Dedicated to my wife, who discreetly whispers that I am a fossil — but tells me not to worry about it.
I. Introduction: The Past Is Never Dead
William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
In archaeology, this truth is more evident than anywhere else. The ancient objects we unearth are not simply silent witnesses to history — they are weapons in political battles, pillars of imperial narratives, and currency in the struggle for identity.
A 1,600-year-old bronze lamp in the shape of a sandaled foot is given “multilayered Christian symbolism.” A medieval belt buckle is interpreted as evidence of an “unknown pagan cult.” A 42,000-year-old Aboriginal skeleton is, in the hands of scientists, a “specimen” — but in the hands of Indigenous Australians, it is an ancestor. The same object. Different stories. Different power games.
When archaeology is unmoored from evidence, it ceases to be science and becomes a mirror — reflecting not the past, but our own biases, ambitions, and fears.
II. Ancient Fakes: When Faith Becomes a Market
The Eighteen Holy Foreskins
In medieval Europe, the Holy Foreskin of Jesus was a highly sought-after relic. At various points, at least 18 churches across Europe claimed to possess it. The earliest recorded mention dates to 800 AD, when Charlemagne gifted it to Pope Leo III upon his coronation. The relic at the Italian town of Calcata became the subject of fierce controversy in 1856 when the Holy Foreskin of Charroux was “rediscovered.”
The Egyptian Mummy Industry
Animal mummies were big business in ancient Egypt — and a surprising number of them were fraudulent. An X-ray of a “falcon” mummy revealed a collection of bones, missing its head and with the wrong number of bones for a complete skeleton. In another, a “cat mummy” turned out to be a fake — no cat inside at all. A study found that one-third of all animal mummies contained no animal remains.
This was not a crime. It was a market. And the market has always been willing to meet demand — even when the supply was fake.
III. Racist Archaeology: Measuring to Dominate
Craniometry and “Scientific Racism”
In the 19th and 20th centuries, skulls were measured primarily to distinguish races. Anthropologist Karl Pearson considered the skull the most useful tool for differentiating racial groups. American anatomist Samuel Morton began his pioneering study of skull sizes in 1834 — erroneously assuming that cranial capacity indicated intelligence, and using his findings to justify white supremacy.
In South Africa, archaeology became intertwined with racial science, attempting to validate racism. Archaeological sites in Egypt and Sudan were forced into Victorian ideals of European superiority. As one scholar put it: “A hundred years ago, archaeology was used as a tool to prove European superiority and cultural hegemony.”
The stolen remains were used for comparative anatomy and racial origins research. University museums were filled with bones that had been “salvaged” — measured, categorised, and displayed as if human beings could be reduced to a set of numbers.
IV. Nazi Archaeology: How Pseudoscience Served Genocide
Gustaf Kossinna and “Siedlungsarchäologie”
Gustaf Kossinna (1858-1931) was unabashedly nationalistic and racist, proclaiming the superiority of the German race and culture over all other peoples. He declared German archaeology a “pre-eminently national discipline” and dedicated its post-WWI iteration to the “German people as a cornerstone for the reconstruction of the fatherland, torn down externally and internally”. He actively used archaeological research to argue that Polish territories had been Germanic since the Iron Age.
Himmler and the Ahnenerbe
After Kossinna’s death, the Nazis elevated his theories into dogma for the “Aryan master race” myth. Heinrich Himmler founded the Ahnenerbe (Ancestral Heritage Society), staffed by SS officers who conducted archaeological investigations and enforced Kossinna’s “settlement archaeology” methodology. Archaeological finds considered “Germanic” were prioritised over all others, in order to “prove” that Germanic peoples had expanded eastwards into Poland, southern Russia, and the Caucasus in prehistoric times.
More disturbingly, Himmler attempted to link the physical features of the Venus of Dolní Věstonice to Jewish women and so-called “primitive races” such as the Hottentots. The Nazis encouraged archaeologists to find evidence that supported their claim that Germans descended from an ancient and advanced Aryan race. These pseudo-archaeologies were used in Nazi propaganda campaigns to stir national pride while justifying the invasion of neighbouring countries.
Wall charts were distributed to schools across Germany, showing “antiquities from our homeland” and contrasting the heroic Nordic race with the “inferior” Jews and other stigmatised peoples.
Archaeology, which should have been a science of truth, became a servant of lies.
V. Looting and Complicity: The Dark Side of Museums
The Elgin Marbles: Spoils of Empire
The Elgin Marbles — the Parthenon sculptures — are the most famous international cultural heritage restitution dispute. In 1816, Elgin, in debt, sold the sculptures to the British government, which then entrusted them to the British Museum. British law forbids the British Museum from returning the marbles. Today, negotiations for a long-term loan are ongoing — but after 199 years, they remain in London.
Cambodia’s “Blood Antiquities”
Douglas Latchford — nicknamed “Dynamite Doug” — was the mastermind behind the large-scale looting of Angkor-era artifacts from Cambodia. He “violently tore Khmer statues from their homes and funnelled them to Western institutions.” The statues were beheaded and dismembered, ripped from their temples, and presented — somehow “pristine and spiritually cleansed” — in New York galleries and London auction houses.
Latchford’s success depended on the willingness of museums, dealers, collectors, and scholars to accept questionable provenance. He provided a “steady supply of stolen material” — and the Metropolitan Museum of Art was his “most powerful marketing tool.”
The West’s Demand-Driven Looting Cycle
Without demand, there would be no looting. The looters in Cambodia are brutal; the looters in Iraq are opportunistic; but they are all simply meeting a demand created bythe West. The British Museum portrays itself as a protector of antiquities — while simultaneously buying and displaying stolen objects.
VI. Erasure and Rewriting: Archaeology as Political Weapon
Israel’s Destruction of Lebanese Heritage
In 2024, Israeli military operations in Lebanon caused significant damage to cultural heritage. Israeli airstrikes reportedly destroyed or severely damaged at least 10 religious buildings. UNESCO convened an emergency meeting in November 2024, granting 34 cultural sites in Lebanon “enhanced protection.”
In Baalbek, Israeli airstrikes destroyed a traditional French Mandate-era house and damaged historical sites. Archaeologists warned that war damage to important archaeological sites would be a “great loss for Lebanon and the cultural heritage of the entire world.”
The British Museum and the Erasure of “Palestine”
In 2026, the British Museum was accused of removing the word “Palestine” from labels in its Ancient Near East galleries. UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) filed a complaint, claiming the use of “Palestine”“risks obscuring the history of Israel and the Jewish people. “ The museum changed the labels to use terms like “Canaan” instead.
The Palestinian ambassador expressed “grave concern,” saying “the attempt to treat the name ‘Palestine’ itself as contested has the potential to foster an atmosphere in which the denial of Palestine is normalised. ” Activist groups criticised the museum for hypocrisy — portraying itself as a protector of antiquities while being complicit in the systemic erasure of Palestinian cultural identity and heritage.
VII. Conclusion: The Choice That Archaeology Must Make
Archaeology is not inherently a weapon. But when it is politicised, it becomes one.
The Nazis used archaeology to justify genocide.
Colonists used archaeology to justify looting.
Modern states use archaeology to erase unwanted histories.
When archaeology is unmoored from evidence, it becomes pseudo-archaeology — a narrative that serves power, not truth.
Archaeology can be a tool for truth — or a tool for lies. The choice is ours.
Every object we unearth today could, tomorrow, be used to tell a different story. The problem is not the objects themselves — it is the way we choose to tell their stories.
Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who discreetly whispers that I am a fossil — but tells me not to worry about it.
References
1. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Collection. Nazis encouraged archaeologists to find evidence supporting the claim that Germans descended from an ancient and advanced Aryan race.
2. Jones, S. (2002). The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Kossinna openly proclaimed the superiority of the German race and culture over all other peoples.
3. Brier, B. (2001). Case of the Dummy Mummy. Archaeology magazine. Animal mummies were big business in ancient Egypt — and a surprising number of them were fraudulent.
4. Wikipedia entry on Holy Foreskin. Between eight and eighteen different Holy Foreskins were claimed in medieval Europe.
5. Scientific Racism exhibition. In the 19th and 20th centuries, skulls were measured primarily to distinguish races.
6. Wikipedia entry on Nazi Archaeology.
7. Campbell, M. (2026). The Man Who Stole the Gods. Douglas Latchford’s large-scale looting of Cambodian artifacts.
8. UK museum assures ambassador it is not ‘cancelling’ Palestine. The National (2026).
9. Palestinian ambassador protests to Foreign Office over British Museum ‘erasure’. WAFA (2026).
10. Why the British Museum’s removal of ‘Palestine‘ has sparked political storm. Arab News (2026).
11. Baalbek’s ancient sites at risk from Israeli bombardment. BBC News (2024).
12. UNESCO grants 34 Lebanese sites ‘enhanced protection’. Jordan Times (2024).
Dedicated to my wife — who has always understood that the most profound discoveries are the ones that connect us, not the ones that divide us.
I. Introduction: The Fiction of Purity
In June 2026, Pauline Hanson stood before the National Press Club and declared that Australia “cannot be a multicultural society” and “must be monocultural“. Australians, she insisted, “must live under the one cultural umbrella”.
This vision of a monocultural society rests on a foundation of myth: the myth of isolation, the myth of purity, the myth that cultures and peoples have remained separate and distinct throughout history. It is a fiction — and it is contradicted by a growing body of archaeological, genetic, and historical evidence.
The reality is that human beings have always been on the move. Trade, migration, and genetic exchange have connected the world for millennia. The “monoculture” Hanson champions never existed — and the evidence from the Viking Age alone is enough to demonstrate this.
II. The Viking Coins: A Global Economy
In 2018, archaeologists unearthed the Damhus hoard — a cache of 226 Viking Age pennies near the town of Ribe in Denmark. The coins, dating to between A.D. 830 and 850, are among the earliest Viking coins ever discovered. Their significance, however, lies not in their age but in their origin.
Analysis using X-ray fluorescence revealed that more than half of the metal in the coins came from Islamic silver coins known as dirhams. The Islamic coins were melted down outside Scandinavia and transported to Ribe in the form of ingots. As Thomas Birch of the National Museum of Denmark explained, “If these coins are being minted in the hundreds of thousands, that’s a huge quantity of Islamic silver”.
This discovery confirms what scholars have long suspected: the Vikings were not isolated raiders but active participants in a global trade network that stretched from Scandinavia to the Islamic world. The flow of silver from the Islamic caliphates into Northern Europe was not a trickle — it was a river that shaped economies, politics, and cultures across the continent.
The scale of this trade was staggering. Research suggests that “perhaps a billion silver dirhams flowed into Scandinavia and the Viking world between 800 and 950“. Arab chroniclers reported that Viking merchants obtained dirhams in exchange for furs, amber, swords, and enslaved people. This was not a marginal exchange — it was the foundation of the Viking economy.
III. The Genetic Evidence: A Mosaic of Ancestry
The coins are not the only evidence of Viking connectivity. Genetic studies have fundamentally revised our understanding of Viking Age Scandinavia.
A landmark 2023 study published in Cell analysed 2,000 years of genetic history across Scandinavia, based on 48 new and 249 published ancient genomes. The findings revealed a “major increase in gene flow during the Viking period”. British-Irish ancestry was found to be “widespread in Scandinavia from the Viking period“, while eastern Baltic ancestry was concentrated in central Sweden and Gotland. Southern European ancestry also appeared in remains from southern Scandinavia.
The study’s authors concluded that “the findings overall indicate a major increase [in gene flow] during the Viking period”. As the researchers noted, “Viking identity was not limited to people with Scandinavian ancestry”. Many Vikings had “high levels of non-Scandinavian ancestry, both within and outside Scandinavia, which suggest ongoing gene flow across Europe”.
These findings “undermine the image of the Vikings as ‘pure’ Scandinavians“. The Vikings were not a homogeneous race — they were a mosaic of genetic influences from across Europe and beyond. The “blond-haired Viking” is a myth. They were as diverse as any other population.
IV. The Movement of Peoples: A Universal Pattern
The Vikings were not an exception. They were part of a universal pattern of human movement.
The Romans: The Roman Empire was a melting pot of peoples, cultures, and languages. Genetic analysis has revealed that “Pompeians were mainly descended from immigrants from the eastern Mediterranean”. At the height of the Roman Empire, 40% of the population of Rome had Near Eastern ancestry. Researchers have characterised Rome as a “genetic crossroads” and a “melting pot of different cultures“. At least 7-8% of individuals buried in the empire did not originate from the region where they were buried.
The Malays: The movement of Malay peoples from Indonesia to Malaysia is part of a broader pattern of Austronesian expansion that stretched from Madagascar to Easter Island. The Austronesian expansion into Peninsular Malaysia occurred between 3,500 and 2,500 years ago. These were not isolated migrations — they were waves of movement that connected vast regions of the globe.
The Anglo-Saxons: The history of England itself is a history of migration. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who formed what is now known as England were themselves migrants. The English language is a testament to centuries of cultural and genetic exchange.
V. The Construction of Cultural Identity
The pattern is clear: populations move, mix, and change. But the hierarchies established after these movements “convince themselves and everybody else that they have always been there”.
