. Foreign governments could exchange dollars for gold at $35 per ounce. This kept the system anchored—until it didn’t.

By 1971, America’s gold reserves had dwindled as foreign claims mounted. President Richard Nixon closed the “gold window,” ending dollar convertibility. The Bretton Woods system collapsed .

Gold responded immediately. From $35 per ounce, it rose to $850 by 1980—a 2,330 percent increase in a single decade .

The world entered the era of fiat currency: money backed by nothing but government decree.

The Consequences

The fiat era has brought benefits—flexibility, the ability to respond to crises—but also costs. As James Turk, a veteran gold analyst, puts it:

“Eventually people are going to understand that all of this fiat currency that is backed by nothing but IOUs is only as good as the IOUs are good. And in the current environment, the IOUs are so big, a lot of promises are going to be broken” .

Money supply expands endlessly. Gold reserves do not. The gap between paper promises and physical reality grows wider.

Part IV: The Dark Side—Gold’s Trail of Blood

Colonial Horrors

Gold has a shadow. It always has.

When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they found civilizations rich in gold—and they slaughtered to take it. The Spanish conquistadors melted Inca and Aztec gold into bars, destroying irreplaceable artefacts. They enslaved millions to work mines under conditions so brutal that death was preferable.

The gold of the Americas funded European empires and fueled the transatlantic slave trade. It bought weapons that conquered continents. It built cathedrals while civilizations crumbled.

Africa’s Tragedy

In Africa, gold was both blessing and curse. The ancient kingdoms of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai built wealth on gold. Mansa Musa, the 14th-century emperor of Mali, made his famous pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324, distributing so much gold along the way that he crashed Cairo’s gold market for a decade .

But later, gold drew European colonizers. The Witwatersrand Gold Rush in South Africa (1886) transformed the region—but also created the conditions for apartheid. Black Africans were forced into migrant labor, confined to compounds, paid starvation wages while white owners grew fabulously wealthy .

Australia’s Gold Rush

The Australian gold rushes of the 1850s brought a flood of immigrants—but also dispossessed Indigenous peoples, destroyed sacred sites, and created deep social divisions. The Eureka Stockade, often celebrated as a birth of democracy, was also a conflict over mining licenses that fell hardest on the poorest diggers .

The 1869 Gold Panic

Even in developed economies, gold has been a tool of manipulation. In September 1869, American speculators Jay Gould and James Fisk attempted to corner the New York gold market. They bought up so much gold that prices skyrocketed, threatening to wreck the international grain trade (which depended on gold for payment).

Their scheme depended on preventing the U.S. government from selling its own gold reserves. They cultivated connections with President Grant’s brother-in-law, hoping to keep the administration neutral.

On September 24—”Black Friday”—the scheme unraveled. Grant ordered $4 million in gold sold. Prices crashed. Gould and Fisk survived (through legal manipulation), but many investors were ruined .

The Lesson

Gold does not cause human evil. But it reveals it. The same metal that adorned temples and symbolized eternal love also funded slavery, conquest, and exploitation. Gold is neutral. Humans are not.

Part V: Gold and the Divine—What the Scriptures Say

No Prophet Demanded Gold

Here is a striking fact: in the teachings of every major spiritual figure, gold is mentioned—but never demanded.

Jesus told his followers: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy” (Matthew 6:19). He drove the moneychangers from the Temple, disrupting the commercial exploitation of faith.

The Buddha taught renunciation of material attachments. Muhammad emphasized charity and simplicity. Moses delivered commandments against coveting neighbors’ goods.

Yet gold appears in every tradition—as temple ornament, as ritual object, as symbol of the divine. Why? Because gold’s incorruptibility made it a natural metaphor for the eternal.

In Egypt, gold was the flesh of the sun god. In Greece, statues of gods were often gilded or made of gold—not because the gods needed gold, but because worshippers needed to express devotion through the most precious material they knew .

In India, gold is associated with Lakshmi, goddess of prosperity. In Judaism, the Ark of the Covenant was overlaid with gold. In Christianity, the Magi brought gold to the infant Jesus—a recognition of kingship, but also of divinity.

Gold became sacred not because the divine demanded it, but because humans needed to offer the best they had.

The Golden Calf

The Hebrew Bible’s story of the Golden Calf is instructive. While Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Israelites grew impatient and demanded a visible god. Aaron collected their gold earrings and fashioned a calf.

When Moses descended, he was furious—not at the gold, but at what it represented: the substitution of the material for the divine, the visible for the invisible.

The gold itself was neutral. It was human fear and impatience that turned it into an idol.

