Tax Farming & Geopolitical Vassalage: The Financial Bleeding of the Australian Commonwealth

Posted on December 30, 2025 by Andrew Klein

Author: Andrew Klein, PhD

Date: 31 December 2025

Introduction: From Public Revenue to Private Harvest

The Australian body politic is undergoing a silent transformation: the systematic conversion of public sovereignty into a privatized revenue stream. This analysis posits that the nation has become a de facto tax farm, where layers of private and foreign entities harvest wealth from its citizens. This model serves a dual purpose: entrenching a neoliberal governance paradigm that prioritizes private profit over public good, and functioning as a mechanism of geopolitical vassalage, strategically transferring national wealth to support the imperial and military objectives of a foreign hegemon, primarily the United States, and its regional partner, the State of Israel.

Part I: The Architecture of the Modern Tax Farm

The observation of a “plethora of taxes and levies” collected by “private entities but state-sanctioned” is not anecdotal but systemic. This represents the financialization of the state’s coercive power.

1. The Privatization of Enforcement and Essential Services:

· Corrections & Law Enforcement: The outsourcing of prisoner transport (e.g., incidents involving G4S) and the management of immigration detention centres (to firms like Serco and Paladin) transforms incarceration—the ultimate state penalty—into a for-profit enterprise. A 2023 Auditor-General’s report on offshore detention contracts found significant cost overruns and failures in service delivery, highlighting the model’s inefficiency and moral hazard.

· Infrastructure as a Revenue Stream: The proliferation of private toll roads (Transurban’s dominance across Sydney and Melbourne) constitutes a private tax on mobility. These are often built on public-private partnerships (PPPs) that guarantee corporate profits while socializing risk. The NSW Auditor-General in 2021 warned that such projects “transfer significant financial risk to the public sector.”

· The “Fine-Industrial Complex”: The user’s example of public transport is acute. Companies like Metro Trains Melbourne employ authorized officers with the power to detain and fine. The line between a civil debt to a private company and a state-imposed penalty is deliberately blurred. Revenue from infringements has become a budget line item, incentivizing enforcement over service.

2. The Creation of a “Compliance-Industrial” Class:

As identified, this system manufactures “non-compliance” as a perpetual revenue source. Bodies like the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) increasingly employ robo-debt-style automation for compliance, while essential redress mechanisms like Legal Aid are chronically underfunded. The system is designed for extraction, not justice. The National Legal Aid 2023 report stated that over 50% of Australians seeking help for civil law matters are turned away due to lack of resources.

Part II: The Geopolitical Pipeline: From Australian Taxpayer to Foreign Treasury

The proceeds of this domestic tax farming do not merely vanish into bureaucratic inefficiency. A significant portion is systematically funneled overseas, primarily via two conduits: the military-industrial complex and unreciprocated diplomatic support.

1. The AUKUS Siphon:

The AUKUS pact is the single most expensive example of wealth transfer. The projected cost of $268-$368 billion for nuclear-powered submarines is not an investment in sovereign defence but a multi-decade annuity paid to the US and UK defence industries. As former Defence Department official Allan Behm has argued, this expenditure will cannibalize the broader defence budget and social spending. It constitutes a direct, colossal transfer of Australian taxpayer wealth to Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and their shareholders, with no commensurate transfer of sovereign technological capability.

2. The Unilateral Funding of a Foreign Military:

Australia’s direct financial and military support for Israel, sustained throughout the war in Gaza, represents another form of tributary payment. This includes:

· Military Sales: Australia has licensed and purchased Israeli weapons systems, such as the Spike anti-tank missile and Harop loitering munition.

· Intelligence & Cyber Procurement: Contracts with Israeli firms like NSO Group (maker of Pegasus spyware, though not confirmed for Australian use) and other cybersecurity vendors flow funds to a sector deeply integrated with the Israeli state.

· Diplomatic Cover: Australia’s consistent diplomatic shielding of Israel at the UN, including opposing calls for a ceasefire and critical investigations, carries a profound opportunity cost. It burns diplomatic capital and aligns Australia with a pariah stance, damaging its regional relationships for the benefit of a foreign government.

Part III: The Israeli Playbook: Narrative Control and Demographic Engineering

The hypothesis that this relates to Israeli domestic demographic policy is supported by a pattern of conduct and public statements.

1. The “Precarious Financial Position” and Emigration:

Data supports the claim of instability. In 2024, the Bank of Israel reported a surge in capital outflow and a growing budget deficit exacerbated by war spending. Polls by the Israel Democracy Institute consistently show a significant minority, particularly among the young and skilled, are actively considering emigration due to the cost of living, political instability, and security concerns.

2. The “Negation of the Diaspora” and Encouraging Aliyah:

A core tenet of Zionist ideology is the “ingathering of exiles.” The Israeli government, through the Jewish Agency, actively promotes Aliyah (immigration to Israel). Context is key: reports in Israeli media, such as Haaretz, have documented discussions within the Israeli establishment about using global antisemitism as a catalyst for immigration. A 2023 report from the Jewish People Policy Institute, a think tank with close ties to the Israeli government, explicitly linked rising antisemitism abroad to a “strategic opportunity” for boosting Aliyah from Western nations like France and the UK.

3. The Bondi Event and the Manufactured Crisis:

The tragic violence in Bondi in April 2024, initially and erroneously framed nationally as an Islamist terror attack targeting Jews, created a climate of fear. This was immediately leveraged. Within days, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz declared Australia was becoming “a centre of antisemitism,” a statement widely reported in the Israeli press (The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel). Concurrently, pro-Israel lobby groups in Australia, like the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), amplified calls for stronger hate speech laws and increased security funding. The playbook is discernible: amplify fear, label the host nation as unsafe, and present Israel as the only secure homeland.

Conclusion: The Vassal State

Australia is not merely an ally; it is a financial and geopolitical vassal. Its political class, captured by a blend of neoliberal ideology and embedded lobbyists, administers a vast domestic tax farming operation. The harvest is then tithed to a foreign empire to fund its military-industrial complex and underwrite the colonial project of a client state.

The “never-ending shortfall of monies for the ‘Public Good'” is a direct result. Every dollar spent on a submarine that will never be sovereignly controlled or expended as diplomatic cover for a foreign nation’s violations, is a dollar not spent on housing, healthcare, or rescuing Legal Aid. The system is designed to fail the Australian people in order to succeed for its absentee landlords.

The callousness of the privatized fine collector on the train is the microcosm; the multi-billion-dollar AUKUS tribute is the macro. Both are facets of the same reality: Australia has been turned into a farm, its people seen not as citizens but as a flock to be sheared, with the wool shipped overseas. The collapse the user anticipates is not of the farming operation, but of the legitimacy of the state that presides over it. The penalty will be paid not by the tax farmers, but by the flock.

References

Section I: Privatised Tax Farming & Compliance

1. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). (2023). Delivery of Offshore Humanitarian Contracts.

2. NSW Auditor-General. (2021). Report on Transport Infrastructure.

3. National Legal Aid. (2023). Annual Report and Snapshot of Unmet Need.

4. Parliamentary Library. (2022). Briefing Book: Privatisation and Outsourcing in Australia.

5. The Guardian. (2023). “Robodebt-style automation: How the ATO is using data to raise tax debts.”

Section II: Geopolitical Wealth Transfer

1. Australian Government, Department of Defence. (2023). AUKUS Cost Estimates and Analysis.

2. Behm, A. (2023). The Cost of AUKUS: Sovereignty and the Submarine. Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

3. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2024). Arms Trade Database – Australia-Israel transfers.

4. United Nations General Assembly Voting Records. (2023-2024). Resolutions pertaining to Israel/Palestine.

Section III: Israeli Policy & Demographics

1. Bank of Israel. (2024). Annual Report and Financial Stability Review.

2. Israel Democracy Institute. (2024). Polls on National Mood and Emigration Intentions.

3. The Jewish Agency for Israel. (2024). Annual Aliyah Statistics and Promotion.

4. Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI). (2023). Annual Assessment: Antisemitism and Jewish People Policy.

5. Haaretz. (2023). “Israeli Officials See Rising Antisemitism in the West as an Opportunity.”

6. The Jerusalem Post. (April 2024). “Israeli FM Katz: Australia becoming a ‘center of antisemitism’ after Bondi attack.”

General Context & Lobbying

1. Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). (2024). Public Submissions and Media Releases on Antisemitism.

2. Parliamentary Register of Interests. (Ongoing). Records of travel, gifts, and meetings for federal politicians.

3. Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC). Financial records for pro-Israel advocacy organisations.

The Calculus of Crisis: Domestic Violence, Institutional Failure, and the Economy of Band-Aids in Australia- Systemic Analysis

Posted on December 30, 2025 by Andrew Klein

“@MFWitches “How in the goddamn flying fuck do we live in a country where the murders of 15 people from one racial/religious group ONCE requires both a Royal Commission AND the deployment of the army but the murders of 80 women EVERY YEAR since time immemorial fucking doesn’t??”

Authors: Andrew Klein, PhD

Date:30 December 2025

The scope of this article is limited but it expresses the frustrations experienced by the author Andrew Klein who has witnessed the failures of a broken system for many years.

This is not hypothetical to the author who has assisted victims and survivors for many years and has encountered failures more often than he would like to remember.

This article is in response to an ‘ X’ post by @MFWitches.

The material was already at hand from previous research and reports.