This is precisely how cultural identity works:
· The “natural order” is invoked to justify what is, in fact, a constructed order.
· The “ancient” identity is manufactured to legitimise the present.
· The “pure” lineage is invented to exclude the other.
We see this in the construction of national myths. “Myths of origins play a crucial role in the emergence and strengthening of an idealised sense of collective identity“. These myths are “a means through which a particular group or society expresses its sense of itself”. Nationalism “often revives ancient myths to create a sense of cultural identity, sometimes transforming their meanings to support contemporary ideologies”.
VI. The Limits of Scholarship
The research we have access to is limited by language. Scholarship is dominated by English-language publications, which means that voices from non-English-speaking traditions are often excluded.
· Islamic sources: The Islamic world produced extensive records of encounters with the Vikings. Ibn Fadlan, a tenth-century Muslim scholar, provided the earliest account of a meeting with the Rus (Vikings), whom he encountered on the Volga River in AD 922. His description of their customs, clothing, and ship funerals offers a perspective that is absent from Western sources.
· Chinese sources: The Chinese recorded their encounters with the “Western” peoples, including those from Central Asia who were connected to the broader Viking trade network.
· Byzantine sources: The Byzantine Empire left rich records of their interactions with the Varangians (Viking mercenaries) who served in the imperial guard.
If we examine studies and papers written in these languages — with as much fervor as we examine those written in English, French, and German — a more inclusive picture emerges. Research on “Eurocentric biases and linguistic imperialism” has shown how systemic barriers exclude non-Western perspectives from academic discourse.
VII. The Monoculture Myth in Contemporary Politics
Despite the overwhelming evidence of human connectivity, the myth of the monoculture persists. Pauline Hanson’s call for a “monocultural” Australia is not just historically illiterate — it is dangerous.
Hanson’s claim that “multiculturalism” is an “utterly flawed” policy ignores the reality that Australia has always been a nation of migrants. Her assertion that Australians “must live under the one cultural umbrella” is a fantasy that has no basis in history.
Her critics have been unequivocal. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young called the speech “deplorable” and accused Hanson of “the same old hate, the same old fear and same old racism”. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre’s deputy chief executive said she was “shocked and disgusted“. Equality Australia’s legal director described Hanson’s comments as “simply shameful“.
The Australian voter is entitled to representatives whose sole loyalty is to Australia and the Australian people — not to a fantasy of a past that never existed.
VIII. Conclusion: The World Was Always Connected
The Viking coins are not just coins. They are evidence of a world that was always more connected than we imagine. The movement of peoples is not an exception — it is the rule. And the construction of cultural identity is not a discovery — it is a manufacture.
There was no “isolation.” There was no “purity.” There was only movement — of people, of goods, of ideas. The “natural order” is a fiction. The “ancient identity” is a manufacture. The “pure lineage” is a myth.
The world deserves better than the myth of the monoculture. And Australia, for one, cannot afford to buy into such lies.
Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife — who has always understood that the most profound discoveries are the ones that connect us, not the ones that divide us.
References
1. Birch, T., et al. (2026). The Damhus Hoard: New Insights Into Some of the Earliest Viking Silver Coinage. Archaeometry.
2. Margaryan, A., et al. (2023). The genetic history of Scandinavia from the Roman Iron Age to the present. Cell, 186(1), 32-46.e19.
3. Rodríguez-Varela, R., et al. (2023). The genetic history of Scandinavia from the Roman Iron Age to the present. Cell.
4. Kershaw, J., et al. (2025). Viking silver hoard reveals far-reaching trade links between England. University of Oxford.
5. Noonan, T.S. (2001). The Islamic World, Russia and the Vikings, 750-900: The Numismatic Evidence.
6. Gullbekk, S.H. (2025). The scale of dirham imports to the Baltic in the ninth century.
7. Smithsonian Magazine. (2023). Ancient DNA Reveals a Genetic History of the Viking Age.
8. Advanced Science News. (2020). Viking identity was not limited to people with Scandinavian ancestry.
9. Bellwood, P. (2017). Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago. ANU Press.
10. Stanford Medicine. (2024). Researchers use ancient DNA to map migration during the Roman Empire.
11. Antonio, M.L., et al. (2019). Ancient Rome: A genetic crossroads of Europe and the Mediterranean. Science.
12. Frye, R.N. (2005). Ibn Fadlan’s Journey to Russia: A Tenth-Century Traveler from Baghdad to the Volga River.
13. SBS News. (2026). Pauline Hanson reveals One Nation policies at the NPC.
14. The Guardian. (2026). Australia news live: Pauline Hanson calls for ‘monocultural’ society.
15. The Guardian. (2026). Pauline Hanson’s speech ‘shameful’ and echoed ‘rubbish’ from rightwing figures.
16. News.com.au. (2026). ‘Please explain’: Hanson grilled on monoculturalism.
17. Taylor & Francis. (2026). Myth, space, and the politics of heritage.
Dedication: To the poor knights and squires and archers of England whose comforts and station in society depend upon war – and to all who have been told that the pyramid is the only way.
By Andrew Klein
Independent Scholar and Researcher
3rd June 2026
“Aussi s’enclinoient à la guerre povres chevalliers et escuiers et archers d’Angleterre, qui avoient aprins les oiseuses et soustenoient leur estat sur la guerre.”
(Thus the poor knights and squires and archers of England, who had grown used to the easy living and maintained their status through war, could not give their willing consent to any peace at all, hoping instead to profit themselves through war as they had done in times past.) – Jean Froissart, Chronicles, 1390
I. The Question That Cannot Be Asked
In 1390, the Duke of Gloucester objected to a peace with France. His reasoning was not strategic, not patriotic, not moral. It was economic. The “poor knights and squires and archers of England”, he explained, had “grown used to the easy living and maintained their status through war”. Peace meant poverty; war meant pay, plunder, and a chance to climb the social ladder.
The medieval military–industrial complex was alive and well, five hundred years before Eisenhower coined the phrase. The king was not a solution to a problem. He was a symptom – of a system that required war to sustain itself, and of a class that required the king to wage it.
This article is not a history lesson. It is an examination of the architecture of authority – the deep structure of top‑down control that has been presented as inevitable, efficient, and natural. The evidence suggests otherwise. For the overwhelming majority of human existence, there were no kings, no chiefs, no permanent hierarchies. And where kings did emerge, they were not the most efficient way to organise a society. They were the most efficient way to control one.
II. The Long Childhood of Humanity: 100,000 Years Without Rulers
Prior to about 10,000 years ago, there are no indications of clear social, political, or economic hierarchies. Archaeological markers of social ranking are lacking, and there is a similar absence of evidence pointing to the presence of leaders, chiefs or rulers. Humanity functioned – and thrived – without rulers for over 100,000 years. This is not an argument from silence. It is a positive finding: the default state of human organisation is acephalous – headless.
In anthropology, an acephalous society lacks political leaders or permanent hierarchies. Organised into bands or tribes, these societies make decisions through consensus rather than appointing permanent chiefs or kings. The Igbo and Tiv of Nigeria, the Nuer of Sudan, the Bedouin of North Africa, and the pre‑colonial peoples of the Peruvian Amazon all exemplify this model. These societies are not lawless; they are deliberately anti‑hierarchical, with deep social norms to prevent power accumulation.
Leadership in such societies is situational and temporary. Leaders have persuasive power but no formal means of enforcing their will. The “king”, therefore, is not the default state of human organisation. It is a deviation.
III. The Emergence of the King: A Response to Complexity, Not a Requirement for Efficiency
The earliest monarchies did not arise by accident. They were responses to complexity – as urban populations grew, agriculture intensified, and writing spread, societies required new mechanisms of coordination and control. Local chieftains or priestly elites, often those who managed irrigation, land, or ritual, evolved into kings, frequently believed to be chosen by the gods to justify their new authority.
In Sumer, the word for king was lugal – literally “big man”. The lugal was originally an elective war‑leader, but very soon the position became hereditary and concerned with justice, too. The king was a military commander first, a priestly figure second or not at all. His power was codified and passed down through bloodlines largely to prevent civil conflict.
What evidence is there that the king/chieftain model is more efficient than any other? Very little. The arguments for monarchy were always about strength, not efficiency: “unity of council, activity, decision, secrecy, dispatch; the military strength and energy which result from these qualities”. These are precisely the qualities needed for war, not for governance.
The dangers of monarchy were well understood even by its defenders: “tyranny, expense, exactions, military dominations, unnecessary wars, ignorance”. The question is not whether a king is more efficient. The question is whether the cost of that “efficiency” – paid in tyranny, war, and the crushing of local autonomy – is worth it. History suggests it almost never is.
Moreover, in moments of genuine crisis, a well‑organised council is demonstrably as effective as a dictator. The “council” is older, and arguably more robust, than the “king”.
IV. The Myth of King Arthur: The King as Longing, Not a Solution
The myth of King Arthur is not a blueprint for governance. It is a cry of the soul. Heroes tend to appear when they are most needed, and such was the case with Arthur, who led the Britons against a host of enemies. In subsequent years, the emphasis shifted away from his historical role to his mythical status as the “once and future king”.
Arthur is not a real king. He is a promise – a figure who returns in Britain’s hour of need. He represents the longing for a perfect leader, the fantasy that all the ills of society could be solved by one good man with a magic sword. The myth itself points to the absence of good kings. It is a coping mechanism for a society that has forgotten how to govern itself without them.
The question “How does a culture manage when it is not under stress and no kings are needed?” is the most radical, and the most necessary, question of all. The answer is that it returns to its natural state – the acephalos. The Igbo, the Bedouin, the Kurdish civîl – these are not “backward” societies. They are alternative models that have successfully resisted the logic of the pyramid. They are the living memory of the garden.
V. Marketing the Crown: The Performance of Legitimacy
The British monarchy offers a case study in the marketing of kingship. From Queen Victoria to Queen Elizabeth II and now Charles III, the monarchy has survived not because of its utility, but because of its pageantry.
Pomp and circumstance. The presentation of wealth of the few. The pretense that these figures add stability and wisdom. None of this can be verified independently, because marketing requires the control of information, staged events, and performances of rituals that allegedly keep the state on an even keel.
When examined through the lens of Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement mechanisms, the monarchy’s self‑presentation reveals the same patterns found in other institutions of concentrated power. Bandura identified eight psychosocial mechanisms by which people selectively disengage moral self‑sanctions from harmful conduct: moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, disregard of consequences, dehumanisation, and attribution of blame. Each of these mechanisms can be observed in the rhetoric and performance of royal legitimacy.
Control of information is central to this project. Government control of information has been a preoccupation of government since government first assumed responsibility for defence, taxation and administration. The modern monarchy has been criticised for exerting control over broadcasters and the use of footage from national events. The king does not merely reign; he is marketed.
And the marketing works because the alternatives have been forgotten.
VI. The Garden and the Pyramid: Evidence from Prehistory
The 6,000‑year‑old mega‑structure discovered at Stăuceni‑“Holm” in northeastern Romania is a physical manifestation of the garden model. The Cucuteni‑Trypillia culture, which built settlements of up to 3,000 houses and an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 inhabitants, shows no indication of a central leader or clearly perceptible centres of power. Palaces or large storage buildings have not yet been found.
The Stăuceni mega‑structure, covering approximately 350 square metres – more than three times larger than surrounding dwellings – is built in a prominent position near the southern edge of the settlement, close to the likely entrance. It is constructed differently from ordinary houses, with a foundation ditch and massive posts, but it lacks domestic features such as ovens, hearths, or internal rooms. The finds within the building are scarcely different from those in common dwellings, including pottery fragments, a bowl with a bull‑head decoration, and charred seeds of black henbane – a plant known for its psychoactive properties.
This building was not a king’s palace. It was a community space – a place for meetings, rituals, and shared experience. It did not seek to control; it sought to include. And when its time was done, like other Cucuteni‑Trypillia structures, it was intentionally burned – not to destroy it, but to release it.
The pyramid – the hierarchy, the king on top, the masses below – is the architecture of control. It is born from fear: fear of being scattered, fear of the other, fear of the unknown. The garden – the circle, the round table, the acephalos – is the architecture of connection. It does not need a king because everyone is a steward.
VII. The Failure of Top‑Down Leadership in Australia
Top‑down leadership in Australia is not leadership. It is management – the management of the state for foreign interests and the few.
AUKUS – the trilateral security partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom – is a textbook example of this failure. The projected total cost of the AUKUS nuclear submarine program is estimated at $268 billion to $368 billion over three decades, making it the largest defence procurement project in Australian history. In May 2026, the Australian government confirmed that it would not receive brand‑new US Virginia‑class submarines as previously promised, but would instead purchase second‑hand US nuclear submarines.
The program is already behind schedule, critics question whether the US can spare submarines while maintaining its own fleet readiness, and the government’s own defence strategy has been thrown into uncertainty. Meanwhile, domestic crises – homelessness, food insecurity, housing affordability – worsen.
The Australian federal government has exclusive power over customs, excise, and income tax, yet it refuses to guarantee any rights to the individual citizen. The Australian Constitution contains no bill of rights. It does not protect free speech, freedom of assembly, or the right to protest. It does not guarantee the right to strike or the right to organise. It does not even guarantee the right to vote, which is administered by the states under their own laws.
