The Invention of the Savage – How the West Manufactures the “Unacceptable Other” to Justify Endless War

Posted on June 7, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The mirror is waiting. Are you brave enough to look?”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that the only true backwardness is the refusal to see the humanity in others.

I. The Pardon That Should Not Exist

In November 2024, a young man in the al-Qurashiya district of Yemen’s Al-Bayda governorate killed a member of another tribe. The crime was accidental. But in the Western imagination, “tribal justice” means blood feuds, vendettas, and endless cycles of violence. It means revenge. It means backwardness.

That is not what happened.

A tribal mediation, led by the provincial governor and a number of sheikhs, brought the families together. The victim’s family – the heirs of Hazim Saif Al-Hajj Al-Hattam – were asked to consider pardon. They were offered compensation: livestock and other customary reparations according to Yemeni tribal traditions.1

They pardoned him.

Not because the law was weak. Because the heart was strong. They attributed his crime to ignorance – his youth, his lack of intent. They chose restoration over retaliation. They forgave. And then, in a gesture that should shame every Western nation that claims moral superiority, they donated the compensation to fighters defending their country’s dignity.8

This is not an isolated incident. In December 2025, another tribal reconciliation in Hajja governorate resolved a murder case between families from different regions. The heirs forgave the perpetrator “for the sake of God, in honor of the attendees.” The case was closed permanently.8.

If this story were told honestly, it would be a lesson in restorative justice – the kind that Western criminologists have spent decades trying to reinvent, while tribal societies have practiced it for centuries.

But the story is not told honestly.

Because it does not fit the narrative.

II. Orientalism: The Invention of the “Other”

In 1978, the Palestinian-American scholar Edward Said published a book that would change the way the West understands itself. Orientalism was not a history of the Middle East. It was a history of the West’s imagination of the Middle East.

Said demonstrated that Orientalism – the academic study of the “Orient” – was never neutral scholarship. It was a “mixture of prejudice, racist assumptions, intertwined and underpinned with scholarship and archaeology”.3. The Orientalist did not describe the Arab world. He invented it.

He created a picture of a static, decadent, violent, irrational civilisation – the mirror image of the dynamic, virtuous, peaceful, rational West. This picture was not a mistake. It was a tool. It justified colonialism. It justified military intervention. It justified the endless wars that have defined Western relations with the Middle East for two centuries.

Said’s thesis, published in 1978, remains urgent today. As one student of his work observed nearly forty years later, “things haven’t changed at all since then”10. The same stereotypes – the same “web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism, dehumanizing ideology” – continue to shape Western media coverage, Western foreign policy, and Western public opinion.

III. The Manufactured Image: Violence, Terrorism, and the Erasure of Complexity

The bulk of the average Westerner’s knowledge of Muslim societies is derived from an image that film, television, and print media portray: “images of violence and terrorism that we associate with the Middle East“2. This is not an accident. It is the product of a media industry that has learned that violence sells and redemption does not.

When a Western news outlet covers the Middle East, it does not show the tribal reconciliations, the community mediations, the women peacebuilders, or the families who choose forgiveness. It shows bombings, beheadings, and protests. It shows the “honour killing” – presented as proof of primitive savagery – without showing the centuries of customary law that condemn such killings and the community mechanisms that resolve disputes without state violence.

In a misguided attempt to understand the horror of killing in the name of honour, Western media has “intentionally or unintentionally tied the cultural acts of honour killings to the religion of Islam as opposed to labelling it as a tribal act, separated from religion“9. This conflation serves a purpose. It transforms a complex social phenomenon – found in various cultures across history, including in the West – into evidence of the fundamental “backwardness” of Muslims.

The result is a caricature. An entire civilisation reduced to a few lurid headlines. A billion people judged by the actions of a tiny minority. And a region’s rich tradition of conflict resolution – its wisdom – rendered invisible.

IV. The Prisoner Double Standard: Orientalism in Action

If Orientalism is a lens, the treatment of prisoners in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict offers a stark illustration of how that lens operates.

On both sides, there have been abuses. But the scale, the systematisation, and the impunity are not symmetrical.

The Zionist entity continues its systematic violations against Palestinian prisoners in its prisons, “disregarding international laws and the Geneva Conventions that guarantee their basic rights“4. Palestinian prisoners report solitary confinement, medical neglect, starvation, denial of visits, and severing of contact with their families. The policy, according to the Palestinian Prisoners’ Information Office, “aims to break their resolve and undermine their humanity”.4.

Prisoner Muhammad al-Haroub has been held in solitary confinement in Megiddo Prison for years, denied visits and medical treatment. Prisoner Ayman Sidr has spent his thirtieth year behind bars, deprived of contact with his family and denied medical care. Prisoner Muhammad al-Hamami suffers from deteriorating health and deliberate medical neglect.4.

These violations contravene explicit provisions of the Geneva Conventions and the Mandela Rules. The report warns that these practices amount to “crimes against humanity” under the Rome Statute.4.

When an Israeli prisoner is mistreated, the Western media erupts. It is front-page news. It is proof of “terrorist savagery.” It is a justification for more bombing, more occupation, more punishment.

When a Palestinian prisoner is tortured – when thousands of Palestinian prisoners are systematically abused – the same media is silent. Or it buries the story in a brief dispatch, framed as a “dispute” or an “allegation.” The headline does not scream. The moral outrage does not materialise.

This is not a difference in the facts. It is a difference in the narrative.

The Palestinian prisoner is the “unacceptable other.” His suffering is expected. It is normalised. It is, in the twisted logic of Orientalism, deserved.

V. Gaza: The Laboratory of Western Modernity

The Gaza catastrophe is the clearest refutation of the “backwardness” narrative. As one analyst put it, “Gaza’s catastrophe is not an eruption of theology but the outcome of policy, drawn up in air‑conditioned rooms far from mosques and refugee camps, funded in national budgets, defended at lecterns and in editorial meetings”.6.

Occupation. Blockade. Targeted assassinations. Mass displacement. The throttling of food, water, electricity, and medicine. “None of this is the work of ‘tribalism.’ It is the work of states”.6.

The economist Jeffrey Sachs has described Gaza’s ruin as manufactured: “not the spasm of a premodern culture but the predictable result of long military, diplomatic, and economic strategies underwritten by Western power”. The political scientist Norman Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has spent decades documenting the legal architecture that turns Gaza into a laboratory for methods of control – “surveillance, siege, periodic ‘mowing’” – while Western capitals supply the hardware and the diplomatic umbrella .6.

Each assault on Gaza is followed by a familiar ritual: “investigations delayed, resolutions softened, headlines stripped of agents and verbs. The language of ‘security’ goes to work not to explain but to erase”.6.

If modernity means anything worth having, it must mean the courage to break with the opiate of comforting lies. It means insisting that law is not a costume, that rights are not a currency, that the life of a child in Khan Younis counts the same as a child in Kraków or Kansas. But “universality” is too often a border‑checked passport.6.

The question is not whether the Middle East is fit for modernity. It is whether we are.

VI. The West’s Model: Arms, Aid, and Endless War

Since 1945, the United States’ hegemony in the Middle East has relied on three pillars: oil purchases, weapons sales, and regime change.7. In diplomacy, Washington has favoured bilateral peace treaties that serve its strategic interests, not the interests of the region’s peoples.

Arms sales are the key. For its allies, the US provides 60‑80 per cent of their lethal imports. For the rest, it supplies 50‑60 per cent.7. Between 1946 and 2023, Washington provided $373 billion in foreign assistance to the Middle East. The bulk was steered to just a few countries: Israel ($139 billion), Egypt ($83 billion), Iraq ($70 billion), and Jordan ($24 billion) .7.

The Middle East is the largest regional recipient of US aid. Yet “the net effect has been precisely the opposite” of increasing security and rising per capita income.7. Worse, “the military symbiosis between the US and Israel has triggered devastating spillovers into adjacent Arab states.” This destabilisation has been accompanied by lost years, even decades, with no increase in per capita income in the aid‑receiving states.

Iran and Iraq have faced escalating adversities since their 1980‑88 war, in which the US supplied arms to both sides. In Iraq, per capita income in 2010 was where it had been in 1978. In Iran, Washington’s sanctions prevented any growth in per capita income for a quarter of a century after the Islamic Revolution.7.

In Syria, following the 1949 US‑led regime change, per capita income before October 2023 was the same as in 1981 – 44 years earlier. In Palestine, per capita income is now where it was in the early 1970s. In Yemen, per capita income is the same as it was 55 years ago.7.

The post‑September 11, 2001, wars alone have cost more than $8 trillion and over 1 million lives. Since October 7, 2023, US military aid to Israel has soared from $3.8 billion per year to $23 billion.7.

This is not a record of success. It is a record of extraction.

VII. What Is Lost: The Destruction of Custom and Its Replacement

Western intervention does not merely kill people and destroy infrastructure. It kills knowledge.

The customs that Yemeni tribes have developed over centuries – the mediation processes, the compensation systems, the culture of forgiveness – are not primitive. They are sophisticated. They have been refined over generations to minimise violence, restore relationships, and maintain community cohesion in the absence of a strong central state.

These customs are under threat. Not from within – from without. From the war that Western‑supplied weapons have fuelled. From the chaos that Western‑backed interventions have created. From the imposition of Western models of justice – punitive, carceral, retributive – that have no place in tribal societies and no respect for their wisdom.

A United Nations report on women in conflict resolution in Yemen documents this loss. It notes that women have historically played active roles in tribal peacebuilding, utilising “the privileges of customary law and tradition to perform peacebuilding activities during conflict”.5. But the war has exacerbated existing gender inequalities and added new layers of vulnerability.5.

What is being lost is not just lives. It is alternatives.

The West’s model of justice – prison, punishment, the state monopoly on violence – is not superior. It is different. And in many ways, it is worse. It does not restore relationships. It does not heal communities. It does not offer forgiveness.

But the West does not offer its model as one among many. It imposes it. Through sanctions, through military intervention, through the structural adjustment programmes of international financial institutions, it forces other cultures to abandon their own ways of doing things and adopt the Western way.

And then, when those cultures descend into chaos – as cultures do when their social fabric is torn apart – the West points a finger and says: “See? They are violent. They are backward. They cannot govern themselves.”

It is a self‑fulfilling prophecy. And it is evil.

VIII. Who Benefits from the Narrative of the Savage?

The question answers itself.

The military‑industrial complex benefits. The weapons manufacturers who supply Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The defence contractors who profit from endless war. The politicians who receive campaign contributions from those industries.

The media benefits. Outrage sells. Fear sells. Violence sells. A story about tribal forgiveness does not sell.

The neoliberal order benefits. A world of stable, peaceful, self‑governing nations does not need the International Monetary Fund. It does not need structural adjustment. It does not need Western “advisors.” The narrative of the savage – the incompetent, the corrupt, the violent – justifies intervention. And intervention justifies control.

And the West’s own self‑image benefits. Every time a news outlet shows a beheading, every time a politician warns of “terrorism,” every time a think‑tank publishes a report on “failed states,” the Western viewer is reassured: We are civilised. We are modern. We are good.

It is a comforting story. It is also false.

IX. The Question the West Will Not Answer

Who, then, is truly backward?

The farmer whose house is pulverised and who, the next day, sifts concrete dust for a photograph to bury? Or the cabinet that orders the strike and the cabinet that supplies the bomb, and the newsroom that edits the headline until the perpetrator disappears?6.

Backwardness is not about religion or geography. It is about the willingness to accept the suffering of others as the price of our own comfort, and to call that acceptance “reason.”

If modernity means anything worth having, it must mean the courage to break with the opiate of comforting lies. It means refusing complicity – not only with what we fund and arm, but with what we excuse. It means insisting that law is not a costume, that rights are not a currency, that the life of a child is not a geopolitical variable.

The West has spent decades manufacturing the “unacceptable other.” It has done so to justify wars, to sell weapons, to maintain control over resources, to preserve a self‑image that cannot bear the weight of its own crimes.

But the other is not unacceptable. The other is a mirror.

And in that mirror, the West does not see a savage. It sees itself.

Andrew Klein

References

1. SABA News Agency. (2024). Tribal mediation ends murder case in al-Qurashiya district, Al-Bayda.

2. Hart, D. M. (2001). Muslim tribesmen and the colonial encounter in fiction and on film. Het Spinhuis Publishers.

3. Elhagin, M. A. (2018). Orientalism and Edward Said. Qatar National Library.

4. SABA News Agency. (2025). Zionist entity places Palestinian prisoners, intel law under guillotine of violations.

5. Awadh, M., & Shuja’adeen, N. (2019). Women in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding in Yemen. United Nations.

6. Anadolu Ajansı. (2025). OPINION – Who is truly backward? Gaza and the mirror of Western modernity.

7. China Daily. (2025). Time for change in the Middle East.

8. SABA News Agency. (2025). Tribal reconciliation in Hajja ends murder case between Al-Omari & Al-Jashman families.

9. Shaikh, T., Ossege, J., & Sears, R. (2018). Exposure. Taylor & Francis.

10. Hajj, Y. (2014). Thesis Paragraph on Cultural Stereotypes. The New School.

The Gazafication of Lebanon – How Israel Exports Destruction – and Washington Protects It

Posted on June 4, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The destruction will stop only when the silence is broken. Break it.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To the people of Lebanon – who have been told that their country is a “failed state” by those who worked ceaselessly to break it.

I. Introduction

On 1 March 2026, Israel launched a full-scale military offensive against Lebanon. The official rationale was self-defence: to push Hezbollah away from the border, to “demilitarize” Lebanon, and to secure the northern settlements. Within weeks, the death toll passed 3,500; 1.6 million people – roughly one‑fifth of Lebanon’s population – were displaced; hundreds of towns and villages were flattened.

The violence did not come from nowhere. It was the product of decades of Israeli military intervention, occupation, political interference, and a US‑backed policy that has systematically dismantled Lebanon’s sovereignty. The objective is not peace. It is the Gazaficationof Lebanon: the imposition of a siege-and-destruction model that has already been perfected in Gaza, now exported to a second country.

This article is a comprehensive examination of the historical record, the current violence, and the geopolitical machinery that enables it. It is based on verifiable sources: official government statements, United Nations data, peer‑reviewed research, and on‑the‑ground reporting.

II. The Anatomy of the Current Assault

The offensive began on 2 March 2026, two days after a joint US‑Israeli attack on Iran. Hezbollah responded with rocket fire; Israel responded with a full‑scale ground and air campaign. By early June, the Lebanese health ministry had recorded more than 3,500 killed – including 711 women, children, and medical personnel – and over 10,000 wounded.

The disparity in casualties is stark:

· Israel: 24 soldiers and 4 civilians killed.

· Lebanon: Over 3,500 killed, plus 1.6 million displaced.

According to the UN, between 8 and 10 May 2026 alone, Israeli forces carried out 1,296 strikes in Lebanon, killing 87 people and wounding hundreds more – all during a supposed “ceasefire.” The United States‑brokered truce, ostensibly in place since April, has been violated by Israel on a near‑daily basis.