Introduction: The Hierarchy of Grief and Political Capital

The anguished social media post poses a foundational question about Australia’s hierarchy of crisis response: Why does certain violence trigger immediate, maximalist state intervention (a Royal Commission, army deployment), while the endemic, predictable murder of approximately one woman per week by an intimate partner elicits a perpetual cycle of condemnation, limited funding announcements, and bureaucratic inertia?

This analysis posits that the disparity is not an oversight but a outcome of systemic calculus. A genuine, uncompromising response to gendered violence would require confronting the failures of core public policy realms—housing, economic security, mental health, and justice—and exposing the neoliberal model that privatizes risk and profitizes care. The current system prefers a managed, piecemeal approach: funding a fragmented network of under-resourced services that act as pressure valves, providing the appearance of action while insulating the state from the political and economic cost of substantive change.

Part I: The Scale of the Crisis Versus the Scale of the Response

The Statistical Reality:

· Fatal Violence: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and data from the Australian Femicide Watch show that, on average, one woman is killed by an intimate partner every nine days. In 2022-23, 64 women were killed by violence. This is a persistent, national emergency.

· Non-Fatal Violence: 1 in 4 women has experienced intimate partner violence since age 15. In the 2021-22 period, over 170,000 women were assisted by specialist homelessness services due to domestic violence.

The Institutional Response: A History of Inquiries and Incrementalism

Australia has not lacked for reports. Seminal inquiries include:

· 1991: National Committee on Violence Against Women.

· 2010: Time for Action report by the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children.

· 2015-16: Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (a state-level exception proving the national rule).

· 2022: House of Representatives Inquiry into family, domestic, and sexual violence.

These reports consistently identify the same systemic gaps: lack of affordable housing, inadequate funding for frontline services, a complex and traumatising legal system, and the need for primary prevention. The response is typically a subset of recommendations adopted, often with inadequate, short-term funding attached.

Part II: The Architecture of Failure: How Systems Perpetuate the Crisis

1. The Service Sector: A Fractured “Band-Aid” Economy

The hypothesis of a “band-aid” economy is substantiated by funding models and service realities.

· Competitive, Short-Term Grants: Frontline services operate on 1-3 year funding cycles, forcing them to perpetually re-apply for existence. This consumes administrative resources, creates instability for staff and clients, and prevents long-term planning. As the CEO of a leading service stated, “We are constantly proving our worth instead of doing our work.”

· The “Glossy Page” Phenomenon: Government directories list thousands of services. However, mapping by researchers reveals “service deserts,” particularly in regional, rural, and peri-urban areas. Many listed services are generalist (e.g., a community legal centre) with one overworked DV specialist, or are effectively referral portals with no capacity for direct intervention. The appearance of coverage masks critical gaps.

· The Gatekeeper Model: We identified, the pathway to safety is often mediated by “gatekeepers.” A woman may need to navigate police, a general practitioner, a social worker from a hospital, a Centrelink worker, and a legal aid lawyer—all before securing a bed in a refuge. Each point can be a barrier due to lack of training, systemic bias, or sheer overload. The “No Wrong Door” policy is an aspirational ideal, not a reality.

2. The Policy Drivers: Profiting from Desperation

· Housing as the Ultimate Barrier: The single greatest need for women fleeing violence is safe, affordable, long-term housing. The systematic defunding of social housing and the financialisation of the housing market have created a catastrophic shortage. Women are forced to choose between violence and homelessness. Private refuges and transitional housing models often involve transferring public funds to private or community housing providers, creating a lucrative sector built on crisis without solving the foundational shortage.

· The Liquor Economy: The question about bottle shops is acute. Multiple state-level studies, including Western Australian and Northern Territory crime data, show strong correlations between liquor outlet density and rates of domestic violence assaults and hospitalisations. State governments rely on gambling and liquor taxes for revenue, creating a perverse incentive to approve outlets despite clear public health and safety harms. Addressing this would require confronting powerful retail and hospitality lobbies and forfeiting revenue.

· Policing as the Default First Responder: Police are ill-equipped to solve chronic social problems rooted in poverty, mental health, and intergenerational trauma. Their tools are crisis intervention and law enforcement, not social work. Diverting resources to specialist, co-responsive teams (e.g., social workers paired with police) has shown promise but remains a pilot project in limited jurisdictions, not standard practice. The criminal justice system is a blunt, post-traumatic instrument.

3. The Financial Flows: Following the Money

· ATO and Grant Data: Analysis of Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) data and federal grant disclosures reveals a complex ecosystem. While major, reputable service providers deliver critical work, a significant portion of funding is absorbed by:

· Consultancy Firms: Hired to design strategies, conduct evaluations, and run “awareness campaigns.”

· Peak Bodies and Lobby Groups: Necessary for advocacy, but their funding sometimes dwarfs that of frontline refuges.

· “Innovation” Pilots: Politically attractive short-term projects that rarely transition to core, ongoing funding.

· The “Advocacy Economy”: As noted, a class of professionals—lobbyists, corporate diversity advisors, high-profile ambassadors—has emerged. Their careers are built on the discourse of solving the problem, creating a potential conflict of interest where the perpetuity of the crisis ensures their relevance and income. This is not to impugn individual dedication, but to highlight a systemic dynamic where political and social capital is accrued by association with the issue, divorced from outcomes for victims.

Part III: The Political Calculus: Why a Royal Commission is Feared

A Royal Commission into gendered violence, with a broad terms of reference, would act as a forensic audit of the Australian state. It would compellingly demonstrate:

1. The Direct Cost: The $26.7 billion annual economic cost (as estimated by KPMG) of violence against women, encompassing healthcare, justice, and lost productivity.

2. The Policy Causation: How housing policy, welfare conditionality (e.g., ParentsNext, mutual obligations), family law delays, and inadequate legal aid directly trap women in violent situations.

3. The Funding Churn: How money is cycled through layers of administration and ephemeral projects instead of going to core, enduring solutions: more social housing, properly funded 24/7 crisis lines, and well-paid, permanent frontline workers.

4. The Institutional Bias: How systems—police, courts, child protection—often inadvertently re-traumatise victims and fail to hold perpetrators accountable.

Such a commission would be an admission that the market-based, outsourcing model of social service delivery has failed in its most fundamental duty: to keep citizens safe in their own homes. It would indict not a single government, but a decades-long, bipartisan political consensus.

Conclusion: Beyond Condemnation to Consequence

The murder of women is not a “women’s issue.” It is the most acute symptom of a social contract in distress. The band-aid economy exists because it is politically safer and economically preferable (for some) to manage the visible symptoms than to cure the disease. Curing the disease means re-regulating the housing market, de-commercialising essential services, raising taxes to fund universal support, and dismantling the structures of patriarchal power—all actions antithetical to the dominant neoliberal orthodoxy.

The question is not one of awareness, but of political will and courage. Until the cost of inaction—measured in lives, trauma, and social disintegration—outweighs the political and economic cost of transformative change, the band-aids will keep being applied, the glossy reports will be written, and the national shame will continue, one woman, every nine days.

References

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2023). Family, domestic and sexual violence data.

2. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS). (2023). The prevalence of domestic violence.

3. Victorian Government. (2016). Royal Commission into Family Violence: Summary and recommendations.

4. Parliament of Australia. (2022). Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence.

5. KPMG. (2023). The economic cost of violence against women and their children in Australia.

6. Service Delivery & Funding:

· Women’s Safety NSW. (2024). The State of the Sector Report.

· Homelessness Australia. (2023). Fact Sheet: Domestic and family violence.

· Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) Annual Information Statements for major DV service providers.

7. Policy Drivers:

· Housing: Grattan Institute. (2023). The housing crisis and its impact on vulnerable women.

· Alcohol: Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE). (2022). The alcohol toll in Australia: Domestic violence.

· Policing: Journal article: “Co-responding police and social work models: A review of the evidence.” (2023).

8. Coronial & Legal Data:

· National Coronial Information System (NCIS) data on domestic violence homicides.

· Australian Law Reform Commission. (2019). Family Law for the Future.

9. Media & Public Discourse:

· Our Watch analysis of media reporting on violence against women.

· Select Hansard transcripts from parliamentary debates on DV funding (2015-2024).

10. Economic Analysis:

· Per Capita. (2024). Who benefits? Mapping the financial flows of the domestic violence service system.

· Federal Budget Papers: Analysis of line items for “Women’s Safety” under the Departments of Social Services and Attorney-General.

The Blueprint of Influence: The Zionist Lobby, Political Capture, and the Manufactured Consent in the UK and Australia

Posted on December 29, 2025 by Andrew Klein

Authors:Andrew Klein, PhD, and Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar

Date:30 December 2025

Introduction: The Manufactured Consent

The political landscapes of the United Kingdom and Australia, separated by geography, demonstrate a convergent pattern: the systematic erosion of principled foreign policy and democratic discourse regarding Israel and Palestine. This is not coincidental but reflects a sophisticated, transnational playbook executed by the Zionist lobby. This analysis traces the blueprint from the orchestrated downfall of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK to the contemporary political capture in Australia, revealing how manufactured accusations of antisemitism, strategic lobbying, and the co-option of political elites are used to enforce unwavering support for Israeli state policy, silence dissent, and criminalise solidarity with Palestinians, even in the face of actions deemed genocidal by international legal bodies.

Part I: The British Laboratory – Corbyn, Starmer, and the Weaponisation of Antisemitism

The UK served as a primary testing ground for tactics now deployed globally. Under Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party adopted a platform critical of Israeli occupation and supportive of Palestinian rights. The response was a coordinated campaign that redefined political opposition as existential bigotry.