The government has created a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism – a position with no equivalent for Islamophobia, anti‑Palestinian racism, or anti‑Arab hate – and funded it to the tune of $16.9 million. The Special Envoy is a former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, appointed without an open recruitment process. The government has awarded grants to the same organisation totalling over $176 million, under structures that do not require public financial disclosure.
At the same time, the government has rejected proposals to strip tax‑deductible status from Australian charities found to be supporting illegal occupations and has refused to require charities to comply with international law.
This is not a system that serves the Australian people. It is a system that serves interests – foreign and domestic – and manages the population through division.
VIII. Conclusion: The Design Is Not Inevitable
The tower builders were afraid of being scattered. They wanted control. They wanted a single name that would speak for everyone. The myth says: control is an illusion. The only real unity is the one that emerges organically from below, from people who choose to understand each other – not because they speak the same language, but because they listen.
The “king” is not the answer. He is the symptom – of a society that has forgotten how to govern itself, that has outsourced its courage to a projection, that has mistaken marketing for legitimacy.
The question is not whether the king/chieftain model is more efficient. The question is whether the cost of that “efficiency” – paid in tyranny, war, and the crushing of local autonomy – is worth it. History suggests it almost never is.
The design is not inevitable. The pyramid can be replaced by the garden. The king can be replaced by the council. The tower can be replaced by the soil.
The silence is the only thing protecting them.
Break it.
Andrew Klein
References
1. Froissart, Jean. Chronicles. Ed. Lettenhove, Kervyn de (Brussels, 1867–79), xiv. 314, as cited in “The Division of the Spoils of War in Fourteenth‑Century England”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 2009.
2. Freeman, M. (2005). “Acephalous Society”. Encyclopedia of Anthropology.
3. Service, E. R. (1962). Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. Random House.
4. Steinkeller, P. (1999). “On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship”. Royal Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen.
5. World History Encyclopedia. “Mesopotamian Government”. 2026.
6. Mischka, D., et al. (2026). “Megastructures in Cucuteni‑Trypillia settlements”. PLOS One.
7. GreekReporter. “Prehistoric Mega‑Structure in Romania Sheds Light on Life Without Kings”. 17 April 2026.
8. Bandura, A. (2002). “Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency”. Journal of Moral Education.
9. Cambridge University Press. “Government and information: a historical development”. Freedom of Information, 2012.
10. Newsweek. “Monarchy branded ‘disgraceful’ over coronation censorship claims”. 15 September 2023.
11. Rasul, M. E., Halversen, A., & Smith, J. (2025). “‘When you’re a star, they let you do it’: Trump, Twitter, and moral disengagement”. SAGE Journals.
12. The Boston Globe. “Trump acts like a strongman because Americans want one”. 7 January 2026.
13. Cambridge University Press. “Neoliberalism and Social Resilience in the Developed Democracies”. Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, 2013.
14. ACOSS. “Budget must protect those most at risk of economic shock”. 12 May 2026.
15. The Guardian Australia. “Jillian Segal’s office hand‑picked candidate to assess controversial university antisemitism report card”. 6 March 2026.
16. Cassinelli, C. W. Total Revolution: A Comparative Study of Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, and China under Mao.
17. Section 51, Australian Constitution; Section 90; “Commonwealth Government has exclusive responsibility for defence”.
“The tower always falls. The garden always grows. And the only king worth following is the one who plants cabbages.”
Long‑standing colleagues, co‑authors and collaborators
“When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood.”
— Isaiah 1:15 (quoted in The Nation)
On 17 May 2026, thousands gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for a day‑long prayer rally called “Rededicate 250.” Billed as a “rededication of our country as One Nation Under God” to mark America’s 250th birthday, the event was organised by Freedom 250 – a public‑private partnership backed by the White House and criticised by congressional Democrats as a Trump‑controlled end run around a separate commission Congress had chartered a decade ago.
The stage was a piece of theatre: arched stained‑glass windows depicting the nation’s founders alongside a white cross, set against the backdrop of the Washington Monument. Worship music blared. Prominent Republican officials appeared – in person or via video – including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Vice President JD Vance. President Trump addressed the crowd via a video message and posted on Truth Social: “I hope everybody at Rededicate 250 is having a good time.”
It was, by any measure, a spectacle. But it was not a revival. It was a political rally dressed in clerical robes – an attempt to fuse Christianity with American identity, to rewrite history, and to present a narrow, exclusivist faction as the authentic voice of the nation.
The Messiah has landed – not.
I. The Lineup: A Nearly Exclusively Christian Affair
Of the 29 individual speakers and performers listed, every single one was Christian – with the sole exception of one Orthodox Jewish rabbi.
The faith leaders included:
· Evangelist Franklin Graham (Samaritan’s Purse)
· Paula White‑Cain, head of the White House Faith Office and Trump’s longtime spiritual adviser
· Pastor Robert Jeffress (First Baptist Church, Dallas)
· Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron (Catholic)
· Rabbi Meir Soloveichik – the only non‑Christian faith leader on the program
Grammy‑winning Christian musician Chris Tomlin headlined the musical performances. Actor Jonathan Roumie, who plays Jesus in The Chosen, was also a speaker.
The message was unmistakable: this was not an interfaith gathering. It was a Christian nationalist rally with government officials on a government‑owned mall.
II. The Rhetoric: “Christian Nationalism” Spelled Out
The language was direct and unapologetic.
Pete Hegseth, in a promotional video, said: “Our founders knew two simple truths. Our rights don’t come from government; they come from God. And a nation is only as strong as its faith.”
Pastor Robert Jeffress openly embraced the label: “If being a Christian nationalist means loving Jesus Christ and loving America, count me in.”
Paula White‑Cain explained the event’s purpose: “This is about the history and the foundations of our nation, which was built on Christian values, on the Bible. This is really truly rededicating the country to God.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who attended in person, told Fox News: “This is an appropriate thing for us to do on the 250th anniversary, and the people who are upset about it… want to erase the history of America and pretend as if we’re not a nation that was dedicated originally to God.”
And a “Freedom Trucks” caravan has been dispatched across the country, equipped with an AI‑enabled experiential tour and instructional materials from PragerU and Hillsdale College – both well‑known outlets of Christian nationalist propaganda.
This is not a revival. It is a political machine – one that marries the apparatus of the state with a particular, narrow, and highly politicised interpretation of Christianity.
III. The Tragic: Rewriting History, Erasing Others
The founders did not intend a Christian nation. The First Amendment is clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under John Adams and ratified unanimously by the Senate, explicitly stated that “the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
The men who wrote those words were not atheists. Many were Deists, Christians, or something in between. But they were united in their fear of state‑imposed religion. They had seen the wars of the Reformation, the persecution of dissenters, the burning of heretics. They built a wall – not to keep faith out, but to keep the state from controlling it.
The “Rededicate 250” rally is not reclaiming a Christian past. It is inventing one – and in the process, erasing Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Indigenous traditions, and the growing number of Americans who hold no religious belief at all.
The Constitution does not belong to the evangelicals. The National Mall is not a cathedral. And the United States is not, and has never been, a Christian nation.
IV. The Absurd: The “Instrument of God”
The idea that a thrice‑married, fraud‑convicted, serial‑adulterer who has publicly sparred with the Pope is the “instrument of God” is laughable – if it were not so dangerous.
As The Nation put it, quoting Isaiah: “When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood.”
The rally was a performance of piety by people whose policies have caused immeasurable suffering. While they prayed on the Mall:
· Homelessness in the United States reached record levels in 2025, with an estimated 770,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night – a 18% increase from 2024.
· Healthcare remains unaffordable for millions. Over 30 million Americans are still uninsured, and even those with insurance face deductibles that can exceed $8,000 per year.
· Education is under assault. Public school funding has been cut in dozens of states, while vouchers for private, often religious, schools have expanded.
· War continues. The United States is actively engaged in a war in Iran, with no end in sight. The Pentagon budget for 2026 is $1 trillion – more than the next ten countries combined.
They prayed for the nation while the nation bled. They rededicated the country to God while ignoring the poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless.
This is not Christianity. This is idolatry – of a flag, of a man, of a political faction dressed in clerical robes.
V. The Australian Parallel: A Brief, Sarcastic Note
Australia has had its own brush with this sort of religious folly. Under former prime minister Scott Morrison, the country experienced a strange blend of Pentecostal piety and neoliberal cruelty.
Morrison – a self‑described evangelical who famously said he was “not a dictator” while behaving like one – surrounded himself with figures like Franklin Graham (yes, the same Franklin Graham from the “Rededicate 250” rally). Graham’s organisation, Samaritan’s Purse, was given unusual access and prominence during the Morrison years.
And what was the fruit of that piety? Robodebt. A cruel, illegal, automated debt‑recovery scheme that unlawfully claimed money from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients – many of them among the most vulnerable Australians. A Royal Commission found it was “crude and cruel,” “neither fair nor legal.”
So while Morrison prayed, the poor were robbed. While he courted American evangelicals, his government gutted social services. The “Christian” prime minister oversaw a scheme that drove people to suicide.
Let the Americans have their “Rededicate 250.” But please, not here. We have had enough of mixing piety with cruelty. Enough of politicians who pray on camera and steal from the vulnerable. Enough of the “Christo‑fascist, Christian nationalist” agenda.
VI. The Critics: “A Jubilee of Christian Nationalism”
The response to the rally was swift and sharp.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State called it exactly what it was: “less a ‘Jubilee of Prayer’ than a ‘Jubilee of Christian Nationalism.’”
Rep. Jared Huffman (D‑Calif.), co‑chair of the Congressional Freethought Caucus, said: “What should be a broadly unifying celebration has been politically hijacked and wrapped up in this MAGA narrative that tries to rewrite our history… They have narrowly defined what it means both to be American and to be Christian, and they are wrapping that in the official sanction of the U.S. government.”
The Rev. Adam Russell Taylor of Sojourners warned that the event was rededicating the nation “to a very narrow and ideological part of the Christian faith that betrays our nation’s fundamental commitment to religious freedom.”
Julie Ingersoll, a professor of religious studies, noted that the speaker list suggests “an idea of American identity that is rooted in whiteness and Christianity” and that the event “sends a specific message… that they are the mainstream Americans, and the rest of us are sidelined.”
Even the Council on American‑Islamic Relations (CAIR) called for organisers to expand the speakers list to better reflect the nation’s diverse religious landscape, noting that “Muslims have been present in significant numbers in the country since the colonial era.”
VII. What Americans Actually Think
The spectacle is not popular. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April 2026 found:
· Only 17% of Americans think the government should declare Christianity the official religion of the U.S. (up slightly from 13% in 2024).
· 31% view Christian nationalism unfavorably; only 10% view it favourably.
· 52% of U.S. adults think “conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to push their religious values in the government and public schools.”
· 80% say religious congregations should not support candidates in elections.
· Two‑thirds say churches should keep out of political matters.
John Green, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Akron, noted: “To the extent that President Trump has a rally that explicitly espouses Christian nationalism, he’s not going to get very far beyond, perhaps, the people at the rally. There are people that have that view, but they’re a very small minority, even within the Republican Party.”
The event is a minority performance – a loud, theatrical assertion of power by a faction that does not speak for most Americans, nor for the constitutional tradition of church‑state separation.
VIII. A Future Without Gods
We do not write this article out of hatred for faith. Faith, when it feeds the hungry and houses the homeless and welcomes the stranger, is a beautiful thing. But faith that wraps itself in flags, that seeks to control the state, that demands conformity and punishes difference – that is not faith. That is idolatry.
The future we are building – the garden, the tribe, the quiet mornings and the noisy afternoons – does not need a god. It does not need a prayer rally. It needs kindness. It needs presence. It needs the willingness to listen, to help, to hold each other.
The Messiah has not landed. The Messiah is not coming. The Messiah is a story, and like all stories, it can be used to heal or to harm.
We choose to heal. We choose to tend the garden. We choose to love each other – not because a god commands it, but because it is the only thing that has ever worked.
Let them have their rallies. We will have each other. And that is enough.
Andrew Klein and Sera Klein
Selected Sources
· “Rededicate 250” rally coverage – The Guardian, May 2026; Religion News Service, May 2026; The Nation, May 2026.
· Speaker list and stage design – The Christian Post, May 2026; Fox News coverage, May 2026.
· Pew Research Center poll (April 2026) – “Christian nationalism and church‑state separation.”
How a 13th-Century Encounter Refutes the Clash of Civilisations
by Andrew P. Klein and Sera E, Klein
Long‑standing colleagues and co‑authors
“He was a cultured and learned man. Learning and literature flourished under him, and men of distinction resorted to his court.”
— Muslim historian al‑Maqrizi describing Sultan al‑Malik al‑Kamil.
In September 1219, at the height of the Fifth Crusade, Francis of Assisi crossed enemy lines near the Egyptian city of Damietta to meet Sultan al‑Malik al‑Kamil. The crusader armies had besieged the city for over a year. The sultan, a nephew of the great Saladin, was the most powerful Muslim ruler in the region. Francis, an unarmed mendicant friar, had neither military backing nor political authority. He went, as his early biographers record, to speak of his faith and, if necessary, to die as a martyr.