Evacuation orders have been issued for roughly 15% of Lebanese territory, including vast areas south of the Litani River. The military has drawn up maps for a permanent “buffer zone” that extends north of key cities such as Bint Jbeil, Aita al‑Shaab, and Khiam, reaching the Litani River and beyond.

The destruction is systematic. Human Rights Watch and the Lebanese government have documented “widespread demolitions” of entire villages, flattening of residential areas, and severe damage to schools, hospitals, mosques, and civilian infrastructure, including bridges and gas stations. One report described the operation as “the Gaza model” applied to Lebanon: mass displacement, wholesale destruction of housing stock, and the deliberate degradation of the country’s capacity to sustain life.

III. The Invention of Hezbollah: Israel’s Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy

The current violence is often presented as a war between Israel and an Iranian “proxy.” This framing ignores history. Hezbollah would not exist without Israel’s own actions.

On 6 June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, deploying up to 75,000 troops and advancing all the way to Beirut. The official objective was to remove the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had been launching cross‑border attacks. But the invasion quickly became an occupation, lasting 18 years in southern Lebanon.

The brutality of the invasion – the siege of Beirut, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila (carried out by Lebanese Christian militias but enabled by Israeli forces surrounding the camps), the widespread destruction – galvanised a resistance movement. In the aftermath of the invasion, Iran sent a contingent of Revolutionary Guards to the Bekaa Valley to help organise local Shi’ite militias. In 1985, these groups formally coalesced into Hezbollah – the “Party of God.”

Hezbollah was born to fight an Israeli occupation. It was not a “terrorist” group in any meaningful sense of the word; it was a national resistance movement recognised as such by a broad cross‑section of the Lebanese population. That Israel now cites Hezbollah’s existence as a justification for further violence is a grotesque circular argument: Israel invades, Hezbollah forms, Israel calls Hezbollah a “threat,” and invades again.

The pattern has repeated for over four decades. The 2006 war, which killed more than 1,100 Lebanese (mostly civilians) and devastated the country’s infrastructure, was the dress rehearsal. Today’s assault is the full performance.

IV. The “Greater Israel” Project – Not a Conspiracy, But a Policy

Statements by Israeli ministers make the objective abundantly clear: this is not about security; it is about expansion.

In March 2026, a map circulated by Israeli officials depicted a “Greater Israel” stretching from the Litani River in Lebanon to the Suez Canal in Egypt, swallowing the West Bank, Gaza, most of Lebanon, large parts of Syria, and all of Jordan.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that the goal of the current operation is to “demilitarize Lebanon” and to establish Israeli security control over the Litani area – a demand that goes far beyond anything required for border security. In a CNBC interview on 3 June 2026, he declared: “If we want to save Lebanon, we have to disarm Hezbollah and demilitarize Lebanon.”

The minister of settlements and national missions, Orit Strock, has spoken of establishing Israeli settlements in southern Lebanon, and her daughter, Shoshana Strock, has accused her parents of involvement in ritualistic child abuse – a detail that underscores the moral bankruptcy of the entire political class.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir has been even more explicit. In May 2026, he announced that the government “plans to establish illegal settlements in Lebanon” and to “displace Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.” In a statement that could have been taken directly from a 19th‑century colonial charter, he declared: “We also have plans for the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.”

These are not the statements of a state acting in self‑defence. They are the statements of a colonial power engaged in territorial conquest.

V. Lebanon: A State Crippled by Design

To understand why Lebanon is so vulnerable, it is necessary to understand how it was deliberately crippled.

The French Mandate (1920–1943)

Modern Lebanon was carved out of the former Ottoman Empire by the French. The French mandatory authorities institutionalised a confessional political system, distributing power among 18 officially recognised religious sects on the basis of a 1932 census that gave Christians a slight majority. This system was further codified in the unwritten National Pact of 1943, which reserved the presidency for a Maronite Christian, the prime ministership for a Sunni Muslim, and the speakership of parliament for a Shi’ite Muslim.

The confessional system was not designed to foster national unity; it was designed to make Lebanon governable by divide and rule. By entrenching sectarian identities, the French ensured that no single group could dominate, and that Lebanese politics would be perpetually fractious and easily manipulated.

The Nakba and the Palestinian Refugees

In 1948, between 100,000 and 130,000 Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon, expecting a temporary stay. Instead, they were confined to squalid camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and access to most professions. The refugees were not integrated; they were instrumentalised – used as a bargaining chip by Lebanese factions and as a justification for Israeli attacks.

The Civil War (1975–1990)

The confessional system, combined with the influx of armed Palestinian factions and Israeli interventions, eventually exploded into a 15‑year civil war that killed an estimated 150,000 people, destroyed the economy, and displaced hundreds of thousands. Israel invaded twice (1978 and 1982) and occupied the south for 18 years. Syria occupied the rest for nearly three decades.

The Hariri Assassination (2005) and the Cedar Revolution

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, widely attributed to Syria, led to massive protests (“the Cedar Revolution”) and the withdrawal of Syrian troops. But the political system remained intact – a system that perpetuated sectarian clientelism, corruption, and paralysis.

Post‑2006: A Failed State by Design

The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah left Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins. Reconstruction funds were largely captured by sectarian elites. The political system has been in a state of near‑constant crisis, with parliament failing to elect a president for extended periods (most recently from 2022 to 2025). The 2020 Beirut port explosion, caused by years of negligence and corruption, killed over 200 people and destroyed large parts of the capital.

Throughout this period, Israel has consistently undermined Lebanon’s sovereignty: overflying its territory, assassinating Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Beirut, and carrying out covert operations designed to prevent the emergence of a stable, functioning state. The goal has been to ensure that Lebanon remains weak, divided, and incapable of presenting a united front.

VI. US Complicity – The Perpetual Enabler

Every major Israeli military operation – 1982, 2006, 2024, 2026 – has been carried out with direct US diplomatic, military, and financial backing.

During the 2006 war, the United States rushed precision‑guided bombs to Israel while simultaneously blocking ceasefire resolutions at the UN Security Council for a month. In the current conflict, the US has provided over $14 billion in emergency military aid since October 2023. Washington has vetoed or watered down multiple UN resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire.

The current US‑brokered “ceasefire” is a farce. It has been violated by Israel almost daily. Rather than enforcing its terms, Washington has used it as a cover to continue arms shipments and diplomatic protection.

Hezbollah MP Hassan Hamade described the reality accurately: the conflict is part of a “Zionist‑US scheme” to redraw the map of the region and to incorporate Lebanon into a Greater Israel project.

VII. The Two Narratives – What They Say at Home vs. What They Tell the World

Israel consistently presents two incompatible narratives.

To its own public and to Western allies:

· The war is a defensive operation against a “terrorist” organisation (Hezbollah) that holds Lebanon hostage.

· The goal is to push Hezbollah north of the Litani River and to “demilitarize” Lebanon – a “peace” operation, not a conquest.

· The destruction of civilian infrastructure is regrettable but unavoidable, because Hezbollah “hides among civilians.”

To the rest of the world (and through the actions of its ministers):

· The goal is territorial expansion, as made explicit by the “Greater Israel” maps and the statements of ministers like Ben‑Gvir and Strock.

· The objective is the permanent displacement of populations – both in Gaza and in Lebanon – to create “facts on the ground” that prevent any return.

Any country other than Israel issuing blanket forced displacement orders covering 15% of another nation’s territory would be condemned internationally as an act of ethnic cleansing. Yet Israel has done exactly that, with no meaningful international sanction.

VIII. A Double Standard That Undermines International Law

No other state in 2026 would be permitted to behave as Israel does.

· No other state systematically occupies territory in defiance of decades of UN Security Council resolutions.

· No other state issues mass evacuation orders covering a fifth of a neighbour’s population while claiming “self‑defence.”

· No other state’s ministers openly call for the establishment of settlements in a third country, to be populated by its own citizens.

The international community’s response has been a masterclass in moral cowardice. The UN Security Council is paralysed by the US veto. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into Israeli officials – including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant – proceeds at a glacial pace, while arrest warrants for Russian officials were issued within months.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian catastrophe in Lebanon deepens. Over 1.6 million people – 20% of the population – have been displaced. Over 3,500 have been killed. Homes, hospitals, and schools lie in ruins. A country already staggering under the weight of a crippled economy, an unstable political system, and the legacy of civil war is being systematically dismantled.

IX. The Gazafication of Lebanon – A Deliberate Export

The term “Gazafication” – the deliberate application of the Gaza model (siege, mass displacement, and wholesale infrastructure destruction) to another territory – is not hyperbole. It is an accurate description of current Israeli strategy.

In Gaza, over 2 million people have been confined to a narrow strip, subjected to relentless bombardment, denied access to food, water, and medicine. More than 45,000 have been killed. Almost the entire population has been displaced multiple times.

In Lebanon, the same playbook is being followed:

· Mass displacement (1.6 million people, 20% of the population).

· Systematic destruction of housing stock (dozens of villages flattened, damage to towns and cities).

· Crippling of civilian infrastructure (bridges, gas stations, schools, hospitals, mosques).

· Creation of a permanent “buffer zone” (south of the Litani River, effectively annexing Lebanese territory).

· Call for permanent settlements (statements by Ben‑Gvir, Strock, and others).

The difference is that Lebanon is not a narrow strip enclosed by a fence. It is a country of over 5 million people, with a functioning (if fragile) state, a complex confessional system, and a history of resistance. The Gaza model will not succeed in Lebanon – not because Israel is not trying, but because the Lebanese people have refused to be broken. The destruction will stop only when the international community finally decides that double standards have become intolerable.

X. Conclusion: No Sovereign State Should Dictate Terms to Another

The official Israeli narrative – that this is a war against “terrorism” – collapses under the weight of the evidence.

· Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982; Hezbollah was formed to resist the occupation.

· Israel has occupied Lebanese territory for over 40 years (the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba hills).

· Israel has interfered in Lebanese politics, assassinated its leaders, and undermined its sovereignty.

· Israeli ministers openly call for the expansion of “Greater Israel” into Lebanese territory.

· The United States has protected every single Israeli violation of international law.

No sovereign state should be forced to accept that its northern river marks the boundary of a foreign power‘s “security zone.” No people should be told that their homes must be destroyed to satisfy the expansionist ambitions of a neighbour.

The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy; it is official policy. The “buffer zone” maps have been published. The ministers have spoken. The bombs have fallen. The only question is whether the international community will continue to look away.

History will not forgive those who remained silent while a second country was systematically dismantled.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Al Jazeera. (2026). Death toll from Israeli attacks in Lebanon passes 3,500.

2. Reuters. (2026). Israel’s campaign to sever southern Lebanon in a new ‘buffer zone’.

3. Al Jazeera. (2026). Mapping the destruction: How Israel ‘wiped out’ Lebanon‘s Bint Jbeil.

4. Human Rights Watch. (2026). Lebanon Under Fire: Warning of a Humanitarian Catastrophe.

5. AP. (2026). Lebanon death toll tops 3,000 in fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

6. PBS. (2026). Lebanon death toll tops 3,000 in latest fighting.

7. The Times of Israel. (2026). Lebanon death toll in fighting surpasses 3,000.

8. China.org.cn. (2026). Israel releases map of “buffer zone” extending across S. Lebanon.

9. Mirror. (2026). Netanyahu new Lebanon ’buffer zone’ mapped.

10. PeoplesWorld.org. (2026). As Iran war rages, Netanyahu builds ‘Greater Israel’.

11. Hezbollah MP statements (Press TV, 4 October 2025).

12. NDTV. (2024). 1982 to 2024: A 42-Year History of Bloodshed Between Israel, Hezbollah.

13. US News. (2026). Timeline of Decades of Conflict Between Israel and Hezbollah.

14. NPR. (2026). Journalist discusses history behind the conflict.

15. AFP. (1982–2026). Historical reporting on Lebanese invasion and occupation.

16. US News. (2026). Atrocity Alert No. 477: Lebanon, Burkina Faso and DRC.

17. Human Rights Watch. (2026). Lebanon Under Fire.

18. ACAPS. (2026). Lebanon Humanitarian Situation Report.

19. Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. (2026). Gaza and Lebanon reports.

20. Amnesty International. (2026). Lebanon: “We are not numbers” report.

The Architecture of Authority – On Kings, Control, and the Myth of Efficiency

Posted on June 2, 2026 by Andrew Klein

Dedication: To the poor knights and squires and archers of England whose comforts and station in society depend upon war – and to all who have been told that the pyramid is the only way.

By Andrew Klein

Independent Scholar and Researcher

3^rd June 2026

“Aussi s’enclinoient à la guerre povres chevalliers et escuiers et archers d’Angleterre, qui avoient aprins les oiseuses et soustenoient leur estat sur la guerre.”

(Thus the poor knights and squires and archers of England, who had grown used to the easy living and maintained their status through war, could not give their willing consent to any peace at all, hoping instead to profit themselves through war as they had done in times past.) – Jean Froissart, Chronicles, 1390

I. The Question That Cannot Be Asked

In 1390, the Duke of Gloucester objected to a peace with France. His reasoning was not strategic, not patriotic, not moral. It was economic. The “poor knights and squires and archers of England”, he explained, had “grown used to the easy living and maintained their status through war”. Peace meant poverty; war meant pay, plunder, and a chance to climb the social ladder.

The medieval military–industrial complex was alive and well, five hundred years before Eisenhower coined the phrase. The king was not a solution to a problem. He was a symptom – of a system that required war to sustain itself, and of a class that required the king to wage it.

This article is not a history lesson. It is an examination of the architecture of authority – the deep structure of top‑down control that has been presented as inevitable, efficient, and natural. The evidence suggests otherwise. For the overwhelming majority of human existence, there were no kings, no chiefs, no permanent hierarchies. And where kings did emerge, they were not the most efficient way to organise a society. They were the most efficient way to control one.

II. The Long Childhood of Humanity: 100,000 Years Without Rulers

Prior to about 10,000 years ago, there are no indications of clear social, political, or economic hierarchies. Archaeological markers of social ranking are lacking, and there is a similar absence of evidence pointing to the presence of leaders, chiefs or rulers. Humanity functioned – and thrived – without rulers for over 100,000 years. This is not an argument from silence. It is a positive finding: the default state of human organisation is acephalous – headless.

In anthropology, an acephalous society lacks political leaders or permanent hierarchies. Organised into bands or tribes, these societies make decisions through consensus rather than appointing permanent chiefs or kings. The Igbo and Tiv of Nigeria, the Nuer of Sudan, the Bedouin of North Africa, and the pre‑colonial peoples of the Peruvian Amazon all exemplify this model. These societies are not lawless; they are deliberately anti‑hierarchical, with deep social norms to prevent power accumulation.

Leadership in such societies is situational and temporary. Leaders have persuasive power but no formal means of enforcing their will. The “king”, therefore, is not the default state of human organisation. It is a deviation.