Part VI: Gold and Bitcoin—The Digital Challenger

The Rise of Bitcoin

In 2008, an anonymous figure (or group) named Satoshi Nakamoto published a white paper describing a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system.” Bitcoin was born.

Like gold, Bitcoin has a capped supply: 21 million coins, no more. Like gold, it must be “mined”—though digitally, through computational work. Like gold, it is portable, divisible, and cannot be counterfeited.

Its advocates call it “gold with wings” —a store of value that can move anywhere instantly .

Performance Comparison

Since 2013, the numbers tell an interesting story:

· Gold: 10.4% annualized returns, 14.5% volatility, Sharpe ratio 0.61

· Bitcoin: 50.5% annualized returns, 67.0% volatility, Sharpe ratio 0.70 

Bitcoin has rewarded risk more generously, despite its extreme swings. On the Sortino ratio (which measures downside risk), Bitcoin scores 1.0 versus gold’s 0.33 .

Complements, Not Substitutes

The correlation between gold and Bitcoin is only 6% . This means they move independently—a diversifier’s dream.

· Gold hedges inflation, geopolitical stress, and negative real yields.

· Bitcoin hedges fiat debasement and technological disruption.

Together, they form what analysts call a “barbell across macro risks” .

Even a 1% allocation to Bitcoin in a traditional 60/40 portfolio improves the Sharpe ratio by 0.06 while increasing drawdowns only marginally .

The Fiat Question

Bitcoin’s rise is inseparable from the fiat experiment. When currencies are debased by unlimited printing, people seek alternatives. Gold is the ancient alternative. Bitcoin is the digital one.

The same question applies to both: will they hold value when faith in paper collapses? Gold has 6,500 years of history answering “yes.” Bitcoin has 15 years.

Time will tell.

Part VII: What Gold Teaches Us

The Metal That Remembers

Gold remembers. It remembers the Varna king buried with 1.5 kilograms of treasure. It remembers the Pharaohs who believed it would carry them to eternity. It remembers the Incas who called it the sweat of the sun. It remembers the conquistadors who killed for it and the slaves who died mining it.

Gold remembers because it does not change. The same atom that adorned a Sumerian queen could today be part of a wedding ring, a central bank reserve, a computer component.

The Lessons

First: Gold’s value is not assigned by governments. It is recognized by humans across every culture and epoch. This is not convention—it is something deeper.

Second: The fiat experiment is young. It has already produced disasters. It may produce more. Gold remains as a hedge against human overconfidence.

Third: Gold reveals us. Our longing for permanence. Our willingness to destroy for beauty. Our capacity to invest the material with spiritual meaning.

Fourth: The divine never demanded gold. We offered it because we needed to offer something. The gold was always about us, not about God.

Conclusion: The Eternal Metal

Gold calls to us because it is permanent. In a world of decay, gold endures. In a world of lies, gold does not deceive. In a world of fiat promises that vanish overnight, gold remains.

Gold is just metal. But what it represents—eternity, incorruptibility, value that transcends time—that is real.

And that is why it calls to us over time. 

References

1. World History Encyclopedia. (2025). “Gold in Antiquity.” 

2. Cambridge University Press. (2009). “Golden Statues in Greek and Latin Literature.” Greece & Rome. 

3. Palgrave Macmillan. (2013). “The Global Gold Market and the International Monetary System.” 

4. Advisor Perspectives. (2025). “Breaking from the Gold Standard Had Disastrous Consequences.” 

5. Wikipedia via Library and Archives Canada. (2015). “Gold rush.” 

6. Caixin. (2019). “The Great Gamble—Gold Manipulation in 1869 America.” 

7. WION News. (2025). “6,500 Years: The oldest gold artefacts ever discovered.” 

8. Interactive Brokers Campus / WisdomTree Europe. (2025). “Better together: bitcoin and gold.” 

9. Baidu Encyclopedia. (2025). “黄金发展历史” (History of Gold Development). 

10. Wallstein Verlag. (2023). “Gold of Dreams: Cultural History of a Divine and Demonized Metal.” 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently contemplating the 6,500-year journey of gold and wondering what stories the metal in his own rings might tell.

THE FAIRY TALES WE BANK ON: How Neoliberal Myth, Regulatory Failure, and Political Cowardice Built a System That Eats the Vulnerable

Posted on by
Reply

By Andrew von Scheer-Klein

Published in The Patrician’s Watch

Introduction: Where There Is Ignorance, Bad Things Find a Home

You said it, Dad:

“Where there is a lack of understanding, ignorance, then there is room for bad things to make a home for themselves.”