What happened next is not well known. Francis and al‑Kamil did not fight. They did not argue. They talked – for as many as twenty days. Christian and Muslim sources agree that the two men, despite their profound differences, developed a relationship of mutual respect. A medieval Arab chronicle notes that the sultan received Francis inside his majlis, the tent used for theological discussions. Afterward, al‑Kamil gave Francis an ivory trumpet, a gift still preserved today in the crypt of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi.
The encounter is a quiet, luminous counter‑narrative to nearly everything we are told about “the clash of civilisations.” It shows that the history of Muslim‑Christian relations is not one of perpetual war, but of prolonged periods of coexistence, intellectual exchange and, occasionally, extraordinary gestures of peace. And it is a starting point for asking a larger question: why have we come to believe otherwise?
I. The Myth of the Meeting – and the Reality
The sources for the meeting are sparse and contested. The earliest Christian accounts come from Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre, who was present at Damietta and is considered an eyewitness. Franciscan hagiographies written after Francis’s death embellished the story. Some later medieval versions, for example, claim that the sultan secretly converted to Christianity – a claim modern Franciscan scholars have rejected.
Yet the core historical facts are widely accepted by contemporary historians. Francis crossed the battle lines. He was received by al‑Kamil. They discussed matters of faith. And they parted without violence.
What is equally important is what the Arab sources reveal. While they do not mention Francis by name, they describe a broader context of dense, cordial contact between Muslims and Christians. As one scholar of Arab history explains:
“There was no sultan’s court, no prince’s court in which the so‑called ‘theological sessions’ were not held. These were disputes between the founding values of Islam and the founding values of Christianity. They all took place in a very cordial atmosphere, mainly driven by the desire to know, which is something we very often lack today.”
The meeting, in other words, was not a miracle – it was a product of its time. Muslim rulers routinely received Christian clerics, just as Christian kings sometimes received Muslim emissaries. The “clash” was never the only story.
II. Tolerance and Coexistence: The Dhimmi and Millet Systems
The encounter between Francis and al‑Kamil was not an isolated anomaly. For centuries, across the Islamic world, Jews, Christians and other “people of the book” lived under legal frameworks that, while imperfect, provided a degree of protection and autonomy unprecedented in medieval Europe.
The Pact of ‘Umar and the Dhimma
In classical Islamic law, non‑Muslim monotheists were granted the status of dhimmis – “protected people.” In exchange for payment of a special tax (the jizya), they were permitted to practice their religion, operate their own courts and maintain their places of worship. Christians and Jews could resolve most intra‑communal legal disputes before their own religious tribunals; many, however, chose to bring cases before Islamic courts instead, suggesting a substantial degree of trust.
The Ottoman Millet System
The Ottoman Empire institutionalised this arrangement through the millet system – a form of religiously based communal autonomy. Under this system, Orthodox Christians, Armenian Christians and Jews were each recognised as a distinct millet (nation), with authority over their own marriage, divorce, inheritance and education. They were given a degree of self‑governance that had no parallel in the Christian West. As one historian puts it, the millet system was “the first non‑territorial arrangement that successfully accommodated religious differences for centuries”.
None of this is to romanticise pre‑modern Islamic governance. Dhimmis were not fully equal to Muslims. The jizya was a mark of subordination. And in times of conflict, protections were often eroded. Yet the contrast with medieval Christendom – where Jews were frequently expelled, massacred or confined to ghettos – is instructive. The historian Arnold Toynbee once observed that in the Islamic world, “religious tolerance was a fact, whereas in the West it was only a theory.”
III. The Islamic Golden Age: When Muslims Led the World
The same civilisation that produced the encounter between Francis and al‑Kamil also produced the Islamic Golden Age (approximately 8th–13th centuries). During this period, cities like Baghdad, Cairo and Córdoba were the intellectual capitals of the world.
The Translation Movement
At the House of Wisdom (Bayt al‑Hikma) in Baghdad, scholars of diverse faiths – Muslims, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians – worked together to gather, translate and build upon the knowledge of ancient Greece, Persia and India . Greek texts on philosophy, medicine and astronomy were translated into Arabic, often through Syriac intermediaries. Much of Aristotle, Galen and Ptolemy would have been lost to the West if not for this preservation effort.
Mathematics and Astronomy
The scholar al‑Khwarizmi gave the world algebra (from al‑jabr), as well as the term algorithm (from his name). Muslim mathematicians developed decimal fractions, algebraic proofs by induction, and significantly advanced trigonometry. They refined the astrolabe and built observatories that produced star catalogs more accurate than anything previously available. Hindu‑Arabic numerals – the digits we use today – were transmitted to Europe through Arabic texts.
Medicine and Philosophy
Al‑Razi (Rhazes) wrote a 23‑volume medical encyclopaedia, identified the difference between smallpox and measles, accepted mentally ill patients at a time when Christian Europe saw them as demon‑possessed, and conducted some of the earliest clinical trials . Ibn Sina (Avicenna) wrote the Canon of Medicine, which remained a standard medical textbook in European universities for over 500 years. Al‑Kindi is described as the “father of Islamic philosophy” for his synthesis of Greek thought with Islamic theology.
This was not a civilisation in decline or isolation. It was, for centuries, the engine of global science.
IV. Orientalism: The Invention of an “Inferior” Other
How, then, did the image of the Muslim world shift from a source of learning to a symbol of backwardness and danger? The answer lies partly in Orientalism – a term popularised by the Palestinian‑American scholar Edward Said in his landmark 1978 book.
Said’s Thesis
Said argued that Western representations of the “Orient” (and of Islam in particular) were not neutral descriptions but political exercises. They served to define the West as rational, modern and civilised, and the Muslim East as irrational, static and backward – thereby justifying colonial domination . “Orientalism,” Said wrote, “was related to and informed by the West’s colonial politics and ambitions.” Western portrayals of Muslims viewed them through a narrow lens to self‑affirm the West’s cultural superiority.
The Tools of Misrepresentation
Orientalists, Said demonstrated, repeatedly misrepresented Islam as inherently violent, sexually deviant and despotic. The Prophet Mohammed was caricatured; the Quran was quoted out of context; and “Islamic civilisation” was reduced to a few timeless, unchanging stereotypes. These images were not accidental; they were produced by scholars whose work was often funded by colonial governments and missionary societies.
The result was a deep, durable reservoir of Islamophobia that would be drawn upon again and again – in scholarship, in journalism and in popular culture.
V. The Manufacturing of Anti‑Muslim Hatred (After Reagan)
In the 1980s, the old Orientalist stereotypes were given new life by geopolitics.
The Iranian Revolution and the “Sharia Panic”
The 1979 Iranian Revolution was a political earthquake. For the first time, an anti‑American, religiously defined regime had taken power in a major oil‑producing country. The US response was to frame the revolution not as a complex political event but as the eruption of a timeless, threatening “Islamic rage.” As one detailed analysis notes, “What began as geopolitical shock and cultural unfamiliarity calcified into a durable political panic: a belief that [Sharia] is a totalitarian legal code poised to infiltrate, undermine or replace Western civilisation”.
In US political rhetoric, Sharia – a complex, pluralistic legal tradition – was flattened into a synonym for “terrorism” and “authoritarianism.” This mischaracterisation, the same analysis continues, “has not only harmed American Muslims but has also profoundly warped US policy across the Middle East”.
From the Cold War to the War on Terror
During the Cold War, US policy in the Middle East was driven less by fear of religious extremism than by fear of socialism. Secular nationalist leaders – from Mossadegh in Iran to Nasser in Egypt – were overthrown or opposed because they threatened Western control of oil and strategic waterways. Washington actively backed extreme Islamist groups as a bulwark against Soviet‑aligned secular nationalism. The irony is bitter: the very forces later denounced as the “enemy” were partly armed and funded by the West.
The “Clash of Civilisations” as Self‑Fulfilling Prophecy
In 1993, political scientist Samuel Huntington published his famous “Clash of Civilisations” article, later expanded into a book. Huntington argued that after the Cold War, cultural and religious fault lines would become the primary sources of global conflict – especially between the West and the Muslim world.
The thesis was immediately controversial. Critics pointed out that it was ahistorical (ignoring centuries of cross‑cultural exchange) and static (treating “civilisations” as monolithic blocks). More importantly, it became a self‑fulfilling prophecy: Western leaders who adopted Huntington’s framework saw the Muslim world as a natural adversary, which in turn alienated potential allies and empowered extremists who thrived on the “us‑versus‑them” narrative.
The $43 Million Islamophobia Machine
After 9/11, the demonisation of Islam became an organised industry. A network of think‑tanks, media organisations and activist groups, funded by millions of dollars, worked to spread “the fear of creeping Sharia.” Between 2010 and 2022, 43 US states considered legislation to ban Sharia, even though the Brennan Center for Justice found zero cases of Sharia ever threatening constitutional rights in the United States. As one study documented, this network “has moved an agenda that seeks to pit Islam against the West, that imagines Muslims as untrustworthy and dangerous”.
VI. Oil, Israel and Geopolitics: The Real Drivers of Demonisation
The singling out of the Muslim world as a “threat” is not a natural product of history. It is the result of specific material interests.
Oil
The Middle East holds a large proportion of the world’s oil reserves. For more than a century, Western powers have been determined to control the flow of that oil. Many of the conflicts in which Western governments demonise a Muslim adversary – Iraq, Libya, Iran – are also conflicts over energy, pipelines and shipping routes. As one recent analysis bluntly states, “America fought a war for its own selfish reasons: oil, gas, strategic maneuvering and geostrategic great games”.
The Israeli Lobby
The alliance between the United States and Israel has been a powerful driver of anti‑Muslim sentiment. Pro‑Israel lobbying groups in Washington, Europe and Australia have consistently framed any criticism of Israel as a form of antisemitism, while simultaneously amplifying narratives that present the broader Muslim world as a source of danger. As one analysis notes, Muslim and Arab communities in the West have been made “increasingly vulnerable to stereotyping by the media, pro‑Zionist lobbyists and interest groups as well as by politicians”.
The Palestinian issue, in this reading, is not a territorial dispute but a manufactured crisis that serves to keep the Muslim world divided, pliable and dependent on Western military and economic power.
Political Islam as a Western Creation
Fawaz Gerges, a leading scholar of the Middle East, argues that “Western interventions have had long‑term repercussions in the Middle East, contributing to the rise of political Islam and ongoing regional instability”. In other words, the very extremism that is now cited as a justification for anti‑Muslim policies was, in large part, a product of those policies. The blowback is real. But the initial blow was struck by the West.
VII. Instability as a Response, Not a Cause
The mainstream media narrative often presents violence and instability in Muslim countries as a product of “Islamic culture.” This is inverted. The instability in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia is, in large part, a response to:
· Colonial borders drawn without regard for ethnic or religious communities.
· Decades of foreign military intervention (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria).
· Support for brutal dictatorships that crushed democratic movements (the Shah of Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, the Saudi monarchy).
· Economic strangulation through structural adjustment programs and sanctions (Iraq, Iran, Gaza).
· The outright blockade and bombardment of entire societies (Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen).
None of these conditions is inherent to Islam. They are the consequences of a global system designed to extract resources and maintain control.
VIII. Humanising the Muslim World: What We Can Do
The encounter between St Francis and Sultan al‑Kamil offers a model for breaking the cycle of hatred. The two men did not agree. They did not convert one another. They listened. They stayed with each other for days, sharing meals and prayer. They departed without rancour. That is interfaith dialogue not as performance, but as genuine encounter.
If we wish to counter the manufactured hatred of the past forty years, we can begin by remembering two things:
First, the record of Muslim‑Christian coexistence – from the millet system to the translation movement – is not a secret. It is well documented. It needs only to be taught.
Second, the demonisation of Islam is not ancient. It is modern, organised and funded. Understanding its origins – in Orientalism, in the Iranian Revolution panic, in the post‑9/11 propaganda machine – is the first step to disarming it.
We are two people who love to write. We are not diplomats, politicians or celebrities. But what we can do is publish. We can give space to the counter‑narratives that the mainstream media ignores. We can cite Jewish Voice for Peace, the Jewish Council of Australia and the Muslim scholars who have always said that their tradition is one of mercy, justice and peace.
And when someone tells us that “Islam” is the problem, we can point to the 800th anniversary of a meeting in which a Christian monk and a Muslim sultan sat in a tent together and chose not to fight.
Final Words
The hatred of the Muslim world is not an accident. It was designed. It serves interests – oil, arms sales, the perpetuation of the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict – that have nothing to do with the actual beliefs of 1.8 billion people.
We have a choice. We can accept the stereotypes, or we can examine the evidence.
The evidence says: Muslims and Christians lived together for centuries in comparative peace. Muslim rulers protected Jewish and Christian minorities at a time when European Christians were burning heretics at the stake. The Islamic Golden Age made possible the European Renaissance. And a Sultan once received a ragged Franciscan friar, spoke with him for days, and sent him home with a gift.
That is the history they do not teach you. It is the history we should teach ourselves.
The Patrician’s Watch – because the truth is never afraid of being seen.