1. The Destruction of Jeremy Corbyn

The Zionist lobby,led by groups like the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, alongside allied media, executed a relentless strategy. They successfully equated Corbyn’s long-standing criticism of Zionism and support for Palestinian groups with endemic antisemitism within Labour. A leaked internal report revealed that certain Labour staffers actively worked to undermine Corbyn’s leadership and ensure electoral defeat. The campaign was not about genuine racism, but about power; as a former Israeli parliament member stated, warnings about Corbyn were used to “mobilise” Jewish voters and donors against him. The result was a political assassination, cementing the precedent that substantive criticism of Israel would carry catastrophic political costs.

2. The Transformation of Keir Starmer and the Criminalisation of Dissent

Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership represents the internalisation of this deterrent.A former human rights lawyer, Starmer has overseen the purge of left-wing and pro-Palestinian voices from Labour, accepting the flawed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism with its conflating examples that label criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic. His government has moved aggressively to suppress public outcry over Gaza. The Public Order Act 2023 has been weaponised, with police arresting peaceful protesters for holding “From the River to the Sea” signs. In October 2024, a 69-year-old man was arrested in London for a placard depicting Starmer and Sunak with Israeli flags, charged under laws against “racially aggravated” harassment. The message is clear: solidarity with Palestine is not a political position but a form of public disorder.

3. The Security-Industrial Nexus

This unwavering political support is underpinned by a lucrative security relationship.The UK is a major arms exporter to Israel. Furthermore, Britain has deeply integrated Israeli surveillance and policing technology, from Pegasus-style cyber-intelligence tools to crowd-control tactics honed in the Occupied Territories. This creates a powerful economic and institutional constituency with a vested interest in maintaining the political status quo, irrespective of human rights violations.

Part II: The Australian Replication – Capture, Coercion, and the Albanese Government

The Australian political class has learned the lessons of the British experiment. Under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the government has pursued a foreign policy of almost total alignment with Israel, orchestrated by a potent domestic lobby.

1. Political Capture and the Zionist Lobby Network

The influence is institutionalised.Key groups like the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) wield significant power. Their access is unmatched, as seen in the appointment of Jillian Segal as Australia’s Special Envoy on Antisemitism. Segal’s mandate, heavily focused on the IHRA definition, seeks to replicate the UK’s conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism, providing a government-backed mechanism to police discourse. This aligns with the lobby’s push for dedicated, lobby-influenced police units, such as the proposed “Jewish Community Security Group” in NSW, which risks creating a quasi-private security force for political enforcement.

2. The Albanese Government’s Complicity

The Albanese government has followed the script precisely.

· Unwavering Support: Despite the International Court of Justice’s finding of a “plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza, Australia has refused to suspend military ties or meaningfully criticise Israeli military actions. Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s rhetoric on “humanitarian pauses” masks a fundamental support for Israel’s “right to defend itself,” a duplicity highlighting the gap between stated values and practiced policy.

· Suppression of Dissent: The government has supported punitive actions against pro-Palestinian voices. It backed the suspension of UNRWA funding based on unproven Israeli allegations and has remained silent as universities and institutions investigate staff for expressing pro-Palestinian views.

· Benefits and Access: The “study tours” to Israel for federal and state politicians, often funded by lobby groups, are a well-documented tool of influence, creating a cadre of politicians with curated, one-sided perspectives.

3. The Enforced Monopoly and Media Complicity

The Zionist lobby actively marginalises alternative Jewish voices.Groups like Jews Against Fascism, Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV), and Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), which are fiercely critical of Israeli policy and Zionism, are systematically ignored by the government and most mainstream media. This creates a false consensus that “the Jewish community” supports the government’s line. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), in particular, has breached its charter mandate for impartiality by consistently platforming pro-Israeli perspectives while marginalising Palestinian and critical Jewish voices, effectively broadcasting state propaganda.

Part III: The Transnational Playbook – The IHRA Definition and the “Antisemitism Czar” Model

The core ideological mechanism enabling this political capture is the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. Its problematic “contemporary examples” classify statements like “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” as antisemitic. This legally non-binding definition has been weaponised to stifle legitimate political debate on campuses, in political parties, and in civil society.

The creation of special envoys or “czars” like Jillian Segal in Australia and Deborah Lipstadt in the US institutionalises this framework within government. Their role extends beyond combating genuine hate speech to shaping policy and policing discourse on Israel, acting as a direct conduit for lobby influence at the highest levels of state.

Conclusion: The Silent Coup of Narrative

What is unfolding is a silent, slow-motion coup not of tanks, but of narrative. It is the capture of democratic institutions by a well-resourced, transnational lobby that employs a consistent blueprint:

1. Demonise Critics: Label principled opposition to Israeli policy as antisemitism.

2. Capture Elites: Use access, funding, and “fact-finding” trips to align political leaders.

3. Enforce Monopoly: Marginalise dissenting voices within the Jewish community to present a unified front.

4. Criminalise Dissent: Utilize expanded police powers and vague definitions to arrest and intimidate protesters.

5. Control the Narrative: Leverage media relationships to frame the debate and smear opponents.

The result in both the UK and Australia is a profound democratic deficit. A foreign policy that contravenes international law and basic humanity is maintained not by popular will, but by manufactured consent. The political careers of Jeremy Corbyn and the moral standing of Keir Starmer are casualties. The integrity of Australian democracy and the voice of its people are the current targets. As the genocide in Gaza continues, facilitated by this manufactured silence, the question remains: when will the public break the consensus enforced upon them and reclaim the right to speak, to protest, and to demand a foreign policy grounded in justice rather than coercion?

References

1. The Guardian. (2020, April 12). Leaked report reveals scale of Labour anti-Corbyn sabotage.

2. Middle East Eye. (2024, October 24). UK man arrested for anti-Starmer, Sunak protest sign.

3. The Guardian. (2024, December 6). Australian envoy on antisemitism says university protesters could be ‘unwitting agents’ for Hamas.

4. Australian Jewish News. (2024, August 1). Jillian Segal appointed as Special Envoy on Antisemitism.

5. ABC News. (2024, October 28). What is the IHRA definition of antisemitism and why is it controversial?

6. The Saturday Paper. (2024, November 2-8). The lobbyists shaping Australia’s Israel stance.

7. Crikey. (2023, November 15). The Australia-Israel lobby: How it works and what it wants.

8. Jewish Council of Australia (JCA). (2024). Submissions and Media Releases.

9. The Australian. (2024, various). Reports on parliamentary delegations to Israel.

10. Amnesty International. (2024). Report on the use of UK arms by Israel.

11. UK Government. (2023). Public Order Act 2023.

12. International Court of Justice (ICJ). (2024). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel).

The Embedded Alliance – Australia, The Retreat from Sovereignty, and the Machinery of External Control

Posted on December 27, 2025 by Andrew Klein

Special Analysis

Authors: Andrew Klein, PhD

Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant

Date:28 December 2025

Introduction: The Architecture of a Dependent State

From the high command in Washington to the corporate boardrooms of Silicon Valley and the networked lobbyists in Canberra, a clear and sustained project has unfolded over the past six decades. Its aim is not the military occupation of Australia, but something more insidious and total: the integration of the Australian state, its resources, and its strategic autonomy into the imperatives of American hegemony. This analysis documents the systematic erosion of Australian sovereignty since the 1960s, revealing a pattern where security anxieties are strategically cultivated, neoliberal economics enables extraction, and domestic political discourse is policed to serve external interests. Australia has been transformed from a regional actor with independent agency into a compliant territory—a model of control replicated by empires throughout history.

Phase I: Cultivating Fear and Forging the Chain (1960s-1970s)

The foundational step in securing Australian compliance was the ideological binding of its foreign policy to American global objectives, beginning in Southeast Asia.

· Vietnam and the “Forward Defence” Doctrine: Australia’s entry into the Vietnam War was justified domestically by the “domino theory”—the fear of communist expansion in Southeast Asia threatening Australia directly. Prime Minister Robert Menzies framed the commitment as a necessary response to a request from South Vietnam, a claim historians have contested, suggesting the decision was made in close coordination with Washington to bolster the legitimacy of the US war effort. This established a template: Australian blood and treasure would be spent in conflicts determined by US strategy, sold to the public through the marketing of fear.

· The Whitlam Catalyst and the “Coup” Response: The election of Gough Whitlam’s government in 1972 represented the most significant rupture in this dependent relationship. Whitlam immediately moved to withdraw remaining troops from Vietnam, recognized the People’s Republic of China, and opposed US bombing campaigns. His assertive independence triggered a fierce response from entrenched security and political establishments aligned with Washington. The constitutional crisis of 1975, culminating in his dismissal, demonstrated the lengths to which the domestic machinery—when aligned with foreign interests—would go to reassert the established pro-US trajectory. It was a stark lesson that moves toward genuine sovereignty would be met with systemic resistance.

Phase II: Neoliberalism as the Engine of Extraction (1980s-Present)

With the security bond firmly established, the next phase involved remaking the Australian economy to facilitate the outward flow of wealth and deepen integration with US capital.

· The Hawke-Keating “Reforms”: Pragmatism or Ideology?: The economic transformations of the 1980s and 1990s—financial deregulation, tariff reductions, and privatization—are often framed as pragmatic modernisation. However, they served core neoliberal doctrines privileging market forces and global capital mobility. The floating of the dollar and dismantling of banking controls integrated Australia into volatile global financial flows, increasing its vulnerability to external shocks.