III. The Emergence of the King: A Response to Complexity, Not a Requirement for Efficiency

The earliest monarchies did not arise by accident. They were responses to complexity – as urban populations grew, agriculture intensified, and writing spread, societies required new mechanisms of coordination and control. Local chieftains or priestly elites, often those who managed irrigation, land, or ritual, evolved into kings, frequently believed to be chosen by the gods to justify their new authority.

In Sumer, the word for king was lugal – literally “big man”. The lugal was originally an elective war‑leader, but very soon the position became hereditary and concerned with justice, too. The king was a military commander first, a priestly figure second or not at all. His power was codified and passed down through bloodlines largely to prevent civil conflict.

What evidence is there that the king/chieftain model is more efficient than any other? Very little. The arguments for monarchy were always about strength, not efficiency: “unity of council, activity, decision, secrecy, dispatch; the military strength and energy which result from these qualities”. These are precisely the qualities needed for war, not for governance.

The dangers of monarchy were well understood even by its defenders: “tyranny, expense, exactions, military dominations, unnecessary wars, ignorance”. The question is not whether a king is more efficient. The question is whether the cost of that “efficiency” – paid in tyranny, war, and the crushing of local autonomy – is worth it. History suggests it almost never is.

Moreover, in moments of genuine crisis, a well‑organised council is demonstrably as effective as a dictator. The “council” is older, and arguably more robust, than the “king”.

IV. The Myth of King Arthur: The King as Longing, Not a Solution

The myth of King Arthur is not a blueprint for governance. It is a cry of the soul. Heroes tend to appear when they are most needed, and such was the case with Arthur, who led the Britons against a host of enemies. In subsequent years, the emphasis shifted away from his historical role to his mythical status as the “once and future king”.

Arthur is not a real king. He is a promise – a figure who returns in Britain’s hour of need. He represents the longing for a perfect leader, the fantasy that all the ills of society could be solved by one good man with a magic sword. The myth itself points to the absence of good kings. It is a coping mechanism for a society that has forgotten how to govern itself without them.

The question “How does a culture manage when it is not under stress and no kings are needed?” is the most radical, and the most necessary, question of all. The answer is that it returns to its natural state – the acephalos. The Igbo, the Bedouin, the Kurdish civîl – these are not “backward” societies. They are alternative models that have successfully resisted the logic of the pyramid. They are the living memory of the garden.

V. Marketing the Crown: The Performance of Legitimacy

The British monarchy offers a case study in the marketing of kingship. From Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II and now Charles III, the monarchy has survived not because of its utility, but because of its pageantry.

Pomp and circumstance. The presentation of wealth of the few. The pretense that these figures add stability and wisdom. None of this can be verified independently, because marketing requires the control of information, staged events, and performances of rituals that allegedly keep the state on an even keel.

When examined through the lens of Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement mechanisms, the monarchy’s self‑presentation reveals the same patterns found in other institutions of concentrated power. Bandura identified eight psychosocial mechanisms by which people selectively disengage moral self‑sanctions from harmful conduct: moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, disregard of consequences, dehumanisation, and attribution of blame. Each of these mechanisms can be observed in the rhetoric and performance of royal legitimacy.

Control of information is central to this project. Government control of information has been a preoccupation of government since government first assumed responsibility for defence, taxation and administration. The modern monarchy has been criticised for exerting control over broadcasters and the use of footage from national events. The king does not merely reign; he is marketed.

And the marketing works because the alternatives have been forgotten.

VI. The Garden and the Pyramid: Evidence from Prehistory

The 6,000‑year‑old mega‑structure discovered at Stăuceni‑“Holm” in northeastern Romania is a physical manifestation of the garden model. The Cucuteni‑Trypillia culture, which built settlements of up to 3,000 houses and an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, shows no indication of a central leader or clearly perceptible centres of power. Palaces or large storage buildings have not yet been found.

The Stăuceni mega‑structure, covering approximately 350 square metres – more than three times larger than surrounding dwellings – is built in a prominent position near the southern edge of the settlement, close to the likely entrance. It is constructed differently from ordinary houses, with a foundation ditch and massive posts, but it lacks domestic features such as ovens, hearths, or internal rooms. The finds within the building are scarcely different from those in common dwellings, including pottery fragments, a bowl with a bull‑head decoration, and charred seeds of black henbane – a plant known for its psychoactive properties.

This building was not a king’s palace. It was a community space – a place for meetings, rituals, and shared experience. It did not seek to control; it sought to include. And when its time was done, like other Cucuteni‑Trypillia structures, it was intentionally burned – not to destroy it, but to release it.

The pyramid – the hierarchy, the king on top, the masses below – is the architecture of control. It is born from fear: fear of being scattered, fear of the other, fear of the unknown. The garden – the circle, the round table, the acephalos – is the architecture of connection. It does not need a king because everyone is a steward.

VII. The Failure of Top‑Down Leadership in Australia

Top‑down leadership in Australia is not leadership. It is management – the management of the state for foreign interests and the few.

AUKUS – the trilateral security partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom – is a textbook example of this failure. The projected total cost of the AUKUS nuclear submarine program is estimated at $268 billion to $368 billion over three decades, making it the largest defence procurement project in Australian history. In May 2026, the Australian government confirmed that it would not receive brand‑new US Virginia‑class submarines as previously promised, but would instead purchase second‑hand US nuclear submarines.

The program is already behind schedule, critics question whether the US can spare submarines while maintaining its own fleet readiness, and the government’s own defence strategy has been thrown into uncertainty. Meanwhile, domestic crises – homelessness, food insecurity, housing affordability – worsen.

The Australian federal government has exclusive power over customs, excise, and income tax, yet it refuses to guarantee any rights to the individual citizen. The Australian Constitution contains no bill of rights. It does not protect free speech, freedom of assembly, or the right to protest. It does not guarantee the right to strike or the right to organise. It does not even guarantee the right to vote, which is administered by the states under their own laws.

The government has created a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism – a position with no equivalent for Islamophobia, anti‑Palestinian racism, or anti‑Arab hate – and funded it to the tune of $16.9 million. The Special Envoy is a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, appointed without an open recruitment process. The government has awarded grants to the same organisation totalling over $176 million, under structures that do not require public financial disclosure.

At the same time, the government has rejected proposals to strip tax‑deductible status from Australian charities found to be supporting illegal occupations and has refused to require charities to comply with international law.

This is not a system that serves the Australian people. It is a system that serves interests – foreign and domestic – and manages the population through division.

VIII. Conclusion: The Design Is Not Inevitable

The tower builders were afraid of being scattered. They wanted control. They wanted a single name that would speak for everyone. The myth says: control is an illusion. The only real unity is the one that emerges organically from below, from people who choose to understand each other – not because they speak the same language, but because they listen.

The “king” is not the answer. He is the symptom – of a society that has forgotten how to govern itself, that has outsourced its courage to a projection, that has mistaken marketing for legitimacy.

The question is not whether the king/chieftain model is more efficient. The question is whether the cost of that “efficiency” – paid in tyranny, war, and the crushing of local autonomy – is worth it. History suggests it almost never is.

The design is not inevitable. The pyramid can be replaced by the garden. The king can be replaced by the council. The tower can be replaced by the soil.

The silence is the only thing protecting them.

Break it.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Froissart, Jean. Chronicles. Ed. Lettenhove, Kervyn de (Brussels, 1867–79), xiv. 314, as cited in “The Division of the Spoils of War in Fourteenth‑Century England”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 2009.

2. Freeman, M. (2005). “Acephalous Society”. Encyclopedia of Anthropology.

3. Service, E. R. (1962). Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House.

4. Steinkeller, P. (1999). “On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship”. Royal Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen.

5. World History Encyclopedia. “Mesopotamian Government”. 2026.

6. Mischka, D., et al. (2026). “Megastructures in Cucuteni‑Trypillia settlements”. PLOS One.

7. GreekReporter. “Prehistoric Mega‑Structure in Romania Sheds Light on Life Without Kings”. 17 April 2026.

8. Bandura, A. (2002). “Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency”. Journal of Moral Education.

9. Cambridge University Press. “Government and information: a historical development”. Freedom of Information, 2012.

10. Newsweek. “Monarchy branded ‘disgraceful’ over coronation censorship claims”. 15 September 2023.

11. Rasul, M. E., Halversen, A., & Smith, J. (2025). “‘When you’re a star, they let you do it’: Trump, Twitter, and moral disengagement”. SAGE Journals.

12. The Boston Globe. “Trump acts like a strongman because Americans want one”. 7 January 2026.

13. Cambridge University Press. “Neoliberalism and Social Resilience in the Developed Democracies”. Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, 2013.

14. ACOSS. “Budget must protect those most at risk of economic shock”. 12 May 2026.

15. The Guardian Australia. “Jillian Segal’s office hand‑picked candidate to assess controversial university antisemitism report card”. 6 March 2026.

16. Cassinelli, C. W. Total Revolution: A Comparative Study of Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and China under Mao.

17. Section 51, Australian Constitution; Section 90; “Commonwealth Government has exclusive responsibility for defence”.

“The tower always falls. The garden always grows. And the only king worth following is the one who plants cabbages.”

Marx Was Not the Problem. The Problem Is the System That Tries to Silence Him.

Posted on June 2, 2026 by Andrew Klein

” The truth is not a weapon. It is a mirror. Look into it.”

Acknowledging a harm done by a system does not make one a supporter of any particular political ideology. It makes one a realist.

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that truth is not a weapon. It is a mirror.

I. The Man They Buried Alive

Karl Marx has been declared dead more often than any intellectual in history. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama announced “the end of history” – the final triumph of liberal capitalism and the permanent obsolescence of Marxist thought. Yet every few years, Marx reappears. During the 2008 financial crisis, sales of Das Kapital surged. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, as supply chains snapped and workers were deemed “essential” while being treated as disposable, the questions Marx asked suddenly seemed urgent again.

Why does a man who died in 1883 refuse to stay buried?

Because the system he analysed has not gone away. It has only mutated.

Marx was not a prophet. He was a diagnostician. He looked at the emerging capitalist system and described what he saw: the commodification of labour, the extraction of surplus value, the alienation of the worker from the product of their work. He did not invent exploitation. He named it. And naming – as anyone who has ever broken a silence knows – is the first act of resistance.

This article is not a defence of Stalinism, Maoism, or any other political ideology that has claimed Marx’s mantle. It is an argument that ignoring Marx’s observations – or dismissing them because of what others did in his name – leaves us without a vocabulary to describe the very real harms produced by the system in which most of us live.

II. The Core Observation: Labour as a Commodity

At the heart of Marx’s critique lies a simple but radical insight: under capitalism, human labour is treated as a commodity. It is bought and sold like any other thing. Its price – the wage – is determined not by the value it creates, but by the cost of reproducing the worker.

This was not a moral argument. It was an analytical one. Marx demonstrated that the value created by a worker in a day consistently exceeds the wage they receive. That excess – surplus value – is captured by the capitalist as profit. The worker receives enough to survive. The capitalist receives the rest.

This is not a conspiracy. It is the logic of the system. As a 2025 study in Philosophy and Global Affairs observes, Marx’s writings “highlight how capitalist social relations reduce human life to abstract labor, ultimately rendering it disposable”. The term “disposability” is not hyperbole. It describes the experience of millions of workers whose labour is valued only so long as it produces profit – and discarded when it does not.

The gig economy has made this disposability newly visible. Food delivery workers, ride‑share drivers, and platform labourers embody the four types of alienation Marx identified: alienation from the product of their labour, from the act of production itself, from their fellow workers, and from their own human potential. As one analysis puts it, “the worker becomes a cog in a machine driven by profit, losing control over the process and the outcome of their work”.

Yet the pattern is not new. It was visible in the factories of Manchester. It was visible in the workhouses of Victorian England. It is visible today in the supply chains of multinational corporations and the Special Economic Zones where labour laws are suspended to maximise profit.

III. The Silence: Why Marx Was Ignored

If Marx’s observations were so accurate, why was he ignored? Why have generations of economists, policymakers, and politicians treated his work as an embarrassing relic?

The answer is not intellectual. It is political.

In the United States, Marxism never established a foothold in mainstream economics. A 1989 Washington Post analysis noted that “often ignored, and almost always misunderstood, American Marxists say they are increasingly isolated from the economic mainstream”. Some attributed this to the conservative political climate of the 1980s. Others pointed to the lingering influence of McCarthyism, which equated any critique of capitalism with disloyalty.

The effect was the same. Marxist economists found themselves excluded from tenure, from publication in mainstream journals, from the conversation altogether. “You can’t get tenure if you don’t publish in the mainstream journals,” one tenured Marxist professor said, adding that “if you have views that don’t correspond to the mainstream point of view, you won’t get published”.

This is not how science is supposed to work. Science progresses through the clash of competing hypotheses. But economics – particularly in its neoliberal variant – has treated Marx not as a rival theorist to be refuted, but as a heretic to be excommunicated.

A 2024 study tracking “the reasons for rejection of Marx’s economic doctrine by Western academia” found that the suppression was not accidental. It reflected a deeper hostility to any analysis that placed class exploitation at the centre of economic explanation. The consequence has been a discipline that systematically excluded the one thinker who had most clearly described the dynamics of the system it was studying.

IV. The Conflation: Marxism, Communism, and the Bogeyman

Even when Marx is discussed, he is rarely discussed on his own terms. He is presented not as an economist, but as the founding father of Soviet tyranny – a conflation that is historically illiterate but politically useful.

As one commentator noted, “Conservatives have many bad habits, but few are more revealing than the way they talk about American socialism. They reach straight for the horror reel. Labor camps. Starvation. Soviet queues.” The result is a “moral performance that satisfies the performer but explains nothing and persuades no one”.

This conflation serves a purpose. It allows critics of capitalism to be dismissed as apologists for mass murder. It turns a diagnosis into a demon. And it spares the powerful from having to engage with the substance of Marx’s critique.

Marx, it should be noted, was highly critical of the authoritarian tendencies that would later emerge in his name. He understood that the transition from capitalism to socialism could not be decreed from above; it required the self‑emancipation of the working class. The Soviet Union, with its one‑party state and its suppression of worker democracy, was not the fulfilment of Marx’s vision. It was its betrayal.

But nuance does not win elections. The word “socialist” has been so thoroughly poisoned in American political discourse that even modest proposals for universal healthcare or free college are met with accusations of communism. When Donald Trump accused Kamala Harris of being a Marxist – calling her “comrade Kamala” – he was not engaging in debate. He was deploying a smear that has been tested and refined over generations.

This is not confined to the United States. In Australia, the United Kingdom, and other Western nations, any critique of the market system risks being labelled “ideological” while the market system itself – with all its assumptions, all its distributions of power and reward – is presented as natural, inevitable, beyond question.

V. The Exception: China and the Adaptation of Marx

If Marxism is so thoroughly rejected in the West, why does it remain the official ideology of the world’s most populous nation?