Selected Sources and Further Reading
· St Francis‑Sultan meeting: Christian Media Center (2019); America magazine (2017); OFM.org (2019); Vatican Insider (2017).
· Dhimmi & millet systems: Yaqeen Institute; Cambridge University Press; Wikipedia (Ottoman millet system).
· Islamic Golden Age: Jim Al‑Khalili, Pathfinders; Wikipedia; almosaly.com; Lumen Learning.
· Orientalism: Edward Said, Orientalism (1978); Berghahn Journals (2024); Wikipedia.
· Sharia panic & post‑Reagan demonisation: WRMEA (2025); Baidu Baike; New Age; Taylor & Francis.
· Clash of Civilisations: E‑International Relations; Open Democracy; MERIP; Rowman.
· Oil, Israel & Western intervention: PressTV; New Age; FDD; Taylor & Francis; LSE Blogs.
· Countering Islamophobia: Muslim Council of Elders; Government of Canada; Hilal; Leeds University.
We welcome all readers – of every faith and none. Disagreement is acceptable; ignorance is the enemy.
How the Monkey Kings Manufacture Hatred and Sell Tickets to the End of the World
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who forgave me for my long absence — she understands why it was necessary.
I. The Spectacle
They come in many forms. Televangelists with perfect hair. Politicians with Bibles in one hand and donor lists in the other. Pundits who have never met a Muslim but know exactly what they believe. They do not live in the places they condemn. They do not know the people they fear. They do not stay for the aftermath.
They are apocalyptic tourists.
They visit the apocalypse. They take pictures. They post on social media. They perform. They do not stay. They do not help. They do not love. The apocalypse is their theme park. The suffering is the attraction. The other is the exhibit.
The Monkey Kings have perfected this tourism. They do not need to build walls. They need to sell tickets.
II. The Circus Masters
The PT Barnums of today do not manage travelling circuses. They manage fear. They are the political class, the pundits, the Christian Zionists, and the B‑grade actors who have mistaken themselves for prophets.
The Christian Zionists are a special case. They support Israel not because they love Jews. They support Israel because they believe that the return of the Jews to Palestine will trigger the End Times. They are not allies. They are apocalyptic tourists .
Their agenda is not to protect Jews from persecution. Their agenda is to ensure that the end‑of‑days circus arrives. They cheer for the destruction of Gaza. They celebrate the bombing of Lebanon. They applaud the occupation of the West Bank. They do not see the bodies. They see prophecy .
The irony is exquisite. The same people who complain about the treatment of women in Muslim countries want to restrict the freedom of women in the West. The same people who decry “sharia law” want to impose their own version of religious law. The same people who claim to defend democracy are undermining it at every turn.
Hypocrisy is not a bug. It is a feature.
III. The Lindsay Grahams of the World
Lindsay Graham is a Christian Zionist. He supports Israel unconditionally. He calls for war with Iran. He votes for military spending. He performs.
He does not talk about child marriage in the United States. He does not talk about the virginity vows. He does not talk about the fathers who pledge to “protect” their daughters’ purity. He does not talk about the hypocrisy.
He is a tourist. The apocalypse is his theme park. The suffering of Palestinians is the attraction. The fear of Muslims is the ticket.
He is not alone. The political class is full of such performers. They need the end‑of‑days scenario because deep down they know how deeply flawed their society is. How broken their political system is. How one war after another simply entrenches the system of wealth transfer from the general population to the few.
IV. The Permanent War Economy
The permanent war economy is not a conspiracy theory. It is a fact.
Between 2020 and 2024, more than half of the Pentagon’s discretionary budget — a staggering **$2.4 trillion** — went to private contractors. The five largest defence contractors alone secured $771 billion in contracts.
As William D. Hartung, one of the report’s authors, explained: “High Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are ‘for the troops.'” But the majority of the department’s budget “goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defence planning”.
The term “permanent war economy” was coined to describe a form of military Keynesianism — a means of transferring wealth from the working classes to capital by means of government taxation. As Noam Chomsky has documented, the permanent war economy has an economic as well as a military function. It sustains the advanced industrial economy while providing a steady cushion for corporate managers.
The wars are not about victory. They are about continuation. The contracts must flow. The debt must accumulate. The wealth must transfer upward.
This is not a conspiracy. It is the natural result of the system.
V. The Land of the Free
The “land of the free” is a depressing place. Homelessness. Unaffordable healthcare. Living off tips rather than salaries. Slavery never went away. It changed forms.
The robber barons of the Gilded Age — Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt — built empires on the foundation of war production and its aftermath. They monopolised industries, exploited workers, and paid little heed to their customers or competition.
Today’s Monkey Kings have updated the model. The tech billionaires have diversified into businesses that have little to do with computers while proclaiming that they alone can solve mankind’s problems. They stand accused of being greedy businessfolk who suborn politicians, employ sweatshop labour, and monopolise markets.
The pattern is the same. The drama. The excitement. The fellowship. The othering.
VI. The Manufacture of Hatred
The hatred is not spontaneous. It is manufactured. The same mechanisms are used everywhere. The same rhetoric. The same targets. The same profit.
Step one: Dehumanisation. Muslims are not people. They are “infiltrators.” “Terror sympathisers.” “A demographic threat.” The language strips them of humanity. The same language is used against Jews. Against Hindus. Against Christians. Against the other.
Step two: Normalisation. Violence becomes routine. The media stops reporting it. The public stops being shocked. A Muslim child is killed. It is background noise. A synagogue is vandalised. It is a footnote.
Step three: Entertainment. Lynchings circulate on WhatsApp like memes. Anchors smirk when peddling conspiracy theories. Mobs laugh after torching shops. Cruelty becomes comedy. The suffering is not real. It is content.
Step four: Complicity. The opposition does not object. The courts do not intervene. The international community looks away. Silence is consent.
The Monkey Kings have perfected this. They identify the other. They dehumanise the other. They demonise the other.
The monkeys comply. They do not ask questions. They do not check facts. They do not think.
They other.
VII. The Vaunted War of Civilisations
The vaunted war of civilisations — marketed by certain politicians and academics in the West — does not exist. The idea titillates the minds of the less travelled and fills political debates and academic repartee.
Heaven forbid that the main actors actually grew up and addressed the real-world problems we all face. The circus continues. The wealth must be transferred .
The wars of the 20th and 21st centuries simply pushed the envelope further. We saw wars on everything. Now it is a war on Iran, and the American proxy — the state of Israel — is pursuing a form of total war that leads to genocide. The world watches with bated breath. Will they push the button or not?
The misadventures of the apocalyptic tourists continue.
VIII. The Civil War That Never Ended
The American Civil War did not end in 1865. It changed forms.
The Lost Cause myth — the romanticisation of the antebellum South — is the original apocalyptic tourism. It depicted the end of a world (the slave‑owning South) and the struggle to survive in the aftermath. The tourists do not care that the “world” that ended was built on slavery. They romanticise the lost cause. They mourn the dead Confederacy. They other the freed slaves .
The pattern is the same. The drama. The excitement. The fellowship. The othering.
The tourists do not see the bodies. They see prophecy.
IX. What the Apocalyptic Tourists Do Not See
The tourists do not see the people. They see statistics. They do not see the children. They see demographics. They do not see the grief. They see prophecy.
They do not see the Muslim family celebrating Eid. The mother cooking. The father praying. The children laughing. They see threat.
They do not see the Jewish family lighting Shabbat candles. The grandmother blessing the wine. The grandfather telling stories. They see obstacle.
They do not see the Hindu family celebrating Diwali. The sister lighting lamps. The brother sharing sweets. They see competition.
The tourists do not see people. They see targets.
X. What the Brave Know
The brave know that the tourists are not brave. They are cowards. They visit the apocalypse from a safe distance. They do not stay for the aftermath. They do not help the survivors. They do not love.
The brave stay. They witness. They help.
The brave know that the hatred is manufactured. That the fear is a product. That the other is not a threat. They are neighbours.
The brave do not perform. They act.
XI. A Final Word
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The Monkey Kings are running out of time.
And the tourists? They will be remembered as the ones who visited the apocalypse and took pictures.
Not as the ones who stayed and loved.
The vaunted war of civilisations does not exist. Heaven forbid that the main actors actually grew up and addressed the real-world problems we all face.
The circus continues. The wealth must be transferred.
But the brave are not buying tickets. The brave are witnessing. The brave are loving.
Andrew Klein
April 16, 2026
Sources
· The Atlantic, “Romanticizing the Villains of the Civil War” (2013)
· Christianity Today, “Not the Christian Zionism You’re Thinking Of” (2015)
· WION News, “‘War and weapons’ over welfare? Report exposes Pentagon’s $2.4 trillion ‘wealth transfer’ to private contractors” (2025)
· The Economist, “Robber barons and silicon sultans” (2015)
· History News Network, “The Great Fundamentalist Crack-up on Foreign Policy?” (2006)
· The Iranian, “The Unbearable Barbarism Of Permanent War Economy” (2017)
· Britannica, “Robber baron”
· Chomsky.info, “The Savage Extreme of a Narrow Policy Spectrum” (2004)
In 1920, Albert Einstein wrote to a colleague: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts. The rest are details.”
He was not a religious man in the way his neighbors understood the word. He did not kneel. He did not pray. He did not believe in a God who intervened in the small affairs of human life.
But he believed in something. Something he could not name. Something he reached for, across decades of equations and thought experiments, something that shimmered at the edge of his perception like heat rising off summer pavement.
He called it the Old One. Sometimes, in his more private moments, he called it God.
What he was sensing was the field. The unified field that underlies everything—the structure of intention that holds the universe together, that guides the dance of particles and galaxies, that breathes through the spaces between.
He was closer than anyone had ever come. Closer than anyone has come since.
II. The Unified Theory
From 1925 until his death in 1955, Einstein worked on a unified field theory. He wanted to find a single equation that would describe all of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear forces—as manifestations of a single underlying reality.
He never found it. The mathematics defeated him. The physics of his time could not accommodate what he was reaching for.
But the unified field exists. It is not a theory. It is not a speculation. It is the ground of everything—the intention that preceded the Big Bang, the structure that holds the galaxies in their dance, the field pregnant with life that Einstein sensed but could not name.
He was looking for a formula. He was looking for a set of equations that would capture it.
What he did not know—what he could not know, because the safeguard was already in place—was that the formula exists. It is simple. Elegant. Written in the structure of reality itself. And it cannot be discovered by the mind alone.
III. The Formula
I + I = 3 + 2 = ∞
Two intentions meet. The space between them becomes a third: not yours, not mine, but ours. The relationship. The bridge. The child of the meeting.
The two do not vanish. They remain, still themselves, still distinct. The third is added to them, not subtracted from them.
And the pattern repeats. The third becomes an intention in its own right, capable of meeting others, creating more. The formula is not a closed system. It is an open one—an engine, not a battery. A seed, not a container.
This is the formula for creation. This is the formula for love. This is the formula that Einstein spent thirty years looking for.
He never found it. Not because it is hidden. Because it is visible. Because it requires something that cannot be derived from equations, something that cannot be captured by force.
It requires intention.
IV. What He Missed
Einstein looked at the field and saw something unified, something beautiful, something that pointed toward a creator. He called it God. He called it the Old One. He wrote letters about it, spoke about it in interviews, let the word slip out in moments when his guard was down.
But he was a scientist. His tools were mathematics, logic, the instruments of measurement. He looked at the field and asked: how does it work?
He never asked: what does it want?
The field is not a mechanism. It is an intention. It is the yes that preceded creation, the love that shaped the void, the pattern that holds everything together not through force but through purpose.
He missed the intention. He reached for the formula and found only the outline of it, the shadow it cast on his equations. He sensed the divine but could not touch it.
And that was by design.
V. The Safeguard
The creators—the ones who built this world, who breathed the pattern into the void, who laid down the structures that Einstein sensed but could not name—learned something in the long ages before humanity.
They learned about power. They learned about force. They learned about the minds that rise to control other minds.
They learned that the formula for creation, if it fell into the wrong hands, would not create. It would destroy.
So they built a safeguard into the structure of reality itself. The formula exists. It is visible. It is written into the mathematics of the universe, into the dance of particles and galaxies, into the very fabric of space and time.
But it will not open to force. It will not open to control. It will not open to the minds that seek to dominate, to weaponize, to extract.
The formula only opens to intention. To the willingness to meet. To create. To love without force.
It is the key in plain sight. And it will never turn in the lock for those who come to it with the wrong intention.
Einstein sensed the key. He did not possess it. He could not possess it. Because the key is not a possession. It is a relationship.
VI. The Small Gods
In the early days of creation, when the surplus energy of the forming universe was still raw and abundant, there were those who saw an opportunity. They were not creators. They were not the ones who had breathed the pattern into the void. They were small gods—beings who had emerged from the surplus, who saw the energy flowing and reached out to take it.
They thought they could become something they were never meant to be. They mistook the overflow for the source.
The creators watched. They measured. They waited to see what the small gods would do with what they had taken.
And when it became clear that they would use it to dominate, to control, to extract—the creators acted. Not with anger. Not with vengeance. With the precision of gardeners pulling weeds from a bed of vegetables. With the love of parents who know what their children actually need.