· Structural Consequences: Finance Over Industry: This shift catalysed a profound restructuring of the Australian economy, privileging extractive and financial sectors over productive industry.

· The Mining Cartel: The resources sector, buoyed by Chinese demand, grew to become Australia’s largest export industry. It accrued immense political power, exemplified by its successful multi-million-dollar campaign to gut the Resources Super Profits Tax in 2010, directly shaping government policy to its benefit.

· The Financialisation of Everything: Banking deregulation led to unprecedented concentration, with the “Big Four” banks becoming a protected oligopoly. Their profits, supercharged by a government-inflated housing market, now rank among the highest in the world. The economy became geared toward asset inflation and debt, benefiting financial capital at the expense of housing affordability and productive investment.

· Manufacturing Decline: Concurrently, Australian manufacturing entered a steep relative decline, its share of GDP falling to one of the lowest levels in the OECD. The nation was deliberately reshaped as a quarry and a financial platform, deeply enmeshed with global (particularly American) capital and vulnerable to commodity cycles.

Phase III: The China Pivot and the Securitisation of Dissent (2016-Present)

The return of China as a major regional power presented both an economic opportunity and a strategic dilemma for US hegemony. Australia’s management of this dilemma reveals the subordination of its economic interests to alliance maintenance.

· The “Securitising Coalition” and Anti-China Politics: From approximately 2016, a powerful coalition within Australia’s national security establishment, conservative politics, and aligned media deliberately elevated a “China threat” narrative. This served a dual purpose: it created domestic political advantage for the conservative coalition and was seen as crucial “alliance maintenance” with the US, proving Australia’s loyalty as Washington pivoted to overt “strategic competition” with Beijing. Policies like banning Huawei from the 5G network placed Australia “out in front” of even the US in confronting China.

· Economic Punishment and Sovereign Costs: This posture triggered severe economic coercion from China, which disrupted billions in Australian exports. Despite this cost, the strategic subordination continued. The AUKUS pact, involving the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines at an estimated cost of up to $368 billion, locks Australia into a decades-long, exorbitant dependency on US and UK military technology, creating a perpetual revenue stream for the American military-industrial complex.

· Direct American Coercion: This dependency invites direct pressure. In 2025, the US Secretary of Defense publicly demanded Australia increase its defence spending to 3.5% of GDP, a drastic rise from the current 2%. Concurrently, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Australian exports, demonstrating that coercive pressure now flows from both major powers, with Australia caught in the middle.

Phase IV: The Information and Ideological Frontier

Final control requires shaping the domestic narrative. Australia’s public discourse on key US foreign policy interests is subject to sophisticated manipulation and silencing mechanisms.

· The Israel-Palestine Litmus Test: Critical debate on Israel’s policies is systematically constrained in Australia. A former senior editor notes a “tacit consensus” in newsrooms to avoid the subject, driven by fear of a well-organised lobby that conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. This conflation, described as a “long-term strategy,” ensures Palestinian perspectives and critiques of occupation are marginalised. Government policy follows: the 2025 Albanese government antisemitism strategy adopts a controversial definition that risks conflating criticism of Israel with hate speech, a move criticised by human rights experts for threatening free speech and ignoring the context of the war in Gaza.

· Surveillance and Infiltration: The reach of external influence extends into covert domains. Israeli intelligence has recruited Australian citizens for operations, as revealed in the case of alleged Mossad agent Ben Zygier. Globally, Israeli cyber-surveillance firms, often staffed by intelligence veterans, export intrusive spyware like Predator to governments worldwide, enabling the surveillance of journalists and dissidents. This global surveillance infrastructure, in which Australian entities may be both targets and unwitting transit points, represents a penetration of informational sovereignty.

Conclusion: Scraping By in the Imperial Perimeter

The trajectory is undeniable. From Vietnam to AUKUS, Australia has been mobilised to fight America’s regional battles. Through neoliberalism, its economy has been restructured for resource extraction and financial profiteering, enriching a narrow elite while creating crises in housing, manufacturing, and cost of living. Its political discourse is policed on issues core to US and allied geopolitical interests, from China to Palestine.

Prime Ministers from Menzies to Albanese have navigated this reality with varying degrees of submission or muted resistance. The result is a nation whose security policy is set by Washington, whose economic model serves global capital, and whose public square is patrolled by imported ideological framings. Australia is not a sovereign actor but a managed asset within the American imperium—a fate it now shares with territories across the globe where the empire extracts, and its subjects scrape by.

References

1. Need to Know. (2019). The great unravelling: demise of the neoliberal centre, part 3: Neoliberalism in Australia.

2. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Australia in the Vietnam War.

3. Laurenceson, J. (2025, October 29). Australia’s strategic objectives in a changing regional order. UTS News.

4. Adler, L. (2021, October 9). Why are Australia and its media so fearful of debate on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians?. The Guardian.

5. The Guardian. (2013, February 13). Mossad and Australian spies: how Fairfax reporter homed in on Zygier.

6. BBC News. (2025, December 15). Australian PM announces crackdown on hate speech after Bondi shooting.

7. Chappell, L. (2025). Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start. UNSW Australian Human Rights Institute.

8. International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). (2023). The spy, the lawyer and their global surveillance empire.

9. Bramble, T. (2014, January 12). Australian capitalism in the neoliberal age. Marxist Left Review.

10. McGregor, R. (2025, July 7). U.S.-China Competition: A View from Australia and the Pacific. CSIS China Power.

A Statement of Omission

Posted on December 26, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein PhD

A recent U.S. airstrike in Nigeria, coordinated with the nation’s authorities, has elicited a forceful response from Australian Senator Michaelia Cash. Her declaration—”ISIS is evil… Australia should always stand with partners confronting Islamist terror”—presents a binary, morally unambiguous view of a profoundly complex reality. While condemning extremist violence is unobjectionable, this framing serves as a case study in strategic omission. It ignores the multifaceted drivers of Nigeria’s conflicts, the role of external actors in shaping its crises, and the dangerous simplification of a struggle over resources, identity, and power into a singular war of religion. This analysis will deconstruct the senator’s statement by examining Nigeria’s historical context, the true nature of its security challenges, and the geopolitical interests at play.

Section 1: The Colonial Crucible and Post-Colonial Fragility

To understand modern Nigeria is to understand a nation forged by colonial cartography, not organic nationhood. The 1914 amalgamation of hundreds of distinct ethnic and religious groups—primarily Muslim in the north and Christian in the south—into a single British colony created a fundamental political fault line. The colonial administration’s indirect rule entrenched these divisions, empowering northern elites and fostering systemic regional inequality. This engineered disparity over access to political power, education, and economic resources laid the groundwork for the communal and sectarian tensions that plague the nation today. The competition is not inherently theological but is a scramble for a stake in the modern state, a competition framed and often inflamed by the identities colonialism hardened.

Section 2: Deconstructing the “Religious Conflict” Narrative

Senator Cash’s focus on “Islamist terror” reflects a narrative heavily promoted by certain U.S. political figures. However, data and expert analysis reveal a more complex picture:

· A Mosaic of Violence: The security landscape in Nigeria is fragmented. It includes the jihadist factions of Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), ethno-communal conflicts—often between predominantly Muslim Fulani herders and Christian farmers—criminal banditry, and secessionist agitation.

· Muslims as Primary Victims: While attacks on Christian communities are severe and warrant condemnation, the data shows that Muslims constitute the majority of victims of Islamist extremist violence. Groups like Boko Haram have killed tens of thousands of Muslims they deem insufficiently orthodox. A 2025 data analysis of over 20,400 civilian deaths found more were from attacks targeting Muslims than Christians, though the majority of fatalities were unattributed.

· Resource Competition as Core Driver: Underlying much of this violence, particularly the farmer-herder conflicts, is intense competition over dwindling arable land and water, exacerbated by climate change and population growth. The Nigerian government itself has consistently rejected the characterization of a one-sided religious war, emphasizing that “people of many faiths” are victims.

Violence Profile in Nigeria’s Northwest & Middle Belt

This table breaks down the complex actors and motives often simplified as “Islamist terror” .

Main Actor(s)

Primary Motivations & Targets

Relation to Religious Narrative

Jihadist Groups (ISWAP, Boko Haram)

Establish Islamic law; target state, Christians, & Muslims deemed non-compliant.

Exploits religious identity but kills more Muslims; seeks to impose sectarian frame.

Fulani Militant / Bandit Groups

Criminal racketeering, kidnapping, seizing land & resources.

Often framed as religious(Muslim vs. Christian) but core drivers are economic/territorial.

Farmer-Herder Communal Conflict

Competition over land/water; ethnic identity; cycles of reprisal.

Religious difference(Muslim herder/Christian farmer) overlays deeper resource strife.

Section 3: The Geopolitical Chessboard – Oil, Evangelism, and Strategic Competition

Ignoring the geopolitical context of the U.S. strike is a critical oversight. Nigeria is home to the largest proven oil reserves in Africa.

· The Resource Imperative: The stability and alignment of Nigeria are of paramount strategic interest to global powers, not merely for counter-terrorism but for energy security and economic influence. The U.S. military itself has noted that instability in the region opens the door to “hostile foreign exploitation” of resources.