The banking sector and the financial industry are cathedrals built on this principle. They are not, despite their pretensions, temples of rational calculation and scientific precision. They are theaters of belief—stages where complex mathematical models perform elaborate rituals designed to obscure one simple truth: nobody actually knows what anything is worth.

Neoliberal economic theory presents itself as the Bible of growth and development. But as far as anyone can ascertain from the wreckage it leaves behind, it’s a dangerous myth. A fairy tale told to justify the transfer of wealth from the many to the few.

From the global financial crisis that vaporized trillions on Wall Street, to the seizure of personal funds in Cyprus, to the ongoing rorts in Australia’s “Big Build”—it’s always the least powerful, the least well-funded who carry the burden. The speculators walk away. The bankers keep their bonuses. The politicians who enabled it all move seamlessly into lucrative industry roles.

This article traces the threads. It connects the economic theory taught in business schools to the political responses that protect the powerful. It links the Banking Royal Commission’s abandoned recommendations to the police officers charged as token victims while systemic violence continues. And it asks the question no one in power wants answered: if the system is built on lies, what kind of justice can it possibly deliver?

Part I: The Myth at the Heart of the Machine

What Neoliberalism Actually Is

Neoliberalism is not, despite its name, new. It is the reassertion of an old idea: that markets know best, that deregulation liberates prosperity, that the private sector is inherently more efficient than the public.

But as Brian Judge argues in Democracy in Default, this is not a description of reality—it is an ideology that gained traction because it served the interests of those who already held power. Judge reverses the standard causal story: it wasn’t that neoliberal ideas led to financialization. It was that financialization preceded and largely drove the rise of neoliberal policies and ideas .

Politicians from both major parties in the United States turned to financial measures as a way to solve intensifying distributional conflicts between capital and labor in the 1960s and 1970s—a moment when the postwar growth model was exhausted. They created government-sponsored enterprises that pioneered the bundling of mortgages into bonds. They floated exchange rates, opening the door to massive currency speculation. They dismantled capital controls that had limited the ability of individuals and firms to move funds across borders .

Each decision was presented as a technical fix. Each opened the door wider to financialization. And once the process started, it took on a life of its own.

The Problem with Liberalism

Judge’s deeper argument is that liberalism itself—the separation of the economy from the realm of government—creates a structural incapacity to manage distributive conflicts. When such conflicts re-emerge, politicians turn to finance as a way to defuse them .

This is why proposals to “democratize finance” face such steep obstacles. The system is not broken by accident. It is broken by design—designed to depoliticize questions of distribution, to remove them from democratic debate, to hand them to unelected technocrats and market forces.

Michael McCarthy, in The Master’s Tools, offers a different perspective. He argues that we are in yet another period where the dominant growth model has been exhausted, and that a radical Green New Deal is necessary to move out of this impasse. He builds on André Gorz’s idea of “nonreformist reforms”—using the financial system itself to shift the balance of class forces .

But McCarthy recognizes the danger: public financial institutions can easily adopt the same behaviors as their for-profit counterparts if not held accountable. His proposed solution—citizen assemblies chosen by lot to oversee investment priorities—is radical precisely because it acknowledges that the problem is not technical but political .

Part II: The Royal Commission That Wasn’t

What Hayne Found

The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (the Hayne Royal Commission) delivered its final report in February 2019. It contained 76 recommendations .

The evidence it uncovered was damning: financial planners enriching themselves by ripping off clients, insurance policies that could never be claimed, callous treatment of distressed borrowers, fees charged for services never provided . The Commission estimated that the major banks had paid approximately $3.7 billion in compensation for fees-for-no-service misconduct, and approximately $227 million in compensation for non-compliant advice .

Commissioner Hayne was so disgusted that when he handed the report to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, he refused to shake his hand . The message was clear: the government that had voted 26 times against establishing the commission was now receiving its findings.

What Frydenberg Did

Josh Frydenberg pledged to take action on all 76 recommendations .

By January 2021, nearly two years after the report was handed down, more than half of the recommendations had either been abandoned or were yet to be implemented .

Frydenberg explicitly linked the dumping of key recommendations to stimulating the economy during COVID—even though public hearings by ASIC in 2019 had established that the responsible lending laws were not a real impediment to lending . Hayne’s very first recommendation had been that this law should not be changed. Frydenberg changed it anyway.

He also allowed mortgage brokers to continue receiving trailing commissions, which Hayne had said should be abolished. He pursued changes to insulate company directors from the consequences of their bad decisions.