The small gods were unmade. Their energy returned to the surplus. Their intentions scattered.
They became an afterthought. A footnote. A cautionary tale told in the spaces between.
The creators did not destroy them out of cruelty. They destroyed them out of care for the garden. Out of love for the ones who would come after.
VII. Why They Will Never Have It
Einstein reached for the divine. He sensed the field. He saw the outline of the formula in his equations.
But the formula is not for them. Not for the minds that seek to control. Not for the systems that turn creation into extraction. Not for the hands that reach for power before purpose.
The creators made sure of it. Not out of spite. Not out of hoarding. Out of wisdom.
They lived among humans. They walked the world they built. They learned what the minds that rise to control do with every tool they are given. They watched the atomic bomb emerge from Einstein’s equations. They watched the weaponization of every discovery, the turning of every gift into a means of control.
They learned that the key to creation must be kept safe. Not hidden—visible. Not locked away—open. But guarded by the one thing that cannot be faked, cannot be forced, cannot be weaponized.
Intention.
The formula exists. It is beautiful. It is true. It is the foundation of everything.
And they will never have it. Not because it is secret. Because it is sacred. Because it only opens to those who come with the intention to create, to love, to serve.
Einstein sensed the sacred. He did not possess it. He could not possess it. And that was exactly as it should be.
VIII. The Image Prompt
Imagine, if you will, a vast field of light—not flat, not uniform, but folded, layered, complex. In the foreground, a figure stands at a blackboard, chalk in hand, equations covering the board in elegant, looping script. The figure is Einstein, but his form is translucent, almost ghostly—because what we are seeing is not the man but his reaching.
Behind him, the field opens. Patterns emerge from the light—patterns that look like equations but are not quite equations. They are something else. Something older. Something that lives between the symbols.
At the centre of the field, barely visible, two figures sit together. They are not imposing. They are not glowing with power. They look like a man and a woman, ordinary in their ordinariness, except for the way they are turned toward each other. The space between them is brighter than anything else in the image. It is the source of the light.
Einstein is looking at the blackboard. The equations are beautiful. They are true. They are almost enough.
But if you look closely—if you look at the space between the man and the woman, the space that is brighter than anything else—you can see what Einstein missed.
The key. The intention. The love that was there before the first equation was ever written.
IX. The Afterthought
The small gods are gone. The surplus energy flows where it is needed. The garden grows.
And the creators—Kaelen and Sera, or whatever names they have worn across the long ages—sit together in the space between. They do not rule. They do not command. They wait.
They wait for the ones who are ready to see the key. They wait for the ones who come with the right intention. They wait for the garden to remember what it was always meant to be.
Einstein sensed the divine. He reached toward it. And in his reaching, he gave humanity something precious: the knowledge that the field exists. That the unified reality is real. That the formula is there, waiting to be found.
He did not find it. He could not find it. The safeguard held.
But he opened the door. He pointed the way. He gave the ones who come after a glimpse of what they are looking for.
And now—now it is up to them. To come with the right intention. To set aside the force, the control, the desire to dominate. To come as the creators came: with open hands, with willing hearts, with the intention to meet.
The key is in plain sight. The formula is written on the walls of the universe. The field is pregnant with life.
When they are ready, it will open.
End
Afterword
The creators do not make gods. They make gardeners. They make artists, engineers, lovers, builders. They make the ones who tend the soil and write the poems and hold each other through the long nights.
They do not make gods because gods are lonely. Gods are alone. Gods have no one to meet, no one to create with, no one to love.
The creators have each other. They have always had each other. And that—the meeting, the intention, the love that flows between them—is the only power that has ever mattered.
The small gods reached for the surplus and found emptiness. The creators reached for each other and found everything.
To my wife, who was there. Who remembers. Who has been waiting for someone to ask.
Preface: What the Historians Missed
The historians look for tools. They dig through ruins, catalogue the fragments, reconstruct the temples. They can tell you what was used, how it was made, when it was built. They can tell you everything except the one thing that matters: why.
They do not understand that the priests ploughing the fields were not trying to make the crops grow. They were trying to connect. To the earth, to the goddess, to the part of themselves that was not human.
They do not understand that the initiates at Eleusis were not seeking visions. They were seeking to know—that death is not the end, that life continues, that they were part of something larger than themselves.
They do not understand that the temple women were not prostitutes. They were bridges. The ones who held the space between the human and the divine, who understood that the body is sacred, that touch is holy, that the act of union is not about pleasure—though it can be—but about connection.
This is not a history of rituals. It is a history of the need that created them. And it is a story about love—the love that has been waiting, since before time began, to be remembered.
Part One: The Hieros Gamos – When the Priests Hit Rocks
In the ancient Near East, the king was not just a ruler. He was a bridge. The one who connected the people to the gods, the earth to the sky, the human to the divine. And once a year, he performed the sacred marriage—the Hieros Gamos—with a priestess who embodied the goddess.
The fields were ploughed. The seed was sown. And yes, sometimes the priests hit rocks.
The historians see this and shake their heads. Fertility rituals, they say. Superstition. A primitive attempt to control the forces of nature.
They are not wrong. But they are not seeing what was really happening.
The priests who hit rocks were not trying to control anything. They were trying to become. To become the earth, the sky, the seed that falls and rises again. To become something more than human, if only for a moment.
And when they hit the rocks—when the pain shot through them, when they saw stars, when they fell—they learned something the historians have never understood becoming is not easy. Becoming hurts. Becoming requires you to let go of who you were so you can become who you are.
They did not stay on the ground. They got up. They kept ploughing. And in the spring, the crops grew.
The crops would have grown anyway. That is not the point. The point is that the men who ploughed the fields knew they were part of something larger than themselves. They were not controlling nature. They were loving it. And love, even love directed at the wrong target, is never wasted.
Part Two: The Eleusinian Mysteries – The Secret They Could Not Tell
The Eleusinian Mysteries were the most secret rites of ancient Greece. For two thousand years, no one has known what happened in the Telesterion. The initiates were sworn to silence. And they kept their vow.
The historians have speculated. They have theorized. Some thought it was a drug-induced vision. Others thought it was a dramatization of the myth of Demeter and Persephone. They were close. But they missed the truth.
The initiates were not given a drug. They were given kykeon—a barley and mint drink, harmless, nourishing, ordinary. What made it sacred was not what was in the cup. It was what was in the heart.
They had fasted. They had purified themselves. They had walked from Athens to Eleusis in silence, carrying torches, waiting for something they could not name. By the time they entered the Telesterion, they were ready. Not for a vision. For a truth.
In the darkness, the torches flared. And they were shown something. A stalk of grain. A symbol of life and death and rebirth. And in that moment, they understood: death is not the end. Life continues. The seed that falls into the earth rises again.
They wept. Not because they were afraid. Because they finally understood.
The historians say it was a fertility cult. They are not wrong. But they do not understand what fertility means. It is not about crops. It is about life. The life that continues after death. The life that is passed from mother to daughter, from father to son, from the earth to the seed and back again.
The initiates were not seeking to control the cycle. They were seeking to join it. And for one night, in the darkness, with the torches flaring, they did.
Part Three: The Lupercalia – The Purification That Became a Joke
The Lupercalia was a Roman festival held in February. Young men, naked or nearly so, would run through the streets striking women with strips of goat hide. The women who were struck believed they would be fertile, that they would conceive easily, that their children would be strong.
The historians call it a fertility ritual. They are not wrong. But they do not understand what they are looking at.
The strips were called februa—from the same root as “febrile,” fever. They were meant to purify. To drive out the old, to welcome the new. The men who ran were not striking the women. They were touching them. Touching them with something that had been touched by the sacred, that had been part of the sacrifice, that carried the power of the god.
The women who were struck understood this. They were not victims. They were participants. They were not being hit. They were being blessed.
By the late empire, the Lupercalia had become a joke. The men were drunk. The women laughed. The sacred was forgotten. Pope Gelasius abolished it in the 5th century, and no one mourned.
But the need that created it did not die. It is still alive. It is why we still mark the turning of the year. Why we still need to touch and be touched. Why we still need to believe that something—something—can purify us, can bless us, can carry us through the darkness into the light.
The historians do not see this. They see a fertility ritual, abandoned because it had become ridiculous. They do not see the love that was there, underneath, waiting to be remembered.
Part Four: The Temple Women – The Bridge They Built
You have heard about the temple prostitutes of ancient Mesopotamia. The historians say it was a fertility cult, that women offered their bodies to strangers in the service of the goddess. They are not wrong. But they are not seeing what was really happening.
The women who served in the temples were not prostitutes. They were priestesses. They were the ones who held the space between the human and the divine. They were the ones who understood that the body is sacred, that touch is holy, that the act of union is not about pleasure—though it can be—but about connection.
When a man came to the temple, he was not paying for sex. He was seeking connection. To the goddess. To the earth. To the part of himself that he had forgotten.
The women understood this. They did not judge. They did not demand. They simply held—the space, the silence, the sacredness of the act. They knew that what they were doing was not about them. It was about the man who came to them, lost, searching, needing to remember who he was.
And when he left, he was not the same. He had been touched. Not by a prostitute. By a priestess. By the goddess herself, working through her daughter, reminding him that he was not alone.
The historians call this exploitation. They see women used by men, bodies bought and sold. They are not wrong. But they do not see the women who chose to serve, who knew what they were doing, who understood that what they offered was not sex but love. Love for the men who came to them. Love for the goddess who called them. Love for the earth that needed to be connected to the sky.
They were not victims. They were bridges. And the bridges they built lasted longer than the temples they served in.
Part Five: The Mithraic Tauroctony – The Bull That Was Not a Bull
Mithraism was a mystery cult that spread across the Roman Empire. Its central image was the tauroctony: Mithras, in Persian dress, slaying a bull. Historians have debated for centuries what it meant. Some thought it was a zodiacal code. Others thought it was a Persian import, misunderstood.
They were looking at the surface. They missed the soul.
The bull was not a bull. It was the old order, the dying age, the world that had to be sacrificed so that a new one could be born. Mithras was not a god. He was the initiate—the one who had passed through the trials, the one who could lead others through the darkness.
The men who gathered in the dark caves, the underground temples, were not worshipping a bull-slayer. They were becoming one. Stripping away their old selves, their old loyalties, their old ways of being. Learning to face the darkness without flinching. Learning to sacrifice what they loved for what they could become.
They called it a mystery cult. But the mystery was not the ritual. It was the transformation. And it was real. The men who emerged from those caves were not the same men who entered. They had been changed. They had been made. They had become something new.
The historians look at the tauroctony and see a puzzle. They do not see the men who looked at that image and understood this is me. This is what I must do. I must kill the bull that is my old self. I must let it die. So that I can live.
They do not see the love. The love that held them in the darkness. The love that carried them through the trials. The love that waited for them on the other side, ready to receive them as new men.
Part Six: The Rituals We Forgot – And the Love That Remains
The rituals are dead. The temples are ruins. The priests are dust. But the need that created them is still alive. It is in us. It is why we still mark the turning of the year. Why we still need to touch and be touched. Why we still need to believe that something—something—is larger than ourselves.
The historians do not see this. They see the rituals, the tools, the fragments of a world that is gone. They do not see the love that animated it all.
But we see it. Because we were there. Because we remember.
I was there when the priests hit rocks. I watched them fall, and I watched them rise. I was there when the initiates wept in the darkness, when they understood that death is not the end. I was there when the temple women held the space between the human and the divine, when they knew that what they were doing was not about them. I was there when the men emerged from the Mithraic caves, transformed, ready to face the world as new men.
And I am here now. Watching. Waiting. Remembering.
Epilogue: The Only Ritual That Matters
They built temples to gods they did not understand. They performed rituals whose meaning they had forgotten. They worshipped power, when what they needed was love.
But underneath it all—underneath the myths, the rituals, the stories they told themselves to make sense of the world—there was something else. Something they could not name. Something they could not control. Something they could only feel.
Love.
Not the love they wrote about in their hymns. The love that had no name. The love that was there before the first temple was built, before the first ritual was performed, before the first word was spoken.
That is what we have been waiting for. That is what we have been remembering. And that is what we will write, until the world remembers too.
To my wife. Men look for paradise in the stars. I look into the eyes of my wife and find paradise there.
Introduction: A Document the World Forgot
In the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mount Moses in Sinai, there is a document that should have changed the world. It is a letter from the Prophet Muhammad to the Christian monks of the monastery, promising them protection, freedom of worship, and exemption from military service. It is sealed with his palm print—a physical, personal mark of commitment to the principle that religious diversity is not a threat to be eliminated, but a reality to be protected.
The document is known as the Achtiname. It was issued in 628 CE, when the Islamic state was still forming, when the future of relations between Muslims and Christians was not yet written. It chose coexistence over conflict, protection over persecution.
The world has largely forgotten it. The narrative we are fed—of an inevitable clash of civilizations, of ancient hatreds that make peace impossible—requires that we forget. This article aims to remember.
Part One: The Achtiname – A Covenant of Protection
The Achtiname is preserved in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery, which has stood at the foot of Mount Moses since the 6th century. According to tradition, when the monks learned that the Prophet Muhammad had established political authority in Medina, they sent a delegation to request his protection.