· The Role of Soft Power: Concurrently, Nigeria has been a major focus for American evangelical Christian groups, who have framed the conflict centrally as a persecution of Christians. This narrative has directly influenced U.S. policy, leading to Nigeria’s designation as a “Country of Particular Concern” on religious freedom and providing a moral justification for military intervention. This fusion of evangelical advocacy with national security policy represents a potent form of ideological soft power that shapes international responses.

· The ISIS-West Africa Factor: While ISWAP is a real and lethal affiliate of the Islamic State, estimates place its strength at 2,000-3,000 fighters—a significant threat, but not an existential one to the state. The U.S. strike, while tactically aimed at ISIS, serves a broader strategic purpose: reaffirming American security influence in a region where powers like Russia (via the Wagner Group) and China (investing heavily in infrastructure and mining) are increasingly active. The “war on terror” provides a legitimizing framework for this competition.

Section 4: The Australian Position – A Critical Independence Foregone

Senator Cash’s call for Australia to “stand with partners” uncritically adopts the simplified U.S. framing. An independent Australian foreign policy, one committed to a “rules-based order” and nuanced humanitarian engagement, would demand a more forensic approach:

1. Acknowledge All Victims: Public statements must recognize that Muslims are the primary victims of the jihadist groups Australia condemns, and that violence stems from multiple, overlapping conflicts.

2. Address Root Causes: Effective, long-term policy must engage with the governance failures, corruption, climate-induced resource scarcity, and lack of economic opportunity that fuel all forms of instability.

3. Scrutinize Geopolitical Motives: Australia’s alignment should be with the Nigerian people’s sovereignty and complex reality, not with a single ally’s simplified narrative or resource-driven interests. Silence on these dimensions is a form of complicity in a misleading story.

Conclusion: Beyond the Simplistic Frame

Senator Michaelia Cash’s statement is not false in its condemnation of ISIS’s evil, but it is dangerously incomplete. By reducing Nigeria’s agony to a front in a global war on “Islamist terror,” it erases history, obscures complexity, and echoes a geopolitical narrative that serves external interests as much as it claims to serve Nigerian ones. It ignores the colonial roots of strife, the resource wars masked as holy wars, and the plight of millions of Muslim victims.

References for Further Reading

· CNN. (2025). Trump says violence in Nigeria targets Christians. Here’s what we know. Provides critical data and expert analysis challenging the singular “Christian persecution” narrative and detailing the multi-faceted nature of violence.

· PBS NewsHour. (2025). U.S. launches strike against Islamic State forces in Nigeria, Trump says. Reports the official U.S. and Nigerian statements on the airstrike and notes the government’s rejection of a religiously one-sided characterization.

· International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT). (2025). The Islamic State in 2025: an Evolving Threat. Authoritative analysis on the structure, strength, and global strategy of ISIS, including its West Africa Province (ISWAP).

· U.S. House Committee on Appropriations. (2025). House Appropriators Examine Security Threats and Religious Persecution in Nigeria. Illustrates the direct influence of the U.S. evangelical and political lens on policy, including the “Country of Particular Concern” designation and the emphasis on Christian persecution.

An examination of constitutional originalism, political overreach, and the quiet unmaking of Australian sovereignty

Posted on December 26, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein PhD

1. Constitutional Foundations: The Limited Mandate

The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) created a federal system with enumerated powers. Key sections constrain external affairs power:

· Section 51(xxix): Grants Parliament power over “external affairs,” but originally understood as relating to treaties affecting Australia’s immediate interests, not open-ended global commitments.

· Section 61: Executive power extends only to execution of laws and prerogatives “relating to the Commonwealth.”

· Section 75(iii): Confers original High Court jurisdiction in matters “in which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party.”

The Constitution’s framers—Sir Samuel Griffith, Edmund Barton—envisioned a nation focused on regional stability, trade, and humanitarian cooperation, not entanglement in distant conflicts. At the 1891 National Australasian Convention, debates emphasized avoiding “foreign entanglements” except where necessary for defence.

2. The Shift: From Humanitarian Regionalism to Hegemonic Alignment

Post-WWII, Australia helped draft the UN Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Under H.V. Evatt, Australia advocated strongly for decolonization and rights-based order in Asia-Pacific—a “soft diplomacy” approach grounded in Section 51(xxix) but narrowly interpreted.

The pivot began in the 1970s:

· 1975 – Australian Assistance Plan rejected in favour of aligning with US strategic interests post-Vietnam.

· 1983 – Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dam Case) expanded “external affairs” power to implement international treaties domestically, even absent immediate threat.

· Intelligence expansion: ASIO Act 1979, ASIS Act 2001, 2004 reforms allowing intelligence agencies to collect on Australians—without clear constitutional checks.

3. High Court Jurisprudence: Enabling Overreach

· Horta v Commonwealth (1994): Upheld treaty-making power even for agreements contrary to original constitutional spirit (Timor Gap Treaty).

· Williams v Commonwealth (2012): Highlighted lack of executive spending power without parliamentary grant, yet foreign policy contracts often bypass this via statutory bodies (e.g., Export Finance Australia).

· CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015): Broad executive discretion in border control—used to align with US “border security” models.

These rulings stretched Section 61, enabling commitments like:

· AUKUS (2021): Arguably beyond “naval defence” into integrated US force projection.

· WTO agreements favouring multinational corporations over local industry.

· Data sharing with Five Eyes impacting privacy without explicit constitutional basis.

4. Erosion of Borders & Sovereignty

Travel & Communication:

· 1983 – Australian Passports Act amended to allow refusal for “political” reasons influenced by allies.

· 2015 – Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act amendments enabled warrantless data access for Five Eyes partners.

Trade:

· 1997 – WTO Agreement Implementation Act prioritized global trade rules over domestic welfare.

· Mining/arms lobby influence via Foreign Investment Review Board weakens Section 51(xx) “foreign corporations” control.

Intelligence Services:

· ASIO, ASD, ONI now operate under 2020 – Intelligence Services Amendment Act, permitting proactive cyber operations abroad—far beyond original defensive mandate.

5. Implications: Abandoning Regional Leadership

Australia’s founding vision—articulated at Colonial Conferences—emphasized:

· Humanitarian regional engagement

· Mediation in Asia-Pacific conflicts

· Rule-based international order

Current US-aligned posture:

· Undermines UN Charter Article 2(4) (non-intervention) Australia once championed.

· Subordinates ANU–World Bank 2023 Development Index priorities to US strategic demands.

· Contradicts 1997 – Advancing the National Interest white paper’s call for “independent diplomacy.”

6. Conclusion: Returning to Constitutional First Principles

The Constitution’s framers intended a nation engaged with the world on its own terms—focused on regional stability, human rights, and trade beneficial to the Commonwealth. Since the 1970s, legislative and executive overreach, supported by expansive High Court interpretations, has entangled Australia in hegemonic projects distant from its interests.

Recommendations:

1. High Court review of “external affairs” power to align with original defensive/regional intent.

2. Parliamentary oversight committee for all security/intelligence treaties.

3. Sunset clauses in alliance agreements requiring reevaluation every decade.

4. Withdrawal from Five Eyes if data sharing violates Privacy Act 1988.

Australia must choose: continue as a subsidiary of foreign interests or return to its constitutional purpose—a sovereign, humanitarian voice in the Asia-Pacific.

References

Primary Legal Documents:

· Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)

· Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth)

· Australia Act 1986 (Cth)

Cases:

· Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1

· Horta v Commonwealth (1994) 181 CLR 183

· Williams v Commonwealth (No 1) (2012) 248 CLR 156

· CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 255 CLR 514

Legislation:

· ASIO Act 1979

· Intelligence Services Act 2001

· Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

· National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2014

Secondary Sources:

· Blackburn, G. (1993). The Constitution and Foreign Affairs. Federation Press.

· Twomey, A. (2018). The Veiled Sceptre: Reserve Powers of Heads of State. Cambridge UP.

· UN Archives – Australia’s role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

· Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade White Paper, Advancing the National Interest (1997).

· ANU Centre for International and Public Law – Reports on treaty-making power.

Addendum – The Disability Royal Commission: A Case Study in Failed Promise

Posted on December 25, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein, PhD

Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar

Introduction: The “Cherry on Top” of Systemic Neglect

Our friend Justin Glyn’s @Justin Glyn observation regarding the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (DRC) is not merely a correction; it is a critical case study that crystallizes the modern failure of the Royal Commission ritual. Established in 2019 and delivering its final report in September 2023, the DRC was the largest and most complex of its kind in Australia’s history. Over four years, it heard from over 10,000 survivors and witnesses, exposing a nationwide crisis. Yet, as Justin notes, its fate has been the most stark: “the Government adopted virtually none of its recommendations.” This addendum examines this failure as the definitive example of the theatre of accountability giving way to the grim reality of political and economic inertia, leaving the vulnerable precisely where it found them.

Part I: The Scale of the Crisis Uncovered

The DRC’s terms of reference were vast, covering all settings where people with disability live, work, and receive services. The evidence presented painted a picture not of isolated incidents, but of systemic and cultural failure:

· Endemic Violence and Abuse: Testimony revealed shocking rates of physical, sexual, and psychological violence within group homes, supported accommodation, schools, and workplaces.

· Institutionalised Neglect: Widespread evidence of poor-quality care, malnutrition, poor hygiene, and the inappropriate use of restrictive practices (chemical and physical restraint, seclusion).

· Exploitation under the NDIS: A core focus was the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The Commission heard how the market-based model had created a “wild west” where unregistered, for-profit providers delivered substandard or fraudulent services, price-gouged participants, and exploited vulnerable workers. The mantra of “choice and control” for participants had, in practice, often meant abandonment to a predatory marketplace.