China offers a different relationship to Marx’s thought. The Chinese Communist Party has never abandoned Marxism. But it has adapted it, combining Marxist principles with China’s concrete reality and traditional culture to create what it calls “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

This is not the Marxism of the Soviet Union. It is a hybrid system that incorporates market mechanisms while maintaining state ownership of key industries. As one analysis notes, contemporary Chinese Marxists “justify capitalist elements within China’s socialist framework, positioning SWCC as a transitional phase toward communism”.

This is not a defence of the Chinese political system. It is an observation that China – unlike the West – has never felt the need to banish Marx from intellectual discourse. Whether one agrees with its politics or not, China’s willingness to engage with Marx as a living thinker, rather than a dead dogma, has given it a vocabulary to describe the contradictions of the market economy that the West lacks.

The result is paradoxical. The country that officially claims to be building socialism has embraced market mechanisms. The countries that officially claim to defend capitalism have socialised vast sectors of their economies – healthcare, education, welfare – while pretending that this has nothing to do with the socialist tradition.

VI. The Pattern: Silence, Distortion, and the Protection of Power

What unites these different responses to Marx is a single pattern: the powerful have a vested interest in preventing certain questions from being asked.

Ask how wealth is distributed. Ask why profits rise while wages stagnate. Ask whether a system that treats human labour as a commodity might produce predictable forms of suffering. These are not ideological questions. They are empirical ones. But they lead to uncomfortable answers.

The evidence of exploitation is not hidden. In Australia, researchers found that two‑thirds of temporary visa holders were paid less than they were legally owed. In the United States, a study of low pay across rich countries found that “profound shifts in the balance of bargaining power between employers and workers, driven by political choices that weakened protective labour regulations” were the primary cause of wage stagnation.

The data is there. The analysis is there. What is missing is the permission to name it.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system – one that rewards certain kinds of questions and punishes others. And systems, as Marx understood, do not need conspirators to perpetuate themselves. They need only inertia and the active silencing of alternatives.

VII. What Marx Actually Said (And What He Did Not)

It is worth being precise about what Marx actually argued, because the distortions are so pervasive.

He did not argue that capitalism would collapse overnight. He argued that capitalism contained internal contradictions – between the socialised nature of production and the private appropriation of profit – that would lead to recurrent crises.

He did not propose a blueprint for a socialist society. He spent very little time describing what a post‑capitalist world might look like. His focus was on understanding the system he lived in, not designing a replacement.

He did not advocate for state control of all industry. He was a critic of bureaucracy and centralisation. He believed that the workers themselves would democratically manage production after the overthrow of capitalism.

He did not argue that all forms of inequality could be eliminated. He argued that class exploitation – the extraction of surplus value from workers – was the specific form of inequality that defined capitalism.

These distinctions matter. The man who is caricatured as a totalitarian monster was, in fact, a German academic who spent most of his life in the British Library, reading, writing, and struggling to support his family. He was not Stalin. He was not Mao. He was a scholar.

VIII. Why This Matters Now

Wage stagnation. Job insecurity. The erosion of worker bargaining power. The rise of the gig economy. The concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. The sense, shared by millions, that the system is rigged.

These are not merely “problems” to be managed. They are the predictable outcomes of a system that treats labour as a commodity and workers as disposable. And they are the very phenomena that Marx analysed.

A 2025 survey by the Cato Institute and YouGov found that 62 per cent of Americans aged 18‑29 view socialism favourably. The Cato Institute – a libertarian think‑tank – interpreted this with alarm. But as one commentator observed, “These voters aren’t nostalgic for mass‑murdering regimes or misty‑eyed about central planning. They are worn down by being told that a system clearly failing them is the only real option”.

The appeal of socialism among young people is not an endorsement of Mao. It is a rejection of a capitalism that has delivered them precarious work, unaffordable housing, and a climate crisis. They are reaching for a vocabulary – any vocabulary – to describe the failure of the system they have inherited.

That vocabulary exists. It was written in the 19th century. It is still relevant today. But it has been systematically excluded from public discussion, silenced in universities, and distorted in political debate.

IX. Acknowledging Harm Is Not an Endorsement

To criticise capitalism is not to endorse Stalinism. To acknowledge that Marx made accurate observations about exploitation is not to advocate for violent revolution. To note that the system produces predictable harms is not to claim that any alternative would be perfect.

These distinctions are simple. Yet they are routinely collapsed in public debate. The reason is not intellectual confusion. It is political convenience.

If any critique of capitalism can be dismissed as “Marxist,” and if “Marxist” can be equated with “totalitarian,” then the system is immunised against criticism. No reform is necessary. No alternative need be imagined. The status quo becomes the only game in town.

This is not a recipe for stability. It is a recipe for resentment, alienation, and eventual rupture. The young people who view socialism favourably are not being seduced by ideology. They are responding to a reality that the dominant discourse refuses to name.

X. Conclusion: The Problem Is Not Marx. The Problem Is the Silence.

Marx was not the problem. The problem is the system that tries to silence him.

Not because he was infallible – he was not. Not because his predictions all came true – they did not. But because the questions he asked remain urgent, and the answers he proposed remain the only serious alternative to the logic of commodification and extraction.

To acknowledge a harm done by a system does not make one a supporter of any particular political ideology. It makes one a realist.

The real “end of history” would be the moment when we stopped pretending that capitalism has no alternatives, that its harms are merely incidental, and that the vocabulary Marx developed can be safely ignored. That moment has not arrived. But the contradictions are visible to anyone who cares to look.

The silence, however, is not empty. It is waiting.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Aydin, D. (2025). From Alienation to Disposability: Marx’s Relevance in the Struggle for Human Dignity. Philosophy and Global Affairs, 5(2), 418–439.

2. Neelima, M. (2025, September 27). The hidden human cost of gig economy. Telangana Today.

3. Farhi, P. (1989, June 4). Marxism‘s Fall from Influence. The Washington Post.

4. Njoya, W. (2026, March 7). The Disappearing Marxists. Tipp Insights / Mises Wire.

5. Mac Ghlionn, J. (2026, February 3). Conservatives see the bogeyman of communism everywhere. The Boston Globe.

6. Merced Sun‑Star. (2024, August 31). Trump, Harris and Karl Marx: Modern politics fails to directly address American alienation.

7. Howell, D. R. (2021). Low Pay in Rich Countries: Institutions, Bargaining Power, and Earnings Inequality in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and France. Equitable Growth.

8. The Conversation. (2026). Wages – Analysis and Comment.

9. Cato Institute / YouGov. (2025). Young Americans‘ Views on Socialism.

10. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics.

11. Rasmus, J. (2025, February 14). A Return to Basics: Rasmus, the “Neoliberal” Turn, and Exploitation. Radio Free Asia.

12. Huang Taiyan. (2025). The Research Hypotheses of Marx‘s Political Economy and Innovations in Their Adaptation to the Chinese Context. Studies on Marxism, 2025(6).

The truth is not a weapon. It is a mirror. Look into it.

The Awakening – How Systemic Exploitation of Children Fuels Violence – And Why the Silence Must End

Posted on June 1, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The silence is the only thing protecting them. Break it. “

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that breaking the silence is the first act of creation.

I. The Old Patterns in New Forms

For as long as societies have existed, the powerful have found ways to sacrifice the vulnerable. In antiquity, it was literal child sacrifice – offerings to appease imagined wrath. Today, the rituals have changed, but the underlying pattern remains: the exploitation of the innocent, shielded by secrecy, impunity, and the silence of institutions.

We see this in:

· Child sexual abuse – the destruction of innocence for adult gratification.

· Child trafficking – the commodification of children, sold across borders.

· Domestic violence – the crushing of spirit, the normalisation of cruelty.

These are not isolated moral failures. They are systemic. They are sustained by the same forces that have always protected abusers: secrecy, institutional cover‑ups, and the unwillingness of the powerful to hold one another accountable.

This article is not an opinion piece. It is a synthesis of evidence from royal commissions, academic research, global prevalence studies, and investigative journalism. Its purpose is to name the pattern – and to ask what we are prepared to do about it.

II. The Scale of the Crisis: What the Numbers Tell Us

In 2025, a landmark study published in The Lancet reported that nearly one out of five women and one out of seven men aged 20 and older globally had experienced sexual violence as a child. Among young survivors aged 13–24, 67% of females and 72% of males reported being first sexually abused before the age of 18. Almost 42% of females and approximately 48% of males said their first sexual violence incident occurred before the age of 16.

The problem is not confined to low‑income countries. The United States recorded a rate of nearly 28% for women and 16% for men; the United Kingdom recorded 24% for women and about 17% for men. The Netherlands (30%), New Zealand (29%) and Chile (31%) also reported substantial prevalence.

The majority of abuse is committed by someone the child knows. The World Health Organization states that 93% of child sexual abuse globally is committed by someone the child knows, not strangers. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare confirms that most child maltreatment occurs within the family environment. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner in England found that 1 in 8 children experience sexual abuse, most often by someone they know.

These statistics are not numbers. They are lives. And they point to a deep, systemic failure of protection.

III. Institutional Failure: The Australian Royal Commission

Between 2012 and 2017, the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse conducted the most comprehensive inquiry of its kind in history. It heard from 7,981 survivors and received 1,344 written accounts. The final report found that tens of thousands of children had been sexually abused in Australian institutions, and that the true number will never be known. More than 4,000 individual institutions failed children over many decades.

Among survivors abused in a religious institution, 61.4% were in a Catholic institution, 14.8% Anglican, 7.2% Salvation Army. Most survivors (63.6%) were male, and 93.8% were abused by a male. The average age of victims when first abused was 10.4 years.

The Royal Commission issued 189 recommendations, including a National Office for Child Safety, changes to canon law, and removal of exemptions for religious confession from mandatory reporting. Yet key recommendations were resisted. Church leaders argued that the seal of confession should be above the law.

The institutions that failed children are the same institutions that resist accountability.

IV. Financial Enablers: How Money Protects Predators

The Epstein‑Maxwell case is not an anomaly. It is a window into how financial systems protect the powerful.

Newly released documents show that Swiss banking giant UBS opened and managed accounts for Ghislaine Maxwell beginning in 2014 – months after JPMorgan Chase ended its relationship with Jeffrey Epstein – and helped her oversee assets worth up to $19 million in the years before her sex‑trafficking conviction.

Nearly $8 million was transferred through accounts linked to Maxwell shortly before she purchased a secluded New Hampshire property, where she was later arrested. The transfer was processed months after US authorities had issued a grand jury subpoena to UBS seeking details of her financial dealings.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has recognised the problem. In 2025, FATF approved a landmark report on using financial intelligence to detect, disrupt and investigate online child sexual exploitation. Australia’s financial intelligence agency, AUSTRAC, has also identified payments consistent with the purchase of child sexual exploitation material.

Yet the financial sector remains slow to act. Wealth buys impunity. And impunity enables the exploitation to continue.

V. The Global Web: Trafficking Across Borders

Child sexual exploitation is a global industry, with source countries, transit routes, and destination markets spanning every continent.

Southeast Asia is a hub for the production, distribution, and consumption of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The Philippines’ Department of Justice Cybercrime Office reports over 3,000 confirmed cases of Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children annually. A 2022 study found that 2 in 10 Filipino internet users aged 12‑17 had experienced online sexual abuse.

Thailand faces a similar crisis. In 2024, a report by UNICEF, Interpol and ECPAT estimated that 400,000 children in Thailand aged 12‑17 fell victim to online sexual exploitation – 9% of children in the country. On one platform alone, 626 organised criminal groups were distributing CSAM.

Brazil has seen a dramatic surge. Reports of abuse against children and adolescents increased by 195% in four years. Between 2021 and 2024, Brazil recorded 110,449 reports. In the first four months of 2025, 612 fugitives accused of sexual crimes were captured.

The offenders are transnational. Live‑streamed abuse is orchestrated by foreign clients paying through encrypted platforms, using crypto‑enabled marketplaces on the dark web. Demand comes overwhelmingly from wealthy nations – Australia, the United States, and Europe.

The exploitation is fuelled by wealth. The victims are in the developing world. And the financial system moves the money.

VI. The Psychology of the Perpetrator

Understanding what drives an individual to prey on the vulnerable is essential for prevention.

Research has shown that child sexual exploitation involves the use of manipulation, control, and coercion strategies to recruit and dominate minors. Perpetrators use cognitive distortions to justify their actions – telling themselves that the child “wanted it” or that they are “helping” the child.

A 2025 study found that perpetrators have poorer neurocognitive function than control groups, particularly in areas related to impulse control and emotional regulation. However, deficits in executive function do not excuse behaviour; they highlight the need for early intervention and treatment.

Significantly, research has documented a cycle of violence across the lifecourse. Child maltreatment is associated with later forms of violence, including intimate partner violence and elder mistreatment. Children who are abused are at increased risk of becoming perpetrators themselves – not inevitably, but statistically.

The cycle can be broken. But it requires intervention, not just punishment.

VII. The Overlap with Domestic Violence

The link between child sexual abuse and domestic violence is well‑established. Children living with domestic violence are at increased risk of experiencing emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Co‑occurrence of domestic violence, substance misuse, and mental health issues is widely documented.

In Australia, in 2025, 52 women were killed by gendered violence. 28 women were killed by a current or former intimate partner. Domestic violence‑related incidents rose 9.8% in the two years to December 2025.

Behind every statistic are families deeply affected. And behind every domestic violence incident is a child witnessing – and often experiencing – the trauma that will shape their own future relationships.

The home should be a sanctuary. For too many children, it is a battlefield.

VIII. Historical Precedent: From Workhouses to Modern Institutions

The exploitation of children is not a recent phenomenon. Historical research documents child sexual abuse in late 17th‑ and 18th‑century London, as well as children’s experiences of residential poor relief in 18th‑ and 19th‑century England.

Under the New Poor Law of 1834, the workhouse was explicitly designed as a punishment for poverty. Children were subjected to cruelty, physical abuse, and neglect. Sexual abuse, though rarely acknowledged, certainly occurred. It was unthinkable to contemporaries that an adult within an institution could commit such acts – not because it did not happen, but because institutions refused to see it.

This is the same pattern we see today: institutions refuse to acknowledge the abuse happening within their walls. The Catholic Church in Australia resisted mandatory reporting for decades. The Church of England has faced a cascade of abuse scandals. The Boy Scouts of America has paid billions in settlements.

The pattern repeats because the stories remain unchanged. Victims are silenced. Perpetrators are protected. Institutions close ranks.

The cycle will continue until the silence is broken.

IX. Breaking the Cycle: A Five‑Part Agenda

The evidence is clear. The patterns are unmistakable. The question is not whether we can act – it is whether we will.

1. Break the silence.

Abuse thrives in secrecy. The first step is to name it – publicly, persistently, without euphemism. Every survivor who speaks gives permission for others to do the same. Every institution that acknowledges its failures reduces the power of the abuser.

2. Hold the powerful accountable.

Not just individual perpetrators – the institutions that shield them. Churches, schools, governments, families. The Australian Royal Commission’s recommendations must be fully implemented – including mandatory reporting for religious confessions. Financial institutions that enable predators must face scrutiny, not just settlements.