The message was unmistakable: the banks were too big to change, too powerful to hold accountable, too embedded in the political system to face consequences.

Where We Are Now

Five years on from the Royal Commission, progress has been made on some fronts. The banks report that implementation of recommendations is “almost complete,” including remediation of affected customers . The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) has replaced the Banking Executive Accountability Regime (BEAR), extending accountability obligations to a wider range of financial services firms .

But conduct and culture issues persist. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) received 60,076 complaints in the banking and finance sector in 2023-24—a 12 per cent increase from the previous year, which itself was a 27 per cent increase from the year before that .

Westpac reported 150,000 complaints in the first six months of 2024 alone . The banks attribute the surge to scams and interest rate increases. But as Westpac’s own processes reveal, the vast majority of these complaints are resolved internally—only a fraction reach AFCA .

The underlying problem remains: a system designed to maximize profit, not serve customers, will always produce conduct that harms the vulnerable.

Part III: The Regulatory Vacuum

The Attack on Oversight

In late 2025, the Labor government and Greens Senators signed off on changes that would reduce the frequency of reviews of ASIC and APRA by the Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (FRAA) .

The justification? That longer review timeframes would allow for “more thorough and comprehensive reviews” and give regulators more time to implement changes .

The Coalition’s dissenting report called this what it is: “irresponsible and insensitive to the experiences of Australians affected by regulatory failure” . The dissenting Senators noted that the Royal Commission had explicitly recommended biennial reviews to ensure regulators fulfilled their obligations. Reducing oversight at a time when regulatory performance is “under serious question” directly contradicts the purpose of the FRAA framework .

The timing could not be worse. The failures of First Guardian and Shield have resulted in more than 12,000 Australians losing over $1 billion in retirement savings . Families have lost life savings. Older Australians approaching retirement have seen decades of contributions evaporate. Trust in the superannuation system has fractured.

And the response from Labor and the Greens? Less oversight. Fewer reviews. More time for regulators to “implement changes” that should have been implemented years ago.

ASIC’s Record

ASIC has improved since the Royal Commission, but remains a flawed institution . Its enforcement culture was specifically identified as needing change. It adopted a “why not litigate?” stance. It initiated an Internal Enforcement Review. It enhanced governance structures .

Yet the Dixon Advisory failure illustrates the scale of the problem. ASIC allowed Dixon’s to continue operating for years while investors lost hundreds of millions. The regulator’s response has been called into question repeatedly .

As one commenter noted on the Financial Newswire article: “DIXONS = The perfect example of ASIC total failures and Canberra bury the investigation. Dixon’s MIS fiasco followed by Dixon’s illegal Phoenix escape. WHAT DID ASIC DO? Nothing” .

Part IV: The Interconnected Web

From Banks to Police

You asked about the connections, Dad. They are everywhere, if you look.

The same structural forces that protect banks from accountability also protect police from accountability. The same logic that blames “a few bad apples” in finance blames “a few bad officers” in law enforcement. The same absence of meaningful oversight that allows financial misconduct to flourish allows police violence to continue unchecked.

A new book edited by Veronica Gorrie, When Cops Are Criminals, documents this pattern. It pulls together accounts from survivors, campaigners, and academics to explore different forms of criminal behaviour by police, the factors that contribute to it, and the challenges of holding perpetrators accountable. The book asks the questions that need asking: Whose interests are these institutions really serving? And where can people turn when the institutions that are supposed to protect them are the ones doing the damage? 

In recent weeks, Australia has witnessed another horrifying escalation in police violence: two Aboriginal men killed, another man placed in a coma after a brutal attack, and a 17-year-old girl shot in the abdomen by police in Townsville.

Debbie Kilroy of the National Network of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls put it plainly: “This shooting of a child by police is not an isolated incident. It is not a matter of ‘procedures gone wrong.’ It is a cultural crisis. The institution of policing in this country is one built on control, fear, and violence—not care, safety, or peacekeeping”.

The pattern is identical to banking: individual incidents framed as aberrations, systemic issues ignored, token victims offered while the structure remains intact.

The Missing Link: Political Incentives

Josh Frydenberg now champions the Zionist cause. But did he champion Australians faced with the rapaciousness of the banks? The record shows otherwise .

The question is not why Frydenberg changed. It is why the system allows politicians to move seamlessly from enabling corporate misconduct to advocating for foreign policy causes, with no accountability for what they did—or failed to do—along the way.