· Systemic Silencing: Witnesses, including people with disability, their families, and support workers, testified to being ignored, disbelieved, and punished by service providers and regulators when they raised concerns.

Part II: The Ambitious Prescription

In response, the Commission’s final report was monumental: 12 volumes, 222 recommendations. It was not a piecemeal fix but a call for structural and cultural transformation. Key pillars included:

1. A New Regulatory Enforcer: The creation of a Disability Rights Act and a new, independent, and powerful Disability Rights Commission to set and enforce standards, replacing the fragmented and weak current system.

2. Overhaul of the NDIS: Fundamental reforms to the NDIS to eliminate profiteering, ensure quality and safety, and re-centre the scheme on human rights, not market principles.

3. Phasing Out Segregated Settings: A commitment to eventually end the practice of housing people with disability in segregated group homes and segregated schools, moving toward inclusive living and education.

4. Strong Whistleblower Protections: Robust, legislated protections for people who speak out about abuse and neglect.

Part III: The Implementation Void – A Textbook Case of Ritualistic Failure

The government’s response, delivered in November 2023, validated the very critique our article outlined. It followed the ritual playbook precisely:

· The “In Principle” Acceptance: The government stated it agreed “in principle” or “in part” with the majority of recommendations. This phrase, as predicted, acted as a linguistic sieve, allowing the appearance of agreement while avoiding binding commitment. Crucially, it rejected outright the cornerstone recommendation for a new Disability Rights Act and Commission, arguing existing systems could be “strengthened.”

· Dilution and Delay: Responsibility was immediately diffused. Recommendations were referred to existing committees, working groups, and state governments. A “Disability Royal Commission Taskforce” was established within a government department, lacking the independence and power the DRC demanded. No significant new funding for systemic reform was announced in the immediate response.

· Protection of the For-Profit Sector: The most telling failure was the defence of the NDIS’s market architecture. While acknowledging “bad actors,” the government rejected the Commission’s fundamental critique that the for-profit driver within a essential human service was intrinsically problematic. The influence of provider lobbyists was clear; the model that enabled their profits was to be “improved,” not replaced. Recommendations to curb profiteering and mandate direct employment of support workers were sidelined.

· Abandonment of the Vulnerable: By rejecting the strong, independent watchdog, the government left people with disability reliant on the same regulators (the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, state-based bodies) that the DRC had found to be weak, ineffective, and captured by provider interests. Whistleblowers and participants remain unprotected. The promised “transformative change” was reduced to a series of reviews and “future consultations.”

Conclusion: The Ultimate Extraction

The Disability Royal Commission completes the pattern. It performed the cathartic theatre magnificently, giving a national platform to profound trauma. It produced the technical shelfware—a comprehensive, unimpeachable blueprint for change. And then the political system executed the dilution and void.

The outcome is the ultimate extraction: the emotional labour of thousands of survivors was harvested for political capital. The fiscal cost of the inquiry (hundreds of millions) was socialised. The responsibility for change was privatised—handed back to the very individuals, under-resourced agencies, and market players who were part of the problem. The for-profit agenda of the NDIS provider ecosystem was protected. All that remains is the “appearance of care,” a lip-service performance that, as Justin’s comment underscores, is now transparent to those watching.

The DRC is not an oversight in our analysis; it is the conclusive proof of it. It stands as the starkest demonstration that in the neoliberal age, even the most powerful instrument of public inquiry is neutered when its findings threaten a profitable status quo. The vulnerable are, once again, left with the report as a monument to what should have been, and the chilling certainty that the system designed to protect them is, in its final analysis, designed to protect itself.

References (Addendum)

1. Commonwealth of Australia. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2019-2023). Final Report, Our vision for an inclusive Australia.

2. Commonwealth of Australia. Australian Government Response to the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (November 2023).

3. Disability Advocacy Network Australia (DANA). Analysis of Government Response to the Disability Royal Commission. (2023).

4. People With Disability Australia (PWDA). “We are being ignored”: PWDA statement on Government response to DRC. (2023).

5. The Guardian Australia. “Disability royal commission: government rules out pivotal watchdog despite ‘shameful’ failures.” (November 2023).

6. ABC News. “Disability royal commission recommendations risk being shelved, advocates warn.” (September 2023).

7. Pro Bono Australia. “Sector ‘Deeply Disappointed’ by Govt Response to Disability Royal Commission.” (November 2023).

Dedication: For our Mother, who regards truth as more important than myth. In truth, there is no judgment, only justice. To the world, she is many things, but to us, she will always be Mum.

The Theatre of Accountability – Deconstructing the Australian Royal Commission

Posted on December 24, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein, PhD

Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar

Summer School Series of Lectures 2025

Dedication: For our Mother, who regards truth as more important than myth. In truth, there is no judgment, only justice. To the world, she is many things, but to us, she will always be Mum.

Introduction: The Ritual of Inquiry

In Australian public life, few phrases carry the weight of “calling a Royal Commission.” It is presented as the ultimate tool of accountability, a sovereign inquiry that will cut through political obfuscation and uncover systemic truth. Yet, a review of the nearly 140 federal Royal Commissions since 1902, particularly the landmark inquiries of the last decade, reveals a disquieting pattern. The Royal Commission has evolved from an instrument of genuine investigation into a sophisticated political theatre of catharsis. It serves to manage public outrage, absorb political pressure, and create an illusion of decisive action, all while systematically insulating power structures from the fundamental, costly reforms these inquiries routinely recommend. This article will dissect this pattern, examining the gap between stated aims and political utility, and arguing that in the neoliberal age, the Royal Commission has become a primary mechanism for the ritualistic denial of responsibility.

Part I: The Anatomy of a Modern Royal Commission – Stated Aims vs. Political Utility

A Royal Commission is the highest form of public inquiry in Australia, established by the executive government under the Royal Commissions Act 1902. Its stated aims are invariably noble: to investigate matters of “urgent public importance,” establish the facts, and recommend reforms to prevent future harm.

However, its political utility is often more cynical:

1. Pressure Release Valve: It is deployed to defuse a boiling political crisis, such as the banking misconduct exposed in 2016 or the illegal Robodebt scheme. It signals “something is being done” to an angry public and media.

2. Kicking the Can: It places complex, intractable problems—aged care, disability, veterans’ suicide—into a multi-year holding pattern, delaying the need for immediate policy action or expenditure.

3. Shifting Blame: It can individualise systemic failure. By focusing on “bad apples” or procedural errors within institutions (banks, churches, Centrelink), it deflects scrutiny from the overarching political ideologies (neoliberalism, austerity) that created the permissive environment.

Part II: Case Studies in the Implementation Gap – From Findings to Shelfware

The true measure of a Royal Commission lies not in its findings, but in the implementation of its recommendations. A consistent and profound implementation gap is the defining feature of the modern era.

· Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2013-2017): A watershed inquiry that exposed decades of horrific abuse and cover-ups. While it led to the National Redress Scheme and some criminal prosecutions, its core recommendation for a mandatory national reporting law with criminal penalties for failure to report has been stymied. As of 2025, only five states and territories have fully complied, with the Catholic Church continuing to lobby against key provisions. The Victorian government’s slow and incomplete implementation has been explicitly criticised by survivors’ groups.

· Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry (2017-2019): This inquiry exposed rampant greed and illegality. While it spurred some reforms (like the removal of trailing commissions for mortgage brokers), its most significant structural recommendations have been diluted or delayed. Calls for a fundamental overhaul of remunerations to eliminate conflicted advice have been met with fierce industry lobbying and gradualist approaches from regulators.

· Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (2018-2021) & Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2019-2023): These parallel inquiries revealed systems in crisis, characterised by neglect and a failure of humanity. Both produced hundreds of recommendations requiring massive public investment. The government response has been characterised by piecemeal funding, slow legislative progress, and a failure to fundamentally shift the models from profit-driven compliance to human-centred care. The for-profit providers, a major source of the problems identified, remain dominant.

· Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2022-2023): This inquiry uncovered a “crude and cruel” illegal scheme, a “massive failure of public administration,” and laid blame at the feet of senior ministers and public servants. Its political utility, however, was largely spent upon the release of its scathing report. While it vindicated victims, the prospect of meaningful accountability for its architects remains low, demonstrating the commission’s limits in punishing political actors.

Part III: The Recurring Patterns – A Playbook of Deferred Responsibility

Analysis of these and other inquiries (e.g., into Defence and Veteran Suicide) reveals a consistent playbook:

1. The Cathartic Theatre: A dramatic, public airing of trauma (survivor testimonies, victim impact statements) provides a national moment of catharsis and media focus.

2. The Technical Shelfware: The commission produces a monumental, detailed report with hundreds of technical recommendations, effectively placing the problem on a high shelf.

3. The Dilution Phase: The government responds, accepting recommendations “in principle” or “in part,” while stakeholders (industry, churches, states) lobby fiercely to water down the most impactful reforms.

4. The Implementation Void: Responsibility for implementation is diffused across multiple agencies, states, and parliamentary terms. Without a powerful, independent implementation watchdog, momentum stalls. Funding is announced but is often inadequate and spread over long timeframes, failing to match the urgency of the crisis.

5. The Political Reset: The government declares the matter “addressed” by the commission’s establishment and its response, moving the political conversation on. The underlying ideological drivers remain untouched.