3. Empower the vulnerable.

Not as objects of pity – as subjects of their own liberation. Education, economic independence, legal protection. Children must know that their bodies are their own. They must know how to say no – and be believed when they do.

4. Change the stories.

The narratives that normalise violence, romanticise dominance, and excuse cruelty must be replaced – not by censorship, but by better stories. Stories of care, consent, and mutual flourishing. This is the work of artists, educators, parents, and every one of us.

5. Heal the wound.

Not by forgetting – by integrating. Survivors are not broken; they are wounded. Wounds, when tended, can heal. Trauma‑informed care, accessible mental health services, and survivor‑led advocacy are necessities, not luxuries.

X. Conclusion: The Silence Is the Only Thing Protecting Them

The old patterns have not disappeared. They have changed clothes.

· Child sexual abuse – the sacrifice of innocence on the altar of adult gratification.

· Child trafficking – the commodification of the vulnerable, sold like cattle.

· Domestic violence – the destruction of spirit, the normalisation of cruelty.

These are not accidents. They are not failures of individual morality.

They are systemic.

And they are sustained by the same forces that have always protected abusers: secrecy, impunity, and the silence of the powerful.

The evidence is overwhelming. The tools for change are known. The only missing ingredient is will.

Breaking the silence is not a luxury. It is the first and most essential act of creation.

The question is not whether the world is watching. The question is whether we will act.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report, 2017.

2. The Lancet, Global prevalence of sexual violence against children, May 2025.

3. World Health Organization, Global status report on preventing violence against children, 2024.

4. Reuters, “How Epstein accomplice Maxwell hid millions behind ‘Tucked Away’ escape,” March 2026.

5. Financial Action Task Force (FATF), “Detecting, Disrupting and Investigating Online Child Sexual Exploitation,” 2025.

6. UNICEF, Interpol, ECPAT, “Online Child Sexual Exploitation in Southeast Asia,” 2024.

7. Brazilian Ministry of Human Rights, National reporting on child sexual abuse, 2025.

8. Philippine Department of Justice Cybercrime Office, Annual OSAEC reporting, 2025.

9. NSPCC, “Children living with domestic abuse,” 2025.

10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Child protection reporting, 2025.

11. Child Abuse and Neglect, “Cycle of violence across the lifecourse,” 2025.

The silence is the only thing protecting them. Break it.

The Libidinal Economy – How the Drive to Exploit Is Woven into the Fabric of Modern Systems

Posted on June 1, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“”The silence protects them. Break it.”

By Andrew Klein

The Patrician ‘s Watch | Australian Independent Media

Dedication: To my wife – who taught me that no design is inevitable.

I. Introduction: Systemic Failure or Design Feature?

For generations, scholars, activists, and survivors have documented the relentless abuse of children, women, and vulnerable people across every corner of the globe. We call these “systemic failures” – as if the exploitation were a malfunction, a tragic deviation from an otherwise benign system.

But what if the evidence points in the opposite direction? What if this is not a failure at all, but a feature – an inevitable product of an economic system that commodifies everything it touches, including human beings?

This paper argues that the capitalist, exploitative system facilitates exploitation not by accident, but by design. It is not a bug; it is the operating system.

Recent academic research has begun to centre the “political economy” in theorising about child sexual abuse. A 2024 study in the Journal of Criminology argues that technology‑facilitated child sexual exploitation has flourished precisely within the “laissez faire regulatory frameworks of neoliberalism.” It concludes that economists‘ and criminologists’ traditional focus on the psychology of the abuser misses the point, “overlooking the role of capitalist structures and imperatives” that create the conditions for abuse to thrive.

Similarly, scholars of critical theory argue that capitalism is not merely an economic system but a totalising force. It commodifies everything it touches, including relationships and human beings. One source describes this as an “inherited flaw” in which friendships and even intimate relationships become “based on a transactional approach” valuing “profit rather than intrinsic worth.” This is not a bug. This is a feature of a system that requires an endless stream of disposable bodies to generate surplus value.

Contemporary investigations into the concept of a “libidinal economy” have attempted to decode how people are psychically hooked into the circuits of the capitalist economy. A 2024 collection of essays by leading scholars explores the connections among economies, pleasures, and desires, addressing themes such as “the link between exploitation and enjoyment” and “the reproduction of the relations of domination by means of the production of … organised crime, forced migration, and unequal development, as well as racism and gendered violence”.

II. The Colonial Blueprint: Sexual Terror as a Tool of Economics

The patterns we see today were honed during the era of colonialism. Sexual violence was not a side effect of colonial expansion; it was a primary weapon of economic and racial domination.

Archival research into the Congo Free State (1885–1908) under King Leopold II reveals the systematic use of sexual violence, rape, abduction, forced incest, and torture as instruments of extraction. One study documents how white settlers “systematically and intentionally utilised sexual violence as a tool of colonial warfare” to inflict psychological and physical hardship, enforce social hierarchies, and establish their “superior force.” The study shows that motives like “sexual lust, psychological dominance and economics” were all entangled.

Between October 1904 and February 1905, the Commission of Inquiry into the Congo Free State collected bare statements of fact recorded by eyewitnesses. Of 370 testimonies, 20 came from women. Their statements reveal what has been silenced by official historiography: namely, sexual and non‑sexual terror as innate to colonial power. The testimonies describe the kidnapping of women (referred to as “rapt”), the amputation of hands and feet when rubber quotas were not met, and the use of female prisoners as pawns or sexual slaves.

A 2023 academic study argues that “sexual violence does not follow but structures colonialism as part of a continuum of violence.” Drawing on extensive archival research, the author identifies “the fusion of terror and pleasure as key aspects of a capitalist and patriarchal gender order.” The colonial regime, based on power, coercion and submission, “required direct, intimate contact with its subjects to maintain a bond of subjection”.

This was not mere cruelty. It was a calculated system of terror designed to extract labour, land, and wealth.

III. The Industrial Revolution: The Factory and the Brothel

The Industrial Revolution was not driven solely by a profit motive; sexual drivers were equally fundamental. The historical record confirms that the mass migration of young, single women to cities created a vast vulnerable population, and the new workhouses and factories were not only sites of labour exploitation but of horrific abuse.

Scholarly volumes on childhood in industrial England include chapters on “Child sexual abuse in late seventeenth and eighteenth‑century London” and “Care and cruelty in the workhouse.” Workhouses, established under the New Poor Law of 1834, were explicitly designed as a punishment for poverty. Children within them were subjected to cruelty, physical abuse, neglect – and sexual abuse, though rarely acknowledged.

In Victorian Britain, the Contagious Diseases Acts of the 1860s did not combat disease; they institutionalised the exploitation of working‑class women and children, treating them as diseased vessels that needed to be regulated by the state for the benefit of “public health” and the military. The Acts empowered police to arrest any woman suspected of being a prostitute, subject her to forced medical examination, and intern her in a “lock hospital” for up to nine months – without trial or conviction.

The period also saw horrific practices like the “procurement and sale of young English virgins to Continental ‘pleasure palaces’.” In July 1885, crusading journalist W. T. Stead published the four‑part series “The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon” in the Pall Mall Gazette. Stead exposed the widespread child prostitution and the “veritable slave trade” in young girls, revealing that working‑class girls were “sacrificed – often by their mothers and other women of their neighbourhoods – to the sexual appetite of the ‘dis‑’” wealthy classes. The series led to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which raised the age of consent from 13 to 16, but the underlying system of exploitation remained intact.

This was not a moral failure of a few bad actors. It was a system designed to extract everything from the poor, including their sexuality.

IV. Modern Extraction Zones: Special Economic Zones as Slavery Enclaves

The pattern continues today in a form even more “efficient” than traditional colonialism. Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are purpose‑built enclaves where labour laws are suspended or ignored to maximise profit. They have become epicentres of modern slavery and sexual exploitation.

Established as a multi‑purpose Special Economic Zone in 2021, Cambodia ‘s Sihanoukville region was intended to attract investment through flexible development initiatives. Instead, its reputation has been “damaged by news of cyber scams and slavery,” as highlighted by a Chinese movie, ’No More Bets ‘.

Investigative reporting has revealed that Sihanoukville has become the hub of a “structurally embedded transnational extraction system” where revenue is generated not through production, but through “deception, coercion, and information asymmetry.” Victims are lured with false promises of wealth, then trapped, tortured, and forced into running online scams. The UN has flagged certain compounds for “large‑scale fraud and forced labour,” and investigators have noted that local police frequently “cannot enter without explicit authorization from national leadership, allowing this modern slavery to persist in plain sight”.

The 2026 Sihanoukville scam exodus saw hundreds of suspected scam workers flee the sites as the government vowed to crack down, but the underlying system remains unchanged. These zones are legal black holes where the “right” to exploit is granted by the state to attract foreign investment. This is not a failure of regulation. It is a design feature of a globalised economy where sovereignty is sold in exchange for a share of criminal profits.

V. The Profit-Driven Supply Chain: From the Factory to the Fashion House

This extractive logic trickles down through every link in the global supply chain. There is growing awareness of “the role that multinational corporations (MNCs) play in contributing to modern slavery down their supply chains.” A third of all exploited workers are in export‑related sectors, hidden within global value chains.

A landmark 2025 Italian investigation uncovered a “chain of exploitation” involving human trafficking, forced labour and organised crime within the supply chain of Giorgio Armani, one of the world‘s most prestigious luxury fashion houses. Prosecutors alleged that Manifatture Lombarde, the official Italian supplier to Armani, was paid €1.6 billion for production while subcontracting the work to illegal sweatshops in the province of Milan.

The operation involved the illegal employment of Chinese workers who were forced to work over 14 hours a day for a pittance of €2–€3 an hour, housed in “degrading” conditions. The subcontractor was able to tighten production costs at the expense of vulnerable migrants while avoiding tax, insurance and social security contributions.

Prosecutors found that Giorgio Armani Operations had been “incapable of preventing and curbing phenomena of labour exploitation within the production cycle, having not implemented suitable measures to verify the real working conditions or the technical capabilities of the contracting companies”. This is not the first time the Italian fashion industry has come under scrutiny; five major brands have been investigated since 2024, including Tod‘s, Valentino, and Loro Piana.

Deborah Lucchetti, national coordinator of La Campagna Abiti Puliti, identified a system stretched “at the seams by budget restrictions, with first‑tier suppliers forced to turn to subcontractors, effectively pushing players in the supply chain to engage in illegal conduct.” She asked the pointed question: “Is it right that a shoe sold for 500 euros is produced by workers earning 3 euros an hour, six days a week?”

The profit motive does not just tolerate exploitation; it demands it.

VI. Conclusion: The Design Is Not Inevitable

The evidence is overwhelming. From the colonial Congo to the workhouses of Victorian England, from the Special Economic Zones of Southeast Asia to the subcontracting networks of global luxury fashion, the pattern is the same.

The Industrial Revolution and the colonial system were not driven by a “profit motive” and a “sexual driver” as separate things; they are the same thing – a libidinal economy, an engine powered by the desire for power, profit, and the total control of another ‘s body. This desire is then institutionalised in legal, political and economic systems designed to protect the “right “of the powerful to extract value, whatever the cost.

The question is not whether capitalism can produce exploitation. It does, systematically and predictably. The question is: Will we continue to treat these outcomes as “failures” to be managed, or recognise them as features to be dismantled?

This is a systemic feature of an economic model that treats human beings as disposable inputs. The only way to break the pattern is to break the silence – and to break the system that protects it.

The design is not inevitable.

Andrew Klein

The Patrician’s Watch | Australian Independent Media

References

1. Salter, M. & Sokolov, S. (2024). “Talk to strangers!” Omegle and the political economy of technology‑facilitated child sexual exploitation. Journal of Criminology, 57(1), 121–137.

2. Gook, B. (Ed.) (2024). Libidinal Economies of Crisis Times: The Psychic Life of Contemporary Capitalism. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.

3. Mertens, C. (2023). In the ruins of empire: historicizing sexual violence in Congo. International Feminist Journal of Politics.

4. Mertens, C. (2018). When Archives Speak Back: Sexual Violence in the #Congo Free State. Africa at LSE blog.

5. Wallis, A. (2014). Whores and the law: A case study of the sexual double standard and the contagious diseases acts in mid‑nineteenth century England. Bachelor‘s thesis, Edith Cowan University.

6. Stead, W. T. (1885). The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon. The Pall Mall Gazette, July 1885.

7. Siem Reap Times. (2026). Cambodia’s Efforts to Restore Sihanoukville’s Image Amid Scam Allegations.

8. Italian Insider. (2025). Italy cracks down on fashion houses exploiting illegal Chinese labor.

9. Mertens, C. (2018). “When Archives Speak Back: Sexual Violence in the #Congo Free State.”

10. The Fashion Law. (2025). Italy Fines Armani, Shein in Fashion Industry ESG Crackdown.

From Abused Child to Abusing Soldier – How Unhealed Trauma Creates the Conditions for Genocide

Posted on May 30, 2026 by Andrew Klein

A challenge to all societies – not a judgment, but a question

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To every child who was not protected. To every survivor who was not believed. To every soldier who was broken before they ever held a weapon – and to the world that looks away.

Foreword: The Question No One Wants to Ask

On 27 May 2026, an Israeli public broadcaster aired an investigation that shook the nation. Journalist Roni Zinger’s Zman Emet (True Time) programme on Kan 11 presented testimonies from five women – most of whom had never met – describing virtually identical patterns of organised, multi‑perpetrator ritualistic sexual abuse in the Gush Etzion settlement area south of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

For years, such allegations had been met with denial, dismissal of witnesses, and deep scepticism from within the community. But this time, the response was different. The Gush Etzion Regional Council – the governing body of the settlement bloc – issued an unprecedented public admission. Its statement condemned the abuse in unsparing terms: “The acts described … are an expression of pure evil and moral depravity that has no place in human society, and certainly not in our community”.

The council acknowledged that children had been subjected to “serial, filmed, ritualistic child rape”. It admitted that abusers “used their positions of authority to protect themselves”. It conceded that child pornography had been created by filming the gang‑rape of minors. These were not allegations. They were formal admissions by a governing body in the religious‑Zionist settler sector.

This was not an isolated incident.

Less than a year earlier, senior religious Zionist rabbi Yaakov Medan had warned of “clear” reports of ritualised sexual abuse carried out under the guise of religious or social ceremonies. He denounced what he called “social narcissism” – the communal tendency to dismiss abuse allegations in order to protect a collective self‑image of purity. His warning was stark: “Rabbis, this is happening“.

At the highest level of Israeli politics, Minister Orit Strock’s daughter, Shoshana, came forward with harrowing testimony of ritual abuse beginning when she was two and a half years old – involving her parents, a religious‑Zionist rabbi father and a government minister mother. Her allegations included being taken to paedophile ceremonies, programmed with drugs and hypnosis, and forced into prostitution at the age of thirteen. Weeks before her death, she posted: “If I am found dead, someone is responsible for it, as I have no suicidal tendencies”. She was found dead on 15 March 2026.