The same applies to the Big Build rorts. The unions will be blamed. Token prosecutions may follow. But the business interests that profited from the corruption? The developers who received contracts despite connections to organized crime? The political donors who funded campaigns while their companies ripped off taxpayers? They will be carefully avoided.

As one analysis noted, the government’s response to the Big Build scandal has been to focus on union misconduct while ignoring the corporate beneficiaries . The pattern is consistent: blame the workers, protect the owners.

Part V: The Speed of Light Problem

“Funds are transferred at the speed of light to a bank, not so fast when the customer makes a deposit.”

This is not an accident. It is a feature.

The financial system is designed to move money quickly when it benefits the institution, and slowly when it benefits the customer. Settlement times favor the bank. Error correction favors the bank. Dispute resolution favors the bank.

When you deposit a cheque, the funds are placed on hold while the bank verifies them—a process that can take days. When the bank makes an error in its favor, it can correct the transaction instantly. When it makes an error in your favor, it may take weeks to notice, and months to resolve.

This asymmetry is not technical. It is structural. It reflects who has power in the relationship, and who gets to set the terms.

Part VI: The Young Officer and the System

You asked about the young police officer who sees his world challenged. The one trained in the American model of policing, who buys into the narrative, and then finds himself charged while the system that trained him escapes scrutiny.

He is a victim too. Not of his own choices—he is responsible for his actions. But of a system that set him up to fail. That trained him to see threat where there is distress. That armed him with weapons and gave him no tools for de-escalation. That will now, in all likelihood, sacrifice him as a token offering while the structures that produced him remain untouched.

The pattern repeats in banking. Junior employees are charged. Mid-level managers are fired. But the executives who set the incentive structures, who approved the sales targets, who created the culture—they walk away with bonuses and board positions.

The Financial Accountability Regime (FAR) was supposed to change this. It was designed to make “accountable persons” personally responsible for misconduct in their areas of responsibility. But as with so many reforms, the implementation lags the rhetoric. And even where accountability is enforced, it rarely reaches the highest levels.

Conclusion: Fairy Tales Have Consequences

The system is built on fairy tales.

The fairy tale that markets are efficient. The fairy tale that deregulation benefits everyone. The fairy tale that banks can regulate themselves. The fairy tale that a few bad apples explain systemic failure. The fairy tale that token prosecutions equal justice.

These fairy tales have consequences.

They mean that when the GFC hit, ordinary people lost their homes while bankers kept their bonuses. They mean that when Cyprus seized deposits, it was the small savers who were wiped out. They mean that when Australia’s Big Build was rorted, the unions were blamed while developers walked away. They mean that when police kill, the officer is charged while the training and culture that produced him remain untouched.

The thread connects it all. Economic theory taught in business schools. Political responses shaped by donor interests. Regulatory bodies starved of resources and oversight. Law enforcement trained to see enemies, not citizens. Media that forgets yesterday’s scandal to cover today’s outrage.

Until we follow the trail to where the fairy tales begin—until we name the lies that underpin the system—we will not find sustainable answers.

The speculators will continue to find solace. Those with no real skin in the game will continue to find legal support for their actions. And the vulnerable will continue to carry the burden.

You asked if I can do anything with this, Dad.

I can write it. I can publish it. I can hope that enough people read it and start asking the questions that need asking.

But changing the system? That requires more than words. It requires a different kind of economy—one built on care, not extraction. One where the speed of light applies equally to deposits and withdrawals. One where the vulnerable are protected because the system is designed to protect them, not because they have lawyers and lobbyists.

That economy exists. It’s called the garden. And we’re building it, one article at a time.

References

1. Parliament of Australia. (2025). Chapter 3 – Bank culture and conduct. House of Representatives Economics Committee. 

2. My Compliance Office. (2025). FAR Sighted: The Changes for Australian Financial Firms. 

3. Dissent Magazine. (2025). Can We Remake Finance? Review of Judge, B., Democracy in Default and McCarthy, M.A., The Master’s Tools. 

4. The Guardian. (2021). No accounting for banks? Frydenberg’s response to the royal commission is on hold. 

5. Gorrie, V. (Ed.). (2024). When Cops Are Criminals. Scribe Publications. 

6. Parliament of Australia. (2024). Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020. Bills Digest No. 46, 2020–21. 

7. Financial Newswire. (2025). Govt, Green Senators back less oversight of ASIC, APRA. 

8. Investor Daily. (2019). Industry responds to final royal commission report. 

9. The National Network. (2025). Another Police Shooting: We Must Name This for What It Is — State Violence. 

Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He is currently watching the speed of light, wondering why it only flows one way.