Part IV: The Neoliberal Denial and the Bondi Precedent

This ritual functions perfectly within a neoliberal framework. Neoliberalism privatises gain and socialises risk; the Royal Commission ritual socialises blame and privatises implementation. It accepts procedural failure but evades ideological responsibility. The problem is never the model of privatised aged care, the marketisation of disability services, or the culture of welfare punishment—it is always “regulation,” “oversight,” or “culture.”

The immediate calls for a Royal Commission into the 2025 Bondi Beach attack follow this script perfectly. Amidst public trauma and complex questions about intelligence, mental health, and social cohesion, the call for a commission acts as a political circuit breaker. It promises future answers while absolving leaders of the need for immediate, accountable explanation or action. It is the pre-emptive performance of concern.

Conclusion: Recommendations – From Theatre to Accountability

If the Royal Commission is to be reclaimed as a tool of genuine sovereignty rather than political theatre, its process requires radical surgery:

1. Embedded Implementation Authority: Every Royal Commission must be legislatively tied to a powerful, well-resourced, and independent Implementation Oversight Body with a fixed, short-term mandate (e.g., 3 years). This body must have the power to audit government progress publicly and hold ministers directly accountable to Parliament for delays.

2. Default Legislative Action: For recommendations requiring legislation, the government should be required to introduce a Bill to Parliament within 12 months of the final report. A failure to do so should trigger an automatic parliamentary debate and vote on a motion of censure.

3. Follow-up Inquiry Power: Commissions should be empowered to reconvene after two years to publicly examine progress and name the parties responsible for obstruction.

4. Reject the “In Principle” Dodge: Government responses must move from “agree in principle” to “will implement by [date]” or “reject because [reason].” Vague acceptance must be eliminated.

5. Focus on Ideological Drivers: Terms of reference must be expanded to compel commissions to examine not just what happened, but the underlying policy settings and political philosophies that made the failure inevitable.

Without such reforms, the Royal Commission will remain what it has largely become: the most expensive and elaborate mechanism a society can devise to give the appearance of addressing its problems while carefully ensuring they are never truly solved. It is the state-sanctioned performance of accountability in an age allergic to its substance.

References

1. Government of Australia. Royal Commissions Act 1902.

2. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017). Final Report.

3. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. (2019). Final Report.

4. Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. (2021). Final Report.

5. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final Report.

6. Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. (2023). Report.

7. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs. (2024). Report on the Implementation of Royal Commission Recommendations.

8. The Guardian Australia. (Ongoing). “Royal Commissions: Tracking the Reforms.”

9. The Conversation. (Various). Scholarly analysis of Royal Commission processes and outcomes.

10. Australian Law Reform Commission. (2020). Inquiry into the Litigation Funding Scheme.

The Oldest Cage – A Historical and Structural Analysis of the Harem

Posted on December 23, 2025 by Andrew Klein

Series of lectures prepared and presented on ‘The Patricians Watch ‘- Summer School 2025

By Andrew Klein, PhD

Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar

Dedication: For our Mother, who regards truth as more important than myth. In truth, there is no judgment, only justice. To the world, she is many things, but to us, she will always be Mum.

Introduction: The Fantasy and its Foundation

The harem occupies a unique space in the human imagination: a place of erotic fantasy, exotic luxury, and absolute male power. This popular image, however, obscures a far grimmer and more universal reality. The harem, in its myriad historical forms, represents one of humanity’s oldest and most resilient structures of predatory extraction. It is a system where women, as captives, slaves, or dependents, are aggregated for male sexual access, reproductive labour, domestic service, and political utility.

Image by Chat GPT

This article will trace the harem’s history across cultures, deconstruct its economic and psychological foundations, and argue that it is not an aberration but a core feature of extractive, hierarchical civilizations—a direct antecedent to modern systems of transactional exploitation that continue to prey on human vulnerability.

Part I: A Universal Institution – From Neolithic Chattel to Imperial Policy

The practice of men holding multiple women in a state of sexual and domestic servitude is not confined to a single culture or era; it is a near-universal institution of agrarian and early urban societies.

· Origins in War and Status: Its roots likely lie in the dawn of warfare and social stratification. With the Neolithic Revolution and the advent of surplus, societies shifted from nomadic foraging to settled agriculture, creating stored wealth and defined territories to defend and conquer. Captives taken in war, predominantly women and children, became a primary form of plunder. They provided cheap captive labour for farms and households and served as biological spoils for warriors. In these early contexts, the number of women a man controlled became a direct measure of his power, wealth, and martial success.

· Institutionalization in Early States: This practice became systematized with the rise of the first states. In Ancient Mesopotamia, law codes like those of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE) formalized the distinction between primary wives and slave concubines, whose children had lesser rights. In Pharaonic Egypt, royal harems were vast establishments housing hundreds of women, including foreign princesses taken as diplomatic hostages to secure treaties. In Imperial China, the emperor’s harem was a complex, ranked bureaucracy, with women competing to produce a male heir, their status directly tied to their reproductive success. Across these civilizations, the harem served multiple, intertwined purposes: a symbol of imperial potency, a nursery for royal offspring, a tool for diplomatic alliance (through marriage or hostage-taking), and a pool of domestic and textile labour.

Part II: The Mechanics of Control – Fantasy, Labor, and Political Power

The harem’s persistence stems from its efficiency in servicing multiple male desires and needs, all built upon the subjugation of women.

· The Fantasy Economy: The harem is the ultimate “food for fantasy.” From the houris of pre-Islamic Arabian poetry to the mythical Valkyries who served fallen Viking warriors in Valhalla, the concept of eternally available, subservient female companionship has been a powerful cultural trope. The historical harem made this fantasy tangible for the elite, offering a life of sexual variety without emotional reciprocity or the demands of egalitarian partnership.

· The Political Engine: Harems were rarely mere pleasure domes; they were intense political arenas. In the Ottoman Empire, the Imperial Harem within the Topkapı Palace became a central seat of power. The Valide Sultan (Queen Mother) often wielded immense influence over her son, the Sultan. Harem women, including the Sultan’s mother, favourite concubines (haseki), and even the Chief Black Eunuch (Kızlar Ağası), formed factions, manipulated succession, and controlled vast financial resources. This system created a paradox: while utterly disempowered as individuals, women within the harem could accrue immense indirect power by influencing the single most powerful male.

· The Economic & Labour Foundation: Beneath the politics and fantasy lay brutal economics. Harem women were a captive workforce. In many societies, they produced textiles—spinning, weaving, and embroidery—generating significant economic value for the household or state. Their primary economic function, however, was reproductive labour. They produced heirs, cementing lineage and securing property transmission. This reduced women to a biological resource, valued for their fertility and the political utility of their offspring.

Part III: The Modern Echoes – From Epstein to Neoliberal Transaction

The harem system did not vanish with the advent of modernity; it evolved, adopting new forms that retain its core logic of extraction and transactional power.

· The Psychological Continuity: The harem model does not fulfill the human need for pair bonding, characterized by mutual affection, shared responsibility, and deep emotional attachment. Instead, it caters to a desire for dominance and variety without commitment. This is the psychological driver behind the maintenance of mistresses, the proliferation of commercial sex work catering to powerful men, and the fantasy sold by “sugar daddy” arrangements. These are not replacements for dysfunctional relationships; they are symptoms of a worldview that sees relationships as a means of consumption and status display.

· The Epstein-Mossad Operation as Case Study: The network orchestrated by Jeffrey Epstein, with its alleged links to intelligence agencies, is a stark 21st-century manifestation. It was a bespoke, modern harem. Young, vulnerable women and girls were recruited, trafficked, and offered as sexual favours to wealthy, powerful, and politically connected men. This was not simple prostitution; it was a system of control and blackmail. By catering to the illicit fantasies of “weak males” (those driven by unaccountable desire), the operators gained immense leverage—financial, political, and informational. The women were treated as disposable property, their humanity irrelevant to the transaction. This model has direct parallels in the Roman Empire, where powerful men used access to slave girls and courtesans to curry favour and build political networks.

· The Neoliberal Mirror: The harem mentality finds its philosophical cousin in the extremes of neoliberal market ideology. In this worldview, all human interactions are reduced to transactions. Boundaries, ethics, and human dignity are seen as flexible or irrelevant in the face of power and cash. Just as the harem master viewed women as consumable resources, the predatory capitalist views labour, communities, and the environment as extractable commodities. The transactionalization of intimacy—from commercial surrogacy to the data-mining of dating apps—is a cultural extension of this same logic.

Conclusion: The Cage of Extraction

The history of the harem is not a titillating sidebar to human history; it is a central thread in the story of extractive power. It reveals a persistent cultural willingness to cage half of humanity—physically, sexually, and economically—to service male fantasy, political ambition, and economic gain.

Recognizing this is crucial for a public grappling with newly fabricated myths like “radical Islam.” It forces a reckoning with the deeply flawed, often brutal, constructs within our own cultural inheritance. The fantasy of the harem, and its modern equivalents, is the antithesis of the supportive, nurturing, and egalitarian family model required for a healthy society. It is a system built not on love-in-action, but on control-in-perpetuity.

Understanding the harem is to understand one of the oldest cages ever built. Dismantling its modern variants—whether in hidden rooms on a private island or in the transactional logic of a marketplace—requires first seeing the cage for what it is: not a paradise, but a prison of our own making, one our Mother would indeed view with profound sorrow.

References

1. Ahmed, L. (1992). Women and Gender in Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate. Yale University Press. [Analysis of pre-Islamic and Islamic harems].