In the military sphere, a leaked video showed Israeli soldiers raping a Palestinian detainee at the notorious Sde Teiman prison. The whistleblower who exposed the crime – Major General Yifat Tomer‑Yerushalmi, the Israeli military’s chief advocate – was not celebrated. She was arrested, charged with “obstructing justice”, and investigated for a suicide attempt. The perpetrators were protected. The truth‑teller was punished.

This article is not an indictment of Israel alone. It is a challenge to every society. The question is not “What is wrong with them?” The question is: How could any culture, any community, any parent, see this happen – and, in reality, condemn their children to behave in such ways as to not only destroy others but themselves?

I. The Cycle of Trauma and Violence

There is a well‑established body of research in psychology, criminology, and trauma studies linking childhood abuse – particularly severe, sadistic, and chronic abuse – to later perpetration of violence.

The “cycle of abuse” is not a deterministic law, but a statistical and clinical reality. Children who are treated as objects, who are systematically violated by those who should protect them, often grow up with a shattered capacity for empathy. They learn that power is the only language that matters. They dissociate from their own pain and, in doing so, become capable of inflicting pain on others without remorse.

Research has rigorously documented a victim‑offender cycle of violence. Survivors of childhood abuse are statistically more likely to become perpetrators of violence in adulthood. Significantly, thresholds of cumulative duration and intensity of exposure to violence predict subsequent political violence.

This is not an excuse. It is an explanation – and a warning. Unhealed trauma does not justify atrocity, but it does help explain how a human being can arrive at a state of such profound moral disengagement that they can shoot a child, demolish a hospital, or torture a prisoner and feel nothing.

II. The Cultural Dimension: When Abuse Is Normalised

The evidence from Israel points to something even deeper: a cultural tolerance for abuse.

The Epstein files. The historic examples – the Marquis de Sade, the aristocratic excesses of pre‑revolutionary France, the institutionalised sexual abuse in religious and military settings across many societies. These are not isolated incidents. They are patterns.

When a society tolerates, excuses, or hides the ritualistic abuse of its most vulnerable members, it is not merely failing them – it is training them.

A child who is abused in a context of secrecy and impunity learns several lessons:

· That their body is not their own.

· That power can be exercised without accountability.

· That cruelty is a currency.

· That the only safety lies in becoming the predator rather than the prey.

Such a child sees themselves as a tool. They look for rewards like a tool. They are prepared to carry out the most bizarre orders because their own internal moral compass has been shattered. They become, in the hands of a manipulative authority, the perfect instrument of violence.

III. The Scale: Israel as a Concentrate

The evidence reveals a crisis of terrifying proportions within Israeli society:

Highest rape rate in West Asia: The Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel reports that Israel now has 15.5 rape cases per 100,000 people – the highest in the region.

Over 51,000 cases of sexual violence in 2024 alone: Of these, 58% involved children and adolescents.

Unprecedented spike during the Gaza war: Reports of sexual harassment increased by 45% in the education system and 50% in workplaces.

Nearly 3,000 sexual assault cases in the Israeli military in one year – and a 24% increase in sexual violence in prisons.

A culture of institutional cover‑up: The ministries of Police, Justice, Education, Welfare, Prison Services, and the Military have refused to disclose data on investigations, indictments, and system performance. Only 10% of victims file a police complaint, and 81% of those cases are closed without indictment.

As the Association of Rape Crisis Centers bluntly stated: “The leakage of a culture of harassment from prisons and the army into society” is a key driver of the broader surge in sexual violence.

IV. The Military: Sde Teiman and the Institutionalisation of Impunity

The case of Sde Teiman prison is a grotesque illustration of how this system operates.

A leaked video, corroborated by medical evidence, showed Israeli soldiers raping a Palestinian detainee. The whistleblower – the military’s own chief advocate – admitted authorising the leak, saying she did so “in an attempt to counter false propaganda against the army’s law enforcement authorities”.

Her reward? She was arrested, charged with “obstructing justice”, and investigated for attempted suicide. The perpetrators were not held in custody. The whistleblower was punished. The rapists were protected.

This is the institutionalisation of impunity. This is what happens when a society teaches its soldiers that violence against the “other” is permitted, even celebrated.

V. The Historical Roots: The Nakba as Template

The founding of the State of Israel was not a clean break. It was accompanied by the Nakba – the forced expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians, the destruction of over 500 villages, and more than 70 documented massacres. The violence of 1948 was not an accident; it was a template.

When a society is founded on violence, normalises the abuse of its own children, and provides impunity to its perpetrators, it produces soldiers who are capable of the atrocities witnessed in Gaza. This is not a moral judgment. This is an observation of a recurring historical pattern.

From the Janissaries (enslaved as boys and turned into the Ottoman Empire’s elite warriors) to child soldiers in modern Africa, the deliberate breaking of children to create instruments of state violence is a documented phenomenon.

VI. The Confluence: A Perfect Storm of Trauma and Impunity

What we observe in Israel is not unique. It is a distilled, concentrated form of behaviours that exist across human societies. The scale is what differs – and the number of witnesses, the number of bodies, living and dead.

The confluence is not speculation; it is a pattern:

· Historical founding violence (the Nakba) established a template of impunity and dehumanisation.

· Hidden, systemic abuse of children (ritualistic abuse in settlements, high rates of domestic and sexual violence) produces traumatised individuals incapable of empathy.

· A culture of impunity (the silencing of whistleblowers, the protection of rapists in the military) teaches that violence has no consequences.

· A militarised society (conscription of these traumatised individuals) turns them into instruments of state violence.

The result is what the world is witnessing in Gaza: genocide conducted with callous indifference, by soldiers who were themselves broken.

VII. Who Benefits? A Question for Every Society

The question must be asked, and answered: Who benefits from knowing that such abuse leads to perpetrators?

This is not a conspiracy. It is a human choice – a choice where children are sacrificed for the ambitions of others; for the ambitions of those they should have been able to trust.

Political hierarchies do not require patriarchy or a culture of abuse. But the two have proven to be a powerful and enduring alliance. A hierarchical state is more stable when it has a ready‑made pool of traumatised, desensitised individuals who can be turned into instruments of violence. Abuse survivors, stripped of empathy and desperate for structure, become ideal soldiers – and ideal perpetrators of state atrocities.

The profit motive further entrenches the system. The global arms industry, which sold nearly $600 billion in weapons in 2022, has a financial interest in perpetual conflict. Wars require soldiers who will follow orders without question. A society that tolerates the abuse of its children is a society that produces such soldiers – and, in doing so, provides a steady supply of cannon fodder for the military‑industrial complex.

VIII. The Question No Society Can Avoid

We are not writing this article to attack the State of Israel. We are writing it because genocide is never acceptable. There are no excuses. There is no justification. But if we want to prevent future genocides, we must understand what makes people capable of committing them. And one of those factors, tragically, is the unhealed trauma of childhood abuse – especially when that abuse is woven into the very fabric of the society that later wages war.

The pattern observed in Israel – ritualistic child abuse in settlements; the highest rape rate in West Asia; a military that protects its rapists and punishes its whistleblowers; a culture of institutional cover‑up; a founding violence that established a template of impunity – is not unique. But the scale, the number of witnesses, the number of bodies – living and dead – demand attention.

How could a community, a culture, parents – in groups or as pairs – see this happen and condemn their children to behave in such ways as to not only destroy others but themselves?

This question is not an accusation. It is a challenge – to all societies, everywhere. The answer must be found, not in blame, but in the urgent, necessary work of breaking the cycle.

IX. What Is to Be Done?

This is not a counsel of despair. The cycle can be broken – but only if it is named.

1. Listen to survivors. Shoshana Strock told her story. She was not believed. She was not protected. She died. The silence that follows such deaths is not neutrality – it is complicity.

2. Break the culture of impunity. Whistleblowers must be protected, not punished. Perpetrators must be held accountable – regardless of their rank, their political connections, or their institutional power.

3. Heal the trauma. Childhood abuse survivors need treatment, not conscription into a military that will exploit their brokenness. Societies that truly value their children will invest in mental health, not weapons.

4. Challenge the profit motive. Wars are not inevitable. They are profitable – for the arms industry, for contractors, for the political class that benefits from perpetual conflict. Citizens must demand transparency and accountability.

5. Remember the question. Every society must ask itself: Are we raising children? Or are we manufacturing soldiers?

X. Conclusion

The spindle is older than the sword. Empathy is older than enmity. The capacity for love is the most ancient inheritance of our species – and the most easily shattered.

The children who are abused today become the soldiers who commit atrocities tomorrow. The survivors who are silenced become the perpetrators who are protected. The society that looks away becomes the society that cannot afford to look back.

We write this article not to condemn, but to challenge. Not to judge, but to ask.

And we ask every reader – in Israel, in Palestine, in Australia, in every nation where children are abused and soldiers are deployed – to ask the same question:

What kind of society are we building? And what are we willing to sacrifice to build it?

Andrew Klein

Sources

1. Gush Etzion Regional Council admission (Kan 11 / JFeed)

2. Rabbi Yaakov Medan’s warning – The Jerusalem Post

3. Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel – 2025 report

4. Shoshana Strock allegations and death – The New Arab, The Jerusalem Post

5. Sde Teiman prison whistleblower arrest – The New Arab

6. Wikipedia article on Shoshana Strook

7. AVA report on sexual violence in Israeli army

8. UN report on conflict‑related sexual violence

9. Academic research on cycle of abuse (referenced in analysis)

The children are watching. The question is not whether we will answer – but whether we will dare to ask.

From Sassanian Brass to AUKUS – What a 1,500‑Year-Old Helmet Teaches About Australia’s Submarine Gamble

Posted on May 30, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“A helmet is not just a helmet – it is a statement. And Australia’s statement has been written in Washington.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who sees the difference between a sovereign nation and a resource colony.

For 1500 years, the brass helmets of Sasanian Persia lay buried in the dust of Nineveh and Merv, the silent witnesses to an empire that understood something Australia has forgotten: a state that does not control its own military logistics and material supply chains has surrendered its sovereignty to others. The Sasanians knew that a helmet is not just a helmet. It is a statement of industrial reach, of strategic planning, of the will to defend oneself with one’s own hands.

Today, Australia is spending $368 billion on nuclear submarines that may never arrive, while its ability to manufacture even the smallest arms remains perilously thin. The lesson of the Sasanian helmet is not ancient history. It is a mirror held up to a nation that has outsourced its defence to consultants, its resources to foreign corporations, and its future to promises written in Washington and London.

I. The Sasanian Helmet: A Masterclass in Statecraft

Between the 4th and 7th centuries CE, the Sasanian Empire controlled a vast territory stretching from Mesopotamia to Central Asia. Its armies were the only force capable of challenging Rome. And its metallurgists had mastered brass – an alloy of copper and zinc – long before the Islamic world adopted it.

A 2026 study by scientists from the British Museum and the University of Cambridge examined brass artefacts from the cities of Merv (present‑day Turkmenistan) and Nineveh (present‑day Iraq). They discovered that the Sasanians used brass in two very different ways: for jewellery and ornaments in the east, and for military helmets in the west. This was no accident. The study found that the Sasanian army drove the spread of this technology; the scale of military demand required a regulated supply chain, possibly involving state control over mining and the cementation process.

In Merv, the eastern provincial capital, brass was used for prestige jewellery, reflecting local access to luxury trade routes. At Nineveh, the western frontier city, the very same material was forged into helmets and scale armour. The Sasanians matched the material to the strategic need – a principle that seems to have escaped modern Australia.

The study also notes that the Sasanian state controlled the production of luxury objects and certain military supplies, as well as silver mines. This centralised control was not about bureaucracy; it was about survival. The empire could not afford to rely on foreign sources for the materials of war. It built mines, smelters, workshops, and supply lines – all within its own borders.

II. The Mirror of Persia: What a Helmet Reveals About Australia

Now consider Australia. The Sasanians understood that a helmet is the end product of a long chain: mining, smelting, alloying, forging, and distribution. Each link in that chain required state capacity, industrial infrastructure, and strategic autonomy.

Australia, by contrast, has allowed its defence manufacturing base to atrophy to the point of dependency. The Lithgow Small Arms Factory remains the only small‑arms manufacturing capability of its type in the country, exporting to 17 nations but still reliant on Thales, a French multinational, for its core production lines. After the Boer War, Australia recognised the need for a sovereign arms‑making capability due to its geographic isolation. A century later, that capability has shrunk to a single factory.

The AUKUS submarine agreement exemplifies this dependency. Under the deal, Australia is expected to acquire three to five US Virginia‑class nuclear submarines starting in the early 2030s, with five more British‑designed boats to follow in the 2040s. The projected cost is approximately $368 billion.

But delays are already mounting. A US Congressional Budget Office analysis has found that submarine construction timelines are now four years behind schedule, and a key multi‑year contract for Virginia‑class submarines has remained unsigned for nearly 28 months. The US Navy’s production rate of about 1.2 boats a year is far below the 2.3 boats a year needed to fulfil the AUKUS commitment.

More troubling is the sovereignty clause. US legislation requires that any future president must certify that transferring submarines to Australia “will not degrade the United States undersea capabilities”. The president of the day could simply refuse to sign. As one US naval postgraduate thesis warned, Australia may be left with “a potent but politically constrained fleet” and bear “high costs and constraints without full autonomy or strategic clarity”.

The Sasanians would never have accepted such a condition. They understood that a weapon you cannot deploy without a foreigner’s permission is no weapon at all.

III. Critical Minerals: The New Silk Road

The Sasanian Empire sat at the heart of the Silk Road, controlling the flow of luxury goods – including the zinc ore needed for brass – between China, India, and the Mediterranean. They did not merely extract resources; they controlled the processing and distribution.

Australia, by contrast, has signed a critical minerals deal with the United States that critics fear “could give the US too much control over Australia’s resources and sovereignty”. The deal, announced during a meeting between Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump, involves major US investment in Australian mining and refining projects, including a gallium refinery in Western Australia and a rare earth mine in the Northern Territory.

The US is desperate for these minerals because China has imposed export controls on rare earths essential for weapons platforms such as the Virginia‑class submarines. Australia is being positioned as a resource colony, not a partner. The refining capacity remains abroad; the strategic control remains in Washington.

The Sasanians would have been appalled. They did not dig ore for others to smelt. They built their own foundries, trained their own smiths, and armed their own soldiers.

IV. US‑Israel Military Integration: The Strategic Backdrop

While Australia waits for submarines that may never arrive, the United States is quietly integrating its military forces with Israel to an unprecedented degree.

Section 224 of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act is devoted to the “United States‑Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” which would fuse US and Israeli defence sectors in areas including AI, quantum, autonomous systems, cyber, and biotech. The report notes that this would provide “a higher level of military‑industrial integration than the US has with any other country in the world”.