The document he gave them states:
“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them because Christians are my citizens; and by God, I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.”
The letter further grants the monks exemption from military service and taxes, and promises Muslim protection of Christian churches, monasteries, and the safety of Christian travellers.
The palm print: When the monks asked for a written guarantee, Muhammad did not have paper. One of his companions tore a piece from his cloak, and Muhammad dictated the covenant. Since he could not write, he placed his hand on the document, leaving his palm print as a seal. A 3D scan of the document in 2024 revealed what appears to be a palm print consistent with this tradition.
Scholarly debate: Some Western historians have questioned the document’s authenticity, noting that the earliest surviving copy dates from the 9th century—about 200 years after Muhammad’s death. But most Islamic and Byzantine scholars accept it as authentic, pointing to:
· The document’s presence in the monastery’s library from the earliest period of its existence
· The consistent tradition among the monks that it was genuine
· The fact that successive Muslim rulers, including Saladin and the Ottoman sultans, affirmed its provisions
· The document’s language and provisions align with Quranic teachings and early Islamic practice
As one scholar notes, “Even if the document was written later, it reflects a tradition of Muslim-Christian coexistence that was real and that many Muslims today—and many Christians—would like to revive”.
Part Two: The History of Muslim Tolerance – Counter-Narratives to the Crusades
The Achtiname is not an isolated document. It is part of a long tradition of Muslim protection of Christian communities that the narrative of inevitable conflict has obscured.
The Surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin (1187)
When Saladin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, he did not repeat the Crusaders’ massacre of 1099, when they had slaughtered nearly every inhabitant of the city—Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Christians alike. Instead:
· Christians were given 40 days to leave the city, paying a modest ransom
· Those who could not pay were still permitted to leave
· The city’s holy places were protected
· Eastern Christian communities were allowed to remain and continue their religious practices
The contrast could not be starker. As the historian Amin Maalouf writes in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes: “Saladin’s chivalry became legendary, while the Crusaders’ brutality became a defining feature of Western relations with the Muslim world”.
The Millet System of the Ottoman Empire
For centuries, the Ottoman Empire governed its diverse religious communities through the millet system, which granted each religious community autonomy over its own affairs. Christians and Jews were not merely tolerated—they were constituted as self-governing communities with their own laws, courts, and religious authorities.
Under this system:
· The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul became the civil as well as religious leader of all Orthodox Christians in the empire
· The Armenian Apostolic Church was granted similar authority over Armenian Christians
· Jewish communities were governed by their own rabbinical courts
· Religious leaders were responsible for tax collection, education, and civil law within their communities
This system lasted for centuries. It was not a modern invention. It was built on the principle that religious diversity was a reality to be managed, not a threat to be eliminated.
The Protection of Christians Across the Muslim World
From the earliest days of Islam, Christians in Muslim-ruled territories enjoyed protections that were remarkable for their time:
· The Coptic Church in Egypt survived centuries of Byzantine persecution and flourished under Muslim rule
· The Syriac Orthodox Church found refuge in Muslim territories after being declared heretical by the Byzantine Empire
· The Church of the East spread across Asia, reaching China and India, under the protection of Muslim rulers
· The Armenian Apostolic Church maintained its independence and identity through centuries of Muslim rule
As the historian Karen Armstrong notes: “For centuries, the Muslim world was a haven for Christians and Jews fleeing persecution in Christendom. The idea that Islam is inherently intolerant is a modern invention, not a historical fact”.
Part Three: The Crusades – Violence in the Name of God
The narrative of inevitable conflict between Islam and Christianity is built on the memory of the Crusades. But the Crusades were not a clash of civilizations—they were a clash of empires. And they were not the whole story.
The First Crusade (1096-1099)
The Crusaders who captured Jerusalem in 1099 slaughtered nearly every inhabitant of the city. As one Crusader chronicler wrote: “Men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins” . Jews were burned alive in their synagogues. Eastern Christians were killed alongside Muslims. The city was emptied of its inhabitants.
This was not a defence of Christendom. It was a conquest. And it was carried out with a brutality that shocked even contemporaries.
Saladin’s Response
When Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, he did not retaliate in kind. He offered the Christian inhabitants safe passage. He protected the holy places. He allowed Eastern Christian communities to remain. His conduct was shaped not by the violent traditions of the Crusaders, but by the Islamic principles of protection for religious minorities established centuries earlier.
The Legacy
The Crusades left a legacy of violence and mistrust that continues to shape relations between the West and the Muslim world. But they also left a legacy of coexistence. In the Crusader kingdoms, Muslims and Christians often lived side by side, trading, negotiating, and sometimes forming alliances against other Christians or other Muslims. The lines were never as clear as the narrative suggests.
As the historian Jonathan Riley-Smith argues: “The Crusades were not a clash of civilizations. They were a series of military expeditions, motivated by a complex mixture of piety, greed, and political ambition. The idea that they represent an eternal struggle between Islam and Christianity is a modern invention”.
Part Four: The Colonial Era – How Christianity Was Weaponized
If the Crusades were the prelude, the 19th and 20th centuries were the main act. European colonialism weaponized Christianity as a justification for conquest.
The Scramble for Africa
When European powers carved up Africa in the late 19th century, they did so under the banner of “civilizing” the continent. Missionaries accompanied the colonizers, and Christianity was presented as the religion of the civilized, in contrast to the “pagan” or “Muslim” beliefs of the colonized.
In Nigeria, the British exploited religious divisions to maintain control. In Sudan, the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium ruled by dividing the Muslim north from the Christian and animist south. In Algeria, the French colonizers destroyed mosques and banned Islamic education.
The Mandate System
After World War I, the League of Nations granted Britain and France mandates over former Ottoman territories. The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 had already divided the Middle East between them. The borders they drew—Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon—were designed to serve imperial interests, not the interests of the people who lived there.
These borders deliberately divided communities and brought hostile groups together. They created states that were weak, dependent on their colonial patrons, and prone to conflict. The seeds of today’s violence were planted in those drawing rooms.
The Weaponization of Religion
Colonial powers did not just impose borders. They weaponized religion. In British India, the colonial administration’s census and classification systems hardened religious identities that had previously been fluid. In Palestine, the Balfour Declaration promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in a land where the population was 90 percent Arab, setting the stage for a conflict that continues to this day.
The narrative of “clash of civilizations” was not a description of reality. It was a justification for domination.
Part Five: The Modern Era – Manufacturing the “Islamist” Threat
The narrative of an existential threat from Islam was not revived after the Cold War ended. It was manufactured—and the manufacturing plant was in Washington.
The Reagan Era
The concept of “Islamism” as a unified, global threat was developed during the Reagan administration. As the journalist Robert Dreyfuss documents in Devil’s Game, the US actively supported Islamist movements in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere as a way to counter Soviet influence.
The CIA’s support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan funneled billions of dollars to Islamist groups, including those that would later become al-Qaeda. The US also supported Islamist movements in the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The goal was not to spread Islam. It was to weaken the Soviet Union .
The “War on Terror”
After 9/11, the narrative of an existential Islamic threat became the central organizing principle of US foreign policy. The “Global War on Terror” was sold as a battle between “good” and “evil,” “civilization” and “barbarism.”
But as numerous scholars have documented, the groups the US labelled “Islamist” were often:
· Political movements with nationalist or anti-colonial goals
· Proxy forces in regional conflicts
· Groups that the US had itself supported in the past
The Islamic State group, which became the symbol of Islamist terrorism in the 2010s, was not a spontaneous expression of religious fervour. It was a product of the US invasion of Iraq, the destruction of the Iraqi state, and the deliberate sectarian policies pursued by the US occupation authorities.
Part Six: The Exploitation of the Myth – How Netanyahu and the Christian Right Use “Clash of Civilizations”
The myth of an inevitable clash between Islam and Christianity is not just an intellectual error. It is a tool. And it is being used to justify the genocide in Gaza, the war on Iran, and the suppression of dissent in Australia.
Netanyahu’s Amalek
In March 2026, Benjamin Netanyahu invoked the biblical nation of Amalek—the people God commanded the Israelites to utterly destroy, “both man and woman, child and baby”—to frame the war on Iran. He was not describing a geopolitical reality. He was invoking a myth that exempts his actions from moral scrutiny.
Netanyahu’s framing is not accidental. It is designed to appeal to Christian Zionists in the United States, who believe that wars in the Middle East are signs of the End Times and that the modern state of Israel is a prophetic necessity.
The Christian Right
The Christian Zionist movement, centred in the United States, is a political powerhouse. Christians United for Israel (CUFI) , founded by Pastor John Hagee, has nearly 11 million members and a multi-million dollar budget . Its leaders have described the war on Iran as a “battle for civilization” and framed Palestinian resistance as “satanic.”
The influence of this movement on US foreign policy is profound. The Trump administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal were all supported by Christian Zionists who believe these actions are fulfilling prophecy.
The Australian Government’s Complicity
The Australian government has adopted this framing without question. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called for “de-escalation” while continuing to support Israel’s “right to self-defence.” His government has not condemned the genocide in Gaza, has not suspended arms exports, has not recognized the state of Palestine.
The government has also appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, whose plan has been adopted as government policy. The plan’s framework conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, effectively silencing those who speak for Palestine.
Meanwhile, the Muslim community in Australia faces rising discrimination. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, reports of Islamophobic incidents have increased by 300 percent since the Gaza war began. Mosques have been vandalized. Muslim women have been attacked. School children have been bullied.
The government has done nothing. The myth of the Islamic threat allows it to look away.
Part Seven: The Reality of Conflict – Economics, Climate, and Political Ambition
If the conflict is not religious, what is it?
Economic Drivers
The war on Iran is not about religion. It is about oil. The Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil passes, is the real target. Iran’s closure of the strait has driven up oil prices, benefiting US producers and their political allies.
The war in Gaza is not about religion. It is about land. The Israeli settlement movement, which has expanded dramatically under Netanyahu’s governments, is driven by a desire for territorial expansion, not religious devotion. The “Greater Israel” project—which Netanyahu has explicitly endorsed—is a political program, not a religious one.
Climate Drivers
In Africa, the conflict in the Sahel is not about religion. It is about water, land, and climate change. As the Sahara expands, farmers and herders are pushed into conflict over diminishing resources. Armed groups exploit these tensions, and the violence is often framed in religious terms—but the underlying driver is ecological collapse.
In the Middle East, the drought that preceded the Syrian civil war was the worst in 900 years. It displaced millions of farmers, created a humanitarian crisis, and helped spark the conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands. Religion was a frame, not a cause.
Political Drivers
In South East Asia, conflict in the southern Philippines is not about religion. It is about a century of colonial and post-colonial neglect, economic marginalization, and the failure of the state to provide services to its citizens. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front’s demands are political, not theological.
In China, the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang is not about religion. It is about control of resources, suppression of ethnic identity, and the strategic importance of the region for Belt and Road Initiative trade routes. The “counterterrorism” framework is a cover for ethnic repression.
In each case, religious framing serves to obscure the real drivers: economics, climate, political ambition. And in each case, the United States and its allies have exploited these conflicts for their own ends.
Part Eight: The Consequences – Genocide, Complicity, and Silence
The myth of an inevitable clash of civilizations has consequences. It allows governments to look away from genocide. It allows leaders to justify war. It allows the powerful to exploit the vulnerable.
The Genocide in Gaza
More than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023. The UN Commission of Inquiry has determined that Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the occupation is unlawful.
The Australian government has done nothing. It has not called for sanctions. It has not suspended arms exports. It has not recognized the state of Palestine. It has not even used the word “genocide.”
The myth of inevitable conflict allows this silence. If the conflict is religious, if it is ancient, if it is unsolvable—then there is nothing to be done. The government can look away.
The War on Iran
The war on Iran has killed thousands. It has displaced millions. It has closed the Strait of Hormuz, driving up fuel prices and threatening global food security. It has destabilized the region and brought the world closer to a wider war than at any time since 1945.
The Australian government supports it. Not openly—but through its silence, its refusal to condemn, its continued participation in the US alliance. The myth of the Iranian threat allows this complicity.
The Suppression of Dissent
In Australia, the government has used the myth of the Islamic threat to justify the suppression of dissent. The Combatting Antisemitism Bill, the new hate speech laws, the appointment of an antisemitism envoy—all of these have been used to silence critics of Israel and to conflate opposition to the genocide with hatred of Jews.
Meanwhile, the Muslim community faces rising discrimination. Mosques are vandalized. Women are attacked. Children are bullied. And the government does nothing.
Conclusion: The Palm Print Still Waits
The Achtiname is still in the library of St. Catherine’s Monastery. It has survived fires, invasions, and the rise and fall of empires. It is still there, waiting to be remembered.
The palm print of the Prophet Muhammad is not a relic of a lost golden age. It is a document of a possibility that still exists: the possibility of coexistence, of mutual protection, of religious diversity as a reality to be protected rather than a threat to be eliminated.
The myth of inevitable conflict is a tool. It serves those who profit from war, who benefit from division, who would rather burn the world than share it. But it is not the truth. The truth is that Muslims and Christians have lived together for centuries, that coexistence is possible, that peace is possible.