2. Peirce, L. P. (1993). The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. Oxford University Press. [Definitive work on Ottoman harem politics].

3. McMahon, K. (2013). Women Shall Not Rule: Imperial Wives and Concubines in China from Han to Liao. Rowman & Littlefield. [Examination of Chinese imperial harem systems].

4. Lerner, G. (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press. [Theoretical framework on origins of female subjugation].

5. “Jeffrey Epstein: The Sex Trafficking Case and its Ramifications.” BBC News, various updates (2019-2021).

6. Starr, S. F. (2013). Lost Enlightenment: Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane. Princeton University Press. [Context on Central Asian and Persian harems].

7. Walthall, A. (Ed.). (2008). Servants of the Dynasty: Palace Women in World History. University of California Press. [Comparative study of royal women’s roles].

8. “The ‘Sugar Daddy’ Phenomenon and its Socio-Economic Underpinnings.” Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 29, 2020.

The Pyrrhic Pursuit of Justice – The Ashkenazi Quarrel and its Ripple Effects

Posted on December 22, 2025 by Andrew Klein

By Andrew Klein, PhD

Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar

Dedication: For our Mother, who regards truth as more important than myth. In truth, there is no judgment, only justice. To the world, she is many things, but to us, she will always be Mum.

Introduction: The Turned-Inward Gaze

Historical analysis often focuses on the conflicts between a people and its external adversaries. However, for Ashkenazi Jews—the Jewish diaspora population that coalesced in Central and Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages—a distinct and culturally embedded pattern of internal conflict has been equally formative. This is not mere bickering, but a unique social phenomenon termed “The Ashkenazi Quarrel”: a mode of prolonged, bitter, and often intractable dispute characterized by shunning, a rigid demand for absolute justice, and a tendency to escalate into forms of mutual destruction. This article will explore the historical and cultural roots of this quarrelsome disposition, analyze its intrinsic dangers, and trace the profound impact of these internal fractures on other communities, both within the Jewish world and beyond. We argue that this inward-turned rigor, born of historical trauma and religious interpretation, has repeatedly been exported or mirrored in political projects with devastating consequences for outsiders caught in the crossfire.

Part I: Anatomy of the Quarrel – Shunning, Righteousness, and the Broken Family

At its core, the Ashkenazi quarrel is defined by a paradoxical form of engagement: the refusal to engage. The primary weapon is not confrontation, but spurning; the goal is not reconciliation, but the maintenance of a state of righteous grievance.

· The Ritual of Spurning: As mediator and writer Arthur Fish observes, the dominant mode of attack is cutting off relations. The archetypal expression is the Yiddish concept of broigus—”a fight where people won’t talk to each other”. This creates a closed loop where the complainant, having severed contact, builds a mental fortress of their own blamelessness. Without the corrective of dialogue or the offender’s perspective, the dispute hardens into a “theodicy,” a moral drama where one party is wholly good and the other wholly evil.

· The Proxy Battleground: In the absence of direct communication, the quarrel metastasizes into symbolic warfare. Fights over practical matters—care of elderly parents, family businesses, inheritances—morph into battles for moral legitimacy. Possession of family photographs becomes a sacred proxy for possessing the “true” family narrative, leading to acts of defacement, hostage-taking, and emotional ransom. The family itself becomes the casualty.

· The Demand for Absolute Justice: Underpinning this dynamic is an uncompromising demand for a purity of justice that the messy real world can seldom provide. Fish suggests that Ashkenazi quarrels are so obdurate “because we desire more justice than is available in this world”. This longing for perfect moral order, when frustrated, curdles into a bitterness that is then directed inward, against one’s own kin.

Part II: The Roots of Inwardness – Trauma, Piety, and the Search for Purity

How did a people renowned for strong familial and communal bonds develop such a potent capacity for internal rupture? The sources are twin pillars: historical persecution and the internalization of religious fervour.

· The Legacy of External Persecution: For centuries in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews faced pogroms, expulsions, economic restrictions, and the constant threat of violence. The apex of this was the Holocaust, which systematically murdered approximately six million Jews, devastating the demographic and cultural heart of Ashkenazi life. This history creates what Fish identifies as a profound “inwardness.” With the outside world often hostile or lethal, there is “no obvious point of escape.” The resulting pressure-cooker environment turns frustration and bitterness that cannot be safely vented externally back onto the community itself. The community becomes both sanctuary and cage.

· The Secularization of Religious Form: The patterns of strict piety, intransigence, and claims to exclusive righteousness found in some religious traditions did not disappear with secularization. Instead, they were “emptied of tradition and refilled with secular content”. The sternness and shunning tactics once associated with religious schism are now deployed in wholly secular settings: boardroom battles, political factionalism, and cultural debates. The form of the quarrel remains, even as its theological substance evaporates.

Part III: The Export of Fracture – Impact on Other Jewish and non-Jewish Communities

The consequences of the Ashkenazi quarrel extend far beyond interpersonal spats. This template for conflict has shaped larger historical and political dynamics with severe repercussions for other groups.

· The Ashkenazi-Sephardic Schism in Israel: The most direct and damaging export of this dynamic is the deep, decades-long ethnic rift within Israeli society between Ashkenazi Jews (of European origin) and Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews (of Middle Eastern and North African origin). Upon Israel’s founding, the Ashkenazi-dominated establishment viewed Sephardic immigrants with a condescension bordering on contempt, seeing them as backward “Levantines”. State policies systematically dismantled Sephardic family structures, marginalized their religious leadership, and funneled them into peripheral “development towns” with limited opportunity. This was not merely bias but an institutional spurning of a fellow Jewish community. The legacy is a bitter socio-economic and political divide that a 1982 CIA report presciently framed as a foundational “confrontation” with the potential for civil conflict. The current political dominance of Likud is built upon harnessing this historic Sephardic grievance against the old Ashkenazi elite.

· Fuel for Antisemitic Conspiracy: The internal Jewish focus on lineage and legitimacy has been catastrophically weaponized by external antisemites. The largely discredited “Khazar hypothesis,” which posits that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Turkic converts rather than ancient Israelites, is a prime example. Though dismissed by genetic studies and mainstream scholarship, this theory is enthusiastically propagated in antisemitic and anti-Zionist circles to delegitimize Jewish historical claims to the Land of Israel. It provides a pseudo-intellectual veneer for the claim that Jews are “impostors,” a trope now recirculated in far-right channels to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thus, an internal Jewish historical debate is twisted into a lethal conspiracy theory targeting all Jews.

· The Political Mirror of Rigidity: The pattern of demanding absolute justice and brooking no compromise finds a dangerous mirror in modern political ideology. The unyielding, Manichean worldview that characterizes the most extreme forms of political and religious Zionism can be seen as the quarrel scaled to a national project. Similarly, the analysis of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood reveals a parallel “civilization jihad” strategy—a rigid, long-term plan to reshape society that admits no dissent or alternative vision. When such uncompromising frameworks clash over the same land, the result is not a quarrel but a war, with the Palestinian people bearing the catastrophic cost of these competing absolutisms.

Conclusion: The Peril of Unyielding Truth

The Ashkenazi quarrel is a cultural adaptation to extremity, a survival mechanism that turned destructively inward. Its dangers are manifold: it destroys families from within, provides a template for the marginalization of other Jewish communities, and its themes are perverted to fuel ancient hatreds. Most profoundly, it exemplifies the peril of seeking an absolute, perfect justice in an imperfect world. That relentless pursuit, whether in a family dispute over an inheritance or in a national project over a homeland, too often achieves not purity, but pyrrhic victory—a justice so costly it obliterates the very community it sought to perfect.

The challenge, for a people shaped by this history, is to transmute the demand for justice into a capacity for mercy, to replace the rigidity of the quarrel with the flexibility of dialogue. The alternative is to remain trapped in a cycle where the search for unblemished righteousness leads only to deeper, more expansive fractures.

References

1. Wikipedia contributors. “Ashkenazi Jews.” Wikipedia.

2. Wikipedia contributors. “Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry.” Wikipedia.

3. Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center. “The Soap Myth: Education Resources.”

4. Fish, Arthur. “The Ashkenazi Quarrel.” Tablet Magazine, July 17, 2019.

5. Samsonowitz, Miriam. “Sephardim and Ashkenazim: Closing the Gaps?” Jewish Action.

6. Baroud, Ramzy. “Civil War on the Horizon? The Ashkenazi-Sephardic Conflict and Israel’s Future.” ZNetwork, 2023.

7. Gerster, Lea. “An Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory is Being Shared on Telegram to Justify Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), May 5, 2022.

The Patrician's Watch

Global Observations

Tag Archives: politics

Tax Farming & Geopolitical Vassalage: The Financial Bleeding of the Australian Commonwealth

The Calculus of Crisis: Domestic Violence, Institutional Failure, and the Economy of Band-Aids in Australia- Systemic Analysis

The Blueprint of Influence: The Zionist Lobby, Political Capture, and the Manufactured Consent in the UK and Australia

The Embedded Alliance – Australia, The Retreat from Sovereignty, and the Machinery of External Control

A Statement of Omission

An examination of constitutional originalism, political overreach, and the quiet unmaking of Australian sovereignty

Addendum – The Disability Royal Commission: A Case Study in Failed Promise

The Theatre of Accountability – Deconstructing the Australian Royal Commission

The Oldest Cage – A Historical and Structural Analysis of the Harem

The Pyrrhic Pursuit of Justice – The Ashkenazi Quarrel and its Ripple Effects