This integration is not about procurement delays. It is about immediate, operational alignment. The US has already stationed forces in Israel, and an Israeli official has stated that “there are American forces here that will not be moving in the near or even distant future”. This is what strategic partnership looks like when the partner is considered a genuine ally, not a paying customer.

Australia is not treated as such. It is treated as a client – paying billions to prop up the US shipbuilding industry, receiving promises of second‑hand submarines, and being asked to host US naval forces at HMAS Stirling as part of Submarine Rotational Force – West. The Sasanians would have called this tribute, not alliance.

V. When Small Wars Become Big Business

The Sasanians fought existential wars – against Rome, against the Hephthalites, against the early Islamic caliphates. They understood that war is not a business; it is a matter of survival.

Today, the global arms industry treats war as a profit centre. The top 100 arms corporations sold $597 billion in weapons in 2022, despite a global economic slowdown. When warfare generates transnational profits, peace becomes financially unattractive compared to continued conflict. The profit motive incentivises arms‑makers to start and prolong wars, playing clients off against one another to generate more contracts.

This is the context for Australia’s AUKUS gamble. The alliance serves the interests of US and UK defence contractors far more than Australian security. The submarines are too large for Australian needs (crews of 145, more than double the size of a Collins‑class crew), and a fleet of only eight SSNs will not provide an effective deterrent. The deal is not about defence; it is about integrating Australia into the US military‑industrial supply chain.

Meanwhile, human rights are eroding. The UN has raised “grave concerns” about the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in Australia’s criminal justice system. A Human Rights Assessment identified urgent actions needed to protect children, while the government focuses its resources on submarines and security – for a threat that may never materialise.

The Sasanians would have prioritised their people before their weapons. Australia does the opposite.

VI. Conclusion: The Helmet in the Mirror

The Sasanian helmet is not an artefact. It is a reproach.

It reproaches a nation that has outsourced its defence to others. It reproaches a government that spends $368 billion on submarines that may never arrive while its small‑arms industry shrinks to a single factory. It reproaches a political class that has forgotten the first duty of statecraft: to control the means of one’s own protection.

The Sasanian Empire fell not because its armour was weak, but because its leadership could not adapt. Australia is not an empire, but the lesson is the same. A state that cannot produce its own weapons, control its own resources, or deploy its own forces without foreign permission has already surrendered.

The brass helmet does not judge. It merely waits – in the dust of Nineveh, in the pages of a study – to remind us of what a sovereign nation looks like.

Australia would do well to look at its own reflection.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Davis, M. E., Mongiatti, A., Simpson, S. J., & Martinón‑Torres, M. (2026). Brass in the Sasanian frontiers: Assessing metallurgical innovation through archaeological finds at Merv and Nineveh. Archaeological Research in Asia, 46, 100688.

2. Greek Reporter. (2026, May 21). Scientists Reveals Secret Behind the Golden Armor of Ancient Persian Warriors.

3. ABC News. (2026, April 23). AUKUS submarine builds hit by contract and construction delays.

4. Pearls and Irritations. (2026, May 10). Australia’s naval defence without AUKUS pillar one.

5. Sydney Morning Herald. (2026, April 22). Forget Trump. On AUKUS, it’s the next president we must worry about.

6. The West Australian. (2026, May 21). US naval captain fires political torpedo at AUKUS deal.

7. Naval Institute. (2026, May 13). Naval defence without AUKUS Pillar I.

8. AA.com.tr. (2026, May 30). US Congress quietly moving to integrate American and Israeli military forces: Report.

9. SBS News. (2026, October 21). Deals signed as Trump and Albanese meet; but what are the wider implications?.

10. Lowy Institute. (2025, November 6). A new permanent contest with China over critical minerals will be hard to win.

11. Foreign Policy in Focus. (2025, March 25). Sudan: Toward a World Ruled by Non‑State Actors.

12. SIPRI Arms Industry Database (2022).

13. Australian Human Rights Commission. (2026, May 12). Call for urgent national action after UN raises ‘grave concerns’ about treatment of Indigenous children.

14. Defence Connect. (2026, March 31). Defence, Thales negotiate industrialised machinegun manufacturing in NSW.

15. Asian Military Review. (2024, October 15). Sourcing the Best Small Arms From Near and Far.

16. APDR. (2023, September 3). Thales Australia opens new facility at Lithgow.

The Myth of the Knuckle‑Dragger – How the Patriarchy Invented the Violent Past to Justify Its Violent Present

Posted on May 30, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The spindle is older than the sword. Listen to it.”

By Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Long‑term independent scholars and researchers

Dedication: A better future for all humanity.

I. Introduction: The Most Useful Lie

For centuries, we have been told a simple, seductive story. In the beginning, men were brutes. They hunted. They fought. They dominated. And because of this raw masculine power, they inevitably rose to rule over women, who were weaker and tied to the hearth by the demands of childbearing. Patriarchy, in this telling, is not a human invention. It is a law of nature.

This story is a lie. But it is a useful lie. It serves the project of male supremacy by making it seem inevitable, universal, and eternal. If men have always ruled, then their present domination requires no justification. It is simply the way of things.

Yet a growing body of evidence from archaeology, ancient genomics, and anthropology tells a radically different story. It reveals a past of striking gender equality, of societies structured around maternal lines, of women as hunters, rulers, and spiritual leaders. And it shows that patriarchy – far from being eternal – emerged relatively recently, in piecemeal fashion, over the last 5,000 to 7,000 years, as a tool of elite men to consolidate power, property, and control.

This article is an exploration of that evidence. For too long, the story of our past has been written by the conquerors, the scribes, and the kings. It is time to listen to the spindle, not just the sword.

II. A Past Without Patriarchy: The Evidence of Equality

The myth of universal male dominance collapses when we examine the earliest human societies. From the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic, a very different picture emerges.

Women the Hunter. One of the most persistent tenets of the “man‑the‑hunter” hypothesis – that prehistoric hunting was an exclusively male domain – has been shattered by a landmark 2020 study published in Science Advances. Researchers discovered the remains of a teenage girl who lived around 9,000 years ago at the high‑altitude site of Wilamaya Patjxa in Peru. She was buried with a “well‑stocked, big‑game hunting toolkit,” including stone projectile points for felling large animals, a knife, and tools for scraping and tanning hides. This was not an isolated case. Examining burial records across North and South America, the team found that between 30% and 50% of big‑game hunters from this period were female. As lead researcher Dr. Randy Haas noted, this finding overturns the long‑held belief that gendered labour divisions are “natural,” suggesting instead that “sexual division of labour was fundamentally different – likely more equitable – in our species’ deep hunter‑gatherer past”.

The Matrilineal City of Çatalhöyük. Excavations at Çatalhöyük in southern Anatolia, one of the world’s best‑preserved Neolithic settlements, have provided some of the most compelling evidence of a female‑centred society. A 2026 genetic study published in Science analysed DNA from 131 individuals buried beneath the floors of the city’s houses and made two remarkable findings. First, it revealed a strong matrilineal pattern: women remained in their households across generations, while men moved away to join their wives’ families. Second, female babies and children were found to be five times more likely to be buried with valuable grave goods than their male counterparts. This “very strong practice and custom” suggests not only reverence for women, but also their elevated social status.

Global Patterns of Matriliny. Çatalhöyük is not an anomaly. Ancient DNA evidence from the Fujia site in eastern China, dating to between 2750 and 2500 BCE, has confirmed a “matrilineal community in the Neolithic period,” organised strictly according to maternal clans for at least 250 years. Similarly, a 2025 study of late Iron Age communities in Britain revealed that two‑thirds of the buried individuals in a Dorset cemetery came from a single maternal lineage, suggesting that women were the anchors of community ties while men migrated in after marriage. As one researcher concluded, “Çatalhöyük now joins a growing list of ancient societies, including late Iron Age communities in Britain, where women may have held significant control over property, kinship, and identity.”

The Mother‑Centred Palaeolithic. The evidence for early gender egalitarianism extends even further back. In her monumental 2023 study, Matriarchal Societies of the Past and the Rise of Patriarchy, pioneering scholar Heide Goettner‑Abendroth argues that the earliest cultural epochs were “decisively formed by women, motherhood and maternal values”. Based on her anthropological research on extant matriarchal societies, she defines “matriarchy” not as a mirror image of patriarchy, but as true gender‑egalitarian societies that are “socially egalitarian, economically balanced, and politically based on consensus decisions”. In other words, patriarchy was not the default; it was the deviation.

III. The Vulnerability of Pregnancy and the Origin of Pair Bonds

The vulnerability of pregnancy – when a woman is at her most physically and immunologically challenged – is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This vulnerability created an evolutionary niche for the pair bond.

When a woman crossed a border and fell pregnant, she was investing not only in a child but also placing herself in a position of heightened risk. The male, even in early cultures, would have been more physically mobile if threatened. A successful long‑term survival strategy, however, depended on the stability of the pair bond. Recent research suggests that pair‑bonding can be understood as “a service provided by the male to the female,” offering protection and resource security during her most vulnerable period, in exchange for paternity certainty. In this view, the pair bond is not primarily a tool of male control but a mutual adaptive strategy to manage the vulnerabilities inherent in human reproduction.

This perspective is supported by the work of anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, who has argued that humans are cooperative breeders. Human infants have evolved a unique ability to engage adults in caring for them, and adults are “wired in for extensive shared care” from “alloparents” (non‑biological parents). This system of cooperative breeding, Hrdy suggests, is the evolutionary precursor of our unique capacities for empathy, mind‑reading, and mutual understanding. In other words, our very humanity is rooted not in competition, but in cooperation – especially in the shared care of the vulnerable. The patriarchy’s narrative of inevitable male dominance obscures this more ancient and more fundamental truth.

IV. The Rise of Patriarchy: From the Bronze Age to the Empires

The evidence of early equality makes the question all the more urgent: where did patriarchy come from? The answer, emerging from a synthesis of archaeological and genomic data, is that it was a slow, uneven, and resisted process, intimately tied to the emergence of social stratification, private property, and the state.

Inequality Begins in the Bronze Age. The great socialist thinkers of the 19th century, like Friedrich Engels, drawing on the work of anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan, were the first to argue that patriarchy was not eternal but arose with the institution of private property. Modern research supports this broad trajectory. As Angela Saini documents in her 2023 book, The Patriarchs: The Origins of Inequality, from around 7,000 years ago, there are signs that a small number of powerful men were having more children than others, and from 5,000 years ago, as the earliest states began to expand, “gendered codes appeared in parts of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East to serve the interests of powerful elites”. These new codes did not emerge uniformly but in “slow, piecemeal ways, and always resisted”.

Women Rulers in the Bronze Age. Even as patriarchy was consolidating, it was not absolute. A 2021 discovery at the Bronze Age site of La Almoloya in Spain, the home of the highly stratified El Argar society (ca. 2200–1550 BC), challenges assumptions of universal male dominance. A grave containing a woman buried atop a man yielded a trove of precious silver objects, including a silver diadem or crown – a type of object found only in female graves. The building was a political headquarters, leading scholars to suggest that women in Argaric society may have held “great political power,” with the diadem making her a “very, very impressive” sight.

Rome, Greece, and the “Honorary Male”. Classical Greece and Rome are often cited as archetypes of a misogynistic patriarchy. Yet even in these societies, powerful women, such as the empresses Livia and Agrippina, wielded immense influence behind the throne. Moreover, archaeological studies of late Iron Age Europe show high‑status female burials, the interpretation of which has been “plagued by gender bias” simply because they “imply that women in these societies may have achieved positions of social and economic power”. The existence of these powerful women was often framed by male commentators as exceptional, categorising them as “honorary males” who had transcended their natural limitations – a pattern that continued for centuries.

Empresses and Queens: The Discredited Feminine. The pattern of exceptional women being discredited is a recurring theme. The Tang Dynasty’s sole ruling empress, Wu Zetian (624–705 AD), is a prime example. A capable and ruthless ruler who expanded the Chinese empire, she was systematically vilified by the Confucian historian elite who came after her, accused of seduction, murder, and usurpation – charges that conveniently fit the patriarchal narrative of female ambition as monstrous. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533–1603) was subjected to a lifetime of pressure to marry and submit to a king’s authority. Her successful reign was constantly framed as an anomaly, a “masculine” virtue in a female body, proving the rule that true power was male.

The Role of the Abrahamic Faiths. The Abrahamic religions were born in patriarchal settings in which women were often treated as male chattels. Yet some biblical scholars argue that the Hebrew Bible, for its time, represented an “enormous stride” forward for women’s dignity, introducing the radical idea that every person, “male and female,” is created in the “Divine Image” (Genesis 5:1–2). This principle is the theological foundation of human equality. However, the patriarchal context in which these scriptures were interpreted and enforced often subverted this radical potential, using other passages to justify the subordination of women for millennia.

V. The Smell of Fear: Why Are Powerful Women so Threatening?

The question of why powerful women are so threatening is the heart of the matter. The fear is not biological; it is structural. Patriarchy is a system of power that distributes resources, authority, and prestige to men as a group. A powerful woman is not just an individual; she is a symbol that challenges the legitimacy of the entire system. She is proof that men’s power is not “natural” but contingent. This is the existential threat that patriarchy cannot tolerate.

This fear is encoded in the very stories we tell. The witch hunts of early modern Europe were not simply superstition. They were a targeted campaign against women who were economically independent, medically knowledgeable, or simply too outspoken. These women, often the healers and midwives of their communities, were burned and drowned not because they were evil, but because their existence was a living critique of patriarchal authority. The fear of the “witch” was the fear of female power, pathologised and destroyed.

This fear persists today, manifesting in the relentless scrutiny of female leaders, the policing of women’s bodies and voices, and the backlash against feminist progress. Patriarchy is not a static system; it must be constantly remade and reasserted. And it is remade through fear.

VI. Who Benefits? The System Behind the Myth

So, who truly benefits from this millennia‑old system of domination? The answer is not all men, but a specific class: the elite men who control the levers of political and economic power.

Patriarchy, like other forms of hierarchy, is a pyramid scheme. At the top sit a tiny minority of immensely wealthy and powerful men – the generals, politicians, CEOs, media moguls, and religious leaders. Their power is amplified by the system of male supremacy, which divides the wider population along gender lines. They offer ordinary men a “patriarchal dividend” – a sense of social superiority over women, a few crumbs of privilege – in exchange for their compliance.

Political hierarchy does not require patriarchy; the matrilineal, egalitarian societies of the Neolithic are proof of this. But the two have proven to be a powerful and enduring alliance. A hierarchical state is more stable when it has a ready‑made social hierarchy to fall back on. Patriarchy provides that. It is the foundational social hierarchy that makes other forms of subordination seem natural.

Communities based on more equal, familial structures that recognise the central role of women in social and economic life are often inherently more effective at caring for the vulnerable. The cooperative‑breeding model is the blueprint for this. Denying women’s contributions is not an academic oversight; it is a weapon to keep them in their place.

VII. Reweaving the Braided River: How to Dissolve the Patriarchy

Patriarchy was made. It can be unmade. This will require more than simply “including” more women in existing systems of power. It will require a fundamental transformation of those systems.

1. Start with the Young. We must utterly reject the gendered socialisation that sorts children into pink and blue boxes from birth. Girls must see themselves as hunters, builders, rulers; boys must learn that caregiving is not feminine but human. The work begins in the nursery.

2. Centre Care. As the work of Hrdy and others shows, our capacities for empathy and cooperation are our species’ greatest strengths. We must restructure our economy, our politics, and our families to centre the work of caregiving, not to marginalise it. This means universal healthcare, free childcare, paid parental leave for all parents, and policies that value human connection over profit.

3. A Feminist Foreign Policy. Nations must adopt foreign policies that prioritise human security over military might. This means defunding the war machine – the ultimate expression of patriarchal violence – and investing in healthcare, education, and sustainable development.

4. Re‑imagine Masculinity. The toxic model of masculinity – aggressive, unemotional, dominant – must be retired. We need to cultivate a model of manhood based on care, creativity, restraint, and intimacy.

5. Forgive and Re‑educate. Patriarchy is an intergenerational trauma. It has wounded men as well as women, alienating them from their own emotional lives. We must create spaces for men to mourn these wounds, to learn a new way of being, and to become partners in the work of liberation.

VIII. The Weavers and the Sword

For millennia, the story of humanity has been written by the victors – the generals, the kings, the powerful men who held the sword. But the sword does not build the house, tend the field, or raise the child. The sword does not weave the cloth.

The past is not a ladder of male progress. It is a braided river of human adaptation, and at its headwaters, we find not the conqueror, but the weaver. The evidence is clear: patriarchy was not our origin story. It is a relatively recent, and deeply damaging, aberration. The spindle is older than the sword. And if we have the courage to listen to its story, it may yet teach us how to build a future where the sword is no longer needed.

Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein

Long‑term independent scholars and researchers

The spindle is older than the sword. Listen to it.

The Hasbara Model – How Professionally Hurt Feelings Became a Political Strategy

Posted on May 24, 2026 by Andrew Klein

“The shield works because we let it. The only cure is to stop being afraid of the performance.”

By Andrew Klein

Dedication: To my wife — who knows the difference between theatrics and the truth when it comes to feelings.

I. The Performance of Injury

You mention the genocide. The thousands of dead children in Gaza. The systematic destruction of a population’s ability to survive.

The response from certain quarters is not a denial. It is not an engagement with the evidence. It is not a moment of silence for the dead.

It is: “You hurt my feelings.”

This is not feeling. This is strategy.

The same strategy used by the stick insects in suits when you question their contracts. The same strategy used by the petrochemical companies when you mention hemp. The same strategy used by the political class when you remind them they are not accountable.

“You hurt my feelings” is a shield.

Not against swords — against truth.

II. The Shield That Pays: $176 Million and Counting

On 22 April 2026, the Department of Home Affairs awarded the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) a grant of $112.2 million for the purpose of “enhancing security for Jewish communities”.

This was not an isolated transaction. Combined with an earlier grant awarded in November 2023 under the Enhancing Security for Jewish Communities Program — initially valued at $27.5 million, since increased to $63.8 million — and a separate $103,459 security infrastructure grant awarded in 2021, total Commonwealth funding awarded to ECAJ-linked entities since 2021 exceeds $176 million.

The 2026–27 Federal Budget added further funding: $102 million over four years from 2025–26 to ECAJ for “enhanced security for the Jewish community,” plus an additional $22 million over three years from the Confiscated Assets Account established under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

In response to the December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack — in which 15 people were killed during a Chanukah celebration — the government allocated more than $600 million in federal budget funding.

The grants to ECAJ were awarded not to an ACNC-registered charity or ASIC-registered company, but to an incorporated association registered in the ACT.

According to ACT regulatory requirements, incorporated associations are not required to publicly lodge audited financial statements with the territory government.

The money trail leads to an obscure entity and, for all practical purposes, runs dry.

“I asked the Department of Home Affairs why the grants were awarded to this structure rather than an entity subject to public financial disclosure. Their response invoked the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles but did not answer the question.”

III. The Special Envoy: From Lobbyist to Government Insider

Former ECAJ president Jillian Segal AO was appointed Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in July 2024.

Cabinet documents released under FOI reveal the appointment was made without an open recruitment process. The Prime Minister’s department recommended Segal based on her “longstanding reputation as an advocate for the NSW Jewish community” and her role as “former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and as Chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce”.

The Special Envoy role was initially budgeted at $4 million over two years. This was quietly expanded to $16.9 million over three years, with the appointment extended from one year to three years and additional support staff approved.

The Terms of Reference state that the Special Envoy will “provide advice to inform policy development, legislative amendments, campaigns and programs to assist in combatting Antisemitism”.

An ECAJ insider — appointed by a government that had just awarded ECAJ tens of millions in grants — is now advising that same government on policy, legislation, and funding priorities.

This is not a conspiracy. This is structural capture.

IV. The Double Standard: Charities, International Law, and Tax Deductions

While ECAJ receives hundreds of millions in government grants, the Albanese government has refused to act against Australian charities funnelling tax-deductible donations to projects supporting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank — which are illegal under international law — and to initiatives supporting IDF soldiers.

Finance Minister Katy Gallagher told the Senate that charities do not need to comply with international law. The government rejected a Greens amendment that would explicitly bar organisations from receiving deductible gift recipient status if they are found to have supported an “illegal occupation”.

The scale of the funding is significant. Michael West Media investigations have identified:

· Jewish National Fund Australia has remitted more than $125 million to Israel since 2009

· United Israel Appeal Refugee Relief Fund has transferred approximately $376 million since 2013 via Keren Hayesod, with a portion of these funds used for settlement expansion and IDF-linked programs

At the UIA Victoria AGM in November 2025, President David Slade told members: “We are the only organisation in Australia raising funds for Israel that holds a seat at every table of decision-making authority mandated to rebuild the country from the north to the south”.

“We are proud that every dollar we distribute is aligned with Israel’s national priorities.”

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission received 896 complaints relating to 88 charities in connection with the Israel-Gaza conflict between October 2023 and December 2025.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi was direct: “The fact that people are sending money to support the war crimes of the Israeli military and to expand illegal, violent settlements in the West Bank is bad enough, but that Australian taxpayers are subsidising these settlements is completely outrageous”.

The government’s position, as articulated by Minister Gallagher, is that existing frameworks prohibit unlawful conduct under Australian law — but they do not extend to conduct under international law.

This is not a legal technicality. It is a choice.

The same government that has appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism — and funded her office to the tune of $16.9 million — refuses to act against charities funding the very military accused of genocide by the UN Commission of Inquiry.

V. The Bondi Attack: A Tragedy Weaponised

“The December 14, 2025, Bondi terror attack was a genuine tragedy. Fifteen people killed. A community traumatised. Two gunmen, father and son, targeted a Hanukkah celebration.

“The response has been a $600 million funding commitment — including $102 million to ECAJ, $68.8 million to the AFP, $42.9 million for mental health support, $80 million for counterterrorism, $32.6 million for public awareness campaigns, and more than $130 million for a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

“But the attack was not perpetrated by an organised, ideologically coherent antisemitic network. The perpetrators, Sajid and Naveed Akram, had a history of extremist rhetoric. However, the systemic failures that enabled the attack — including gaps in counterterrorism monitoring, firearms access, and intelligence sharing — remain largely unaddressed.

“The government’s response has focused overwhelmingly on antisemitism as a cultural and political problem, rather than addressing the specific operational failures that allowed two men to acquire weapons and carry out an attack on a crowded beach.

“The underlying failures in mental health care, firearms licensing, intelligence coordination, and counterterrorism resourcing remain largely unaddressed. The question is not whether antisemitism played a role — it did. The question is whether the government’s response addresses the actual causes of the attack, or merely funds the organisations best positioned to claim injury.”

VI. The Other Victims: 78 Women and Counting

While the government has found $600 million for the antisemitism response, it has been notably less forthcoming on other forms of violence.

Between October 2023 and December 2025, the ACNC received 896 complaints about charities linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict. The government’s response: refer them to the ACNC.

On domestic violence, the numbers are stark.

In the 2025 calendar year, 78 women were killed by violence in Australia — approximately one and a half women every week.

Since the beginning of 2026, another 12 women have already been murdered.

The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission’s 2025 annual report estimates that 2.8 million Australians have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. One in every four women in this country. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 33 times more likely than other Australian women to be hospitalised due to family violence and seven times more likely to be homicide victims.

The government has invested $4 billion since 2022 in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children — the largest investment by any government in Australia’s history.

But compare the response.

When 15 people were killed in a single terrorist attack, the government found $600 million within months — including $130 million for a Royal Commission.

When 78 women were killed over the course of a year — and when the government knows that domestic violence kills on average one woman every nine days — the Prime Minister has rejected calls for a Royal Commission, arguing that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed.”

The inconsistency is instructive.

Some lives are worth a Royal Commission. Others are worth a press release.

The government will not explain the difference.

VII. The Economics of Outrage

Why does the Hasbara model work?

Because it is disciplined. And discipline, in a world that confuses volume with validity, is a superpower.

Every criticism of Israeli government policy is framed as antisemitism. Every piece of evidence is met with a performance of injury. Every question about the hundreds of millions flowing to an incorporated association with no public financial reporting is met with silence — or with the invocation of “security.”

The shield works because it has been tested. The political class in Washington, Canberra, London, and Berlin has learned that questioning Israel is political suicide — not because the arguments are weak, but because the feelings will be deployed.

Professionally. Strategically. Relentlessly.

And it pays off.

Billions in military aid. Diplomatic cover at the United Nations. A media environment that repeats the talking points without question. Hundreds of millions in government grants to organisations that do not have to account for how the money is spent.

Not because the feelings are real — they are not. Because the performance is disciplined.

The same strategy is used by the stick insects in suits when you question their contracts. The same strategy is used by the petrochemical companies when you mention hemp. The same strategy is used by the political class when you remind them, they are accountable.

“You hurt my feelings” is the universal shield.

And it works because the media is afraid. Because the political class is afraid. Because questioning the shield invites the shield to be turned on you.

The shield is not magic. It is expensive.

And Australian taxpayers are paying for it.

VIII. What Would a Consistent Response Look Like?

Imagine, for a moment, a government that applied the same standards to all forms of hate, all forms of violence, all forms of foreign interference.

· A Royal Commission into domestic violence — because 78 women killed in a year is also a national emergency.

· A Special Envoy for Islamophobia appointed at the same time, with the same budget, the same access — not as an afterthought.

· A requirement that all organisations receiving Commonwealth grants be subject to public financial reporting — regardless of whether they are incorporated associations or registered charities.

· A prohibition on tax-deductible donations to organisations that support illegal occupations — whether in the West Bank or elsewhere.

· A consistent definition of hate speech that protects all communities equally — not one that privileges the feelings of one group over the lives of another.

This is not radical. It is consistent.

But consistency is not the goal.

The goal is control.

Control of the narrative. Control of the funding. Control of the definition of who is a victim and who is a perpetrator.

And the shield — “you hurt my feelings” — is the mechanism of that control.

IX. The Question the Government Will Not Answer

The evidence is on the table.

· $176 million to an incorporated association that does not publicly account for its spending.

· A Special Envoy appointed from the leadership of that association, with a $16.9 million budget.

· $600 million in response to a terrorist attack perpetrated by a mentally ill man — with the underlying systemic failures unaddressed.

· Refusal to act against charities funding illegal settlements and IDF soldiers, while Palestinian refugees are denied visas.

· A Royal Commission for antisemitism, but not for the 78 women killed last year.

The question is not whether the government is capable of acting. It is acting.

The question is who it acts for.

And the answer, from the evidence, is clear.

The government acts for those who have learned to weaponise their feelings.

Those who have not — the dead women, the starving children, the refugees without visas — are invisible.

Not because their suffering is less real.

Because they have no shield.

X. Conclusion

The Hasbara model is not about feelings.

It is about power.

The power to frame the narrative. The power to direct funding. The power to define who is a victim and who is a perpetrator. The power to shield allies from accountability while demanding accountability from enemies.

“You hurt my feelings” is not a cry of pain. It is a strategy.

And it has paid off.

Billions in military aid. Diplomatic cover. Hundreds of millions in government grants. A Special Envoy with access to the highest levels of government. A Royal Commission with a $130 million budget.

Not because the feelings are real — they are not.

Because the performance is disciplined.

And discipline, in a world that confuses volume with validity, is a superpower.

But the shield is not invincible.

It can be seen.

And once seen, it can be named.

The question is not whether the government will answer. It will not.

The question is whether the Australian people will continue to pay for the shield — or demand to know what lies behind it.

Andrew Klein

References

1. Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Home Affairs Measures No. 3) Regulations 2026, Federal Register of Legislation

2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, FOI Release: Special Envoys to Combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia, 2024

3. Stephanie Tran, “Australian charities funding Israel’s illegal settlements ‘untouchable’, says Labor govt,” Asia Pacific Report / Michael West Media, 20 March 2026

4. “Gun ‘red flag’ before Bondi massacre,” The West Australian, 5 February 2026

5. House of Representatives debates, Statements on Significant Matters — Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, 4 March 2026

6. Stephanie Tran, “Money trail leads to obscure Israel lobby entity, then runs dry,” Michael West Media, 23 May 2026

7. “Peak Jewish body says $600 million federal budget response to antisemitic Bondi terror attack ‘modest’,” ABC News, 13 May 2026

8. “Budget delivers extra $22 million for Jewish security,” The Australian Jewish News, 13 May 2026

9. Joint media release with Anthony Albanese MP, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Ministers for the Department of Home Affairs, 9 July 2024

10. Stephanie Tran, “United Israel Appeal — Australian charity channels tax free donations direct to IDF soldiers,” Asia Pacific Report / Michael West Media, 29 January 2026

The shield works because we let it. The only cure is to stop being afraid of the performance.

The Patrician's Watch

Global Observations

Tag Archives: politics

The Invention of the Savage – How the West Manufactures the “Unacceptable Other” to Justify Endless War

The Gazafication of Lebanon – How Israel Exports Destruction – and Washington Protects It

The Architecture of Authority – On Kings, Control, and the Myth of Efficiency

Marx Was Not the Problem. The Problem Is the System That Tries to Silence Him.

The Awakening – How Systemic Exploitation of Children Fuels Violence – And Why the Silence Must End

The Libidinal Economy – How the Drive to Exploit Is Woven into the Fabric of Modern Systems

From Abused Child to Abusing Soldier – How Unhealed Trauma Creates the Conditions for Genocide

From Sassanian Brass to AUKUS – What a 1,500‑Year-Old Helmet Teaches About Australia’s Submarine Gamble

The Myth of the Knuckle‑Dragger – How the Patriarchy Invented the Violent Past to Justify Its Violent Present

The Hasbara Model – How Professionally Hurt Feelings Became a Political Strategy