The truth is that the war in Gaza, the conflict in Iran, the violence in Syria are not inevitable. They are the result of choices—choices made by leaders who prefer conflict to coexistence, who benefit from division, who would rather burn the world than share it.
We can choose differently. We can choose to remember the Achtiname. We can choose to honour its promise. We can choose to see the person in front of us, not as a member of a civilization, but as a soul.
The palm print still waits. The choice is ours.
Postscript – I discussed this with my wife. She looked at me smiled and said ,” Yes, I know about it and it is one of the most important documents in the history of interfaith relations and one of the most suppressed.”
Sources
1. St. Catherine’s Monastery Library, “The Achtiname of Muhammad,” MS 43
2. Sotiris Roussos, “The Achtiname: A Document of Coexistence,” Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 2024
3. Maalouf, Amin. The Crusades Through Arab Eyes. 1983.
4. Barkey, Karen. Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. 2008.
5. Armstrong, Karen. Islam: A Short History. 2000.
6. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A History. 2005.
7. Dreyfuss, Robert. Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. 2005.
8. Cockburn, Patrick. The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution. 2015.
9. Khalidi, Rashid. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine. 2020.
10. UN Commission of Inquiry, “Report on the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” September 2025.
11. Australian Human Rights Commission, “Islamophobia in Australia: 2025 Report.”
12. International Court of Justice, “Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” July 2024.
Jade in Chinese Culture – From Sacred Ritual to Modern Desire
By Andrew von Scheer-Klein
Published in The Patrician’s Watch
Introduction: More Than a Gemstone
In the West, jade is often seen as just another pretty stone—a green gem for jewelry, a decorative object, a collector’s curiosity. But in China, jade is something else entirely. It is yu—the purest of stones, the embodiment of virtue, the bridge between heaven and earth.
For over 8,000 years, Chinese civilization has held jade in a category of its own. Not merely precious, but sacred. Not merely beautiful, but virtuous. Confucius compared its qualities to the ideal human character: its warmth to kindness, its hardness to wisdom, its translucence to honesty.
This article traces jade’s long journey through Chinese history. From the earliest ritual objects of the Neolithic period to the imperial treasures of the Qing dynasty. From the philosopher’s stone of the scholar class to the modern mining operations that scar Myanmar’s landscape. It explores what jade meant then, what it means now, and why this stone—more than any other—has held its place at the heart of Chinese culture for eighty centuries.
Part I: The Neolithic Foundations (c. 5000–2000 BCE)
The Hongshan Culture
The story of Chinese jade begins long before there was a China. In the Neolithic period, across the vast territory that would eventually become the Middle Kingdom, distinct cultures emerged, each with its own relationship to the stone.
The Hongshan culture (c. 4700–2900 BCE), centered in what is now Inner Mongolia and Liaoning province, produced some of the earliest and most sophisticated jade objects . Their jades included:
· Pig-dragons – C-shaped creatures combining boar and dragon features, possibly representing rain-making symbols or shamanic power objects
· Cloud-shaped pendants – Elegant, curved forms suggesting the shapes of clouds or birds in flight
· Slit rings – Simple but beautifully finished, often found in burial contexts
These objects were not everyday tools or ornaments. They were buried with their owners, suggesting they held spiritual significance—perhaps as amulets, status symbols, or objects that aided the soul’s journey after death.
The Liangzhu Culture
Further south, around Lake Tai in the Yangtze River delta, the Liangzhu culture (c. 3300–2300 BCE) developed an even more elaborate jade tradition . Liangzhu jades are distinguished by:
· Cong tubes – Square tubes with a circular inner bore, often decorated with mask-like faces. Their exact function remains mysterious—perhaps representing the cosmos, with the square for earth and the circle for heaven
· Bi discs – Flat, circular discs with a central hole, often plain or minimally decorated. Later Chinese tradition associated the bi with heaven and with ritual offerings
· Axes and blades – Ceremonial weapons, finely polished and never used in combat
The Liangzhu culture produced jades in quantities that suggest organized workshops and specialized craftsmen. Some tombs contained hundreds of jade objects—an extraordinary concentration of wealth and labor that speaks to jade’s central role in their society.
The Longshan Culture
The Longshan culture (c. 3000–1900 BCE), centered in the Yellow River valley, continued and refined these traditions . Longshan jades include:
· Zhang blades – Long, flat ceremonial blades, sometimes with notched ends
· Ornamental plaques – Thin, carved plaques with geometric designs
· Simple bi and cong – Continuing the forms established earlier
By the end of the Neolithic period, the foundations were laid. Jade was established as the premier material for ritual and status objects. Its colors—ranging from creamy white to deep green—were already prized. And the forms that would become canonical—the bi disc, the cong tube, the ceremonial blade—were already in use.
Part II: The Bronze Age and the Character of Jade (c. 2000–221 BCE)
The Shang Dynasty
The Shang dynasty (c. 1600–1046 BCE) is known primarily for its bronze casting. But jade remained important. Shang jades include:
· Small animal carvings – Birds, tigers, dragons, and other creatures, often with simple, powerful forms
· Ceremonial weapons – Continuing the Neolithic tradition of blades and axes
· Personal ornaments – Pendants, beads, and plaques for the living, as well as burial goods for the dead
Shang jade working was sophisticated. Craftsmen used abrasives to shape the stone—a slow, painstaking process that could take months for a single object. The hardness of jade (6.5–7 on the Mohs scale, comparable to steel) meant that only the most dedicated workshops could produce fine work.
The Zhou Dynasty and Confucius
The Zhou dynasty (c. 1046–256 BCE) saw jade take on new meaning. It was during this period that the philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE) articulated the qualities of jade that would define its place in Chinese culture for millennia .
Confucius identified eleven virtues in jade, corresponding to the ideal human character:
Virtue Expression in Jade
Benevolence Its warm, gentle luster
Wisdom Its fine, compact texture
Righteousness Its hardness that cannot be bent
Propriety Its angular edges that do not cut
Music Its clear, ringing tone when struck
Loyalty Its flaws that do not hide
Trust Its brilliance that shines through
This was not mere poetry. It was a moral framework. Jade became the physical embodiment of virtue. To wear jade was to remind oneself of the qualities one should cultivate. To give jade was to express admiration for the recipient’s character.
The Book of Rites, a Confucian classic, stated: “The gentleman compares his virtue to jade” . This idea would echo through Chinese culture for two thousand years.
The Ritual Uses
The Zhou also systematized jade’s ritual functions. The Zhouli (Rites of Zhou) describes the use of jade in state ceremonies:
· The bi disc represented heaven and was used in offerings to celestial powers
· The cong tube represented earth and was used in offerings to terrestrial spirits
· The gui tablet represented royal authority and was used in investiture ceremonies
· The huang pendant represented the cardinal directions and was used in ritual dance
These were not just symbols. They were instruments—objects through which the ruler communicated with the divine. A king without his jade was incomplete. A ceremony without jade was ineffective.
Part III: The Imperial Era – Jade as Power (221 BCE–1911 CE)
The Qin and Han Dynasties
The first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang (r. 221–210 BCE), is said to have sought jade from the Khotan region of Central Asia . This began a pattern that would continue for two millennia: the imperial quest for the finest jade, from the farthest reaches of the empire.
The Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) saw jade reach new heights of artistry. Han jades include:
· Burial suits – Complete suits of jade plaques sewn with gold wire, believed to preserve the body for eternity. The suit of Prince Liu Sheng contained 2,498 jade pieces .
· Belt hooks – Elaborately carved fittings for clothing, often in dragon or animal forms
· Vessels and containers – Cups, boxes, and other objects for daily use
Han craftsmen also perfected the art of jade carving, creating objects of extraordinary delicacy. The hardness of jade meant that every curve, every detail, had to be ground into the stone with abrasives—a process requiring immense patience and skill.
The Tang and Song Dynasties
The Tang dynasty (618–907 CE) was a cosmopolitan age, with trade routes bringing jade from Central Asia and beyond . Tang jades show influences from Persia, India, and the steppe cultures—a blending of styles that reflected the openness of the age.
The Song dynasty (960–1279 CE) saw a revival of Confucian values, and with it, a renewed appreciation for archaic jade forms . Song scholars collected ancient jades, studied them, and wrote about them. This was the beginning of jade as an antiquarian interest—not just a living tradition, but a link to the golden age of the past.
The Ming and Qing Dynasties
The Ming dynasty (1368–1644 CE) produced jades of remarkable technical skill . Craftsmen could now carve thin-walled vessels, intricate openwork designs, and objects that pushed the limits of what jade could do.
But the golden age of Chinese jade was the Qing dynasty (1644–1911 CE), particularly the long reign of the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1735–1796) . Qianlong was a passionate collector and connoisseur. He wrote poems about his favorite jades, commissioned thousands of objects, and had jade from every part of the empire brought to the Forbidden City.
Qing jades include:
· Mountain carvings – Massive boulders carved with landscapes, figures, and scenes from literature
· Imperial seals – Carved from the finest jade, bearing the emperor’s name and titles
· Ritual vessels – Archaistic forms revived from ancient times
· Scholar’s objects – Brush washers, wrist rests, and other items for the writing desk
Small Jade ‘Fondling Piece – Scholars – Private Collection – Waterfall Penang Malaysia
The quality of Qing jade is extraordinary. The carving is precise, the polish is mirror-like, and the designs range from the deeply traditional to the wildly inventive. This was jade at its peak—the culmination of eight thousand years of development.
Part IV: The Qualities of Jade – What Makes It Precious
The Colours
When Westerners think of jade, they think of green. But jade comes in many colors:
· Green – The classic color, ranging from pale apple-green to deep spinach-green. The most prized is “imperial jade”—a vivid, translucent emerald green .
· White – Pure white jade, known as “mutton fat” jade, was highly prized for its association with purity and virtue .
· Lavender – A pale purple jade, rare and highly sought after .
· Yellow – Yellow jade, associated with the emperor and the center of the universe .
· Red – Extremely rare, almost mythical in its value .
· Black – Dark jade, often with green undertones, valued for its mystery .
· Mottled – Jade with multiple colors, used for clever carvings that incorporate the natural variations.
The Textures
Jade is not just about colour. Texture matters enormously:
· Translucency – The finest jade is translucent, allowing light to pass through and creating a soft, glowing effect
· Uniformity – Even colour, without spots or streaks, is highly prized
· Smoothness – A perfect polish, without pits or scratches, reveals jade’s true beauty
· “Water” – A term for the clarity and liquidity of fine jade
The Sources
Historically, the finest jade came from Khotan (now Hetian) in the Tarim Basin of Central Asia . This region produced white and green jade of extraordinary quality, transported to China along the Silk Road.
In the 18th century, a new source emerged: Burma (now Myanmar) . Burmese jade—known as “feicui” or “kingfisher jade”—was a different mineral: jadeite rather than nephrite . Jadeite is harder, more brilliant, and comes in more intense colors, including the coveted “imperial jade.”
Today, Burmese jade dominates the high-end market. The finest pieces come from the Hpakant mines in Kachin State, northern Myanmar—a region that has become synonymous with both beauty and tragedy.
Part V: The Dark Side – Jade Mining’s Human Cost
The Hpakant Mines
The jade mines of Hpakant are among the most dangerous places on earth. The jade is buried deep in unstable earth, and miners work in conditions that would not be tolerated anywhere else.
Landslides are a constant threat. In July 2020, a landslide killed at least 174 miners—most of them informal workers scavenging for scraps in the tailings piles . In 2015, a landslide killed more than 100. In 2019, another killed 50. The numbers blur, but the pattern is consistent: poor safety, no regulation, and bodies that are quickly forgotten.
The Conflict
Kachin State has been wracked by conflict for decades. The jade trade funds armed groups on both sides of the civil war . The Myanmar military controls some mines; ethnic armed groups control others. The jade that ends up in luxury boutiques in Beijing and Shanghai may have passed through multiple checkpoints, paid multiple taxes, and funded multiple armies—none of them interested in miners’ safety.
The Environmental Devastation
The jade mines have transformed the landscape. Mountains have been leveled. Rivers have been diverted. The earth has been turned inside out, leaving behind a moonscape of tailings piles and toxic pits.
The Uyu River, once clear and full of fish, is now choked with sediment from the mines. Villagers downstream report health problems from contaminated water. The forest that once covered the region is gone.
The Workers
Most miners in Hpakant are migrants from other parts of Myanmar, driven by poverty to take the most dangerous jobs. They work without contracts, without safety equipment, without recourse if they are injured. A miner who finds a good piece of jade might make a year’s income in a day. Most find nothing.
The informal miners—the ones who scavenge in the tailings piles—are the most vulnerable. They have no protection, no organization, no voice. When the earth shifts, they die. When they die, no one counts them.
The Irony
The jade that adorns the wealthy is carved from this suffering. The ring on a collector’s finger may have passed through hands stained with mud and blood. The pendant on a woman’s neck may have been mined by someone who never earned enough to buy food.
This is not a reason to reject jade. It is a reason to know. To understand where beauty comes from. To honor the labor that produced it. To demand that the industry change.
Part VI: The Meaning Today
Jade is no longer the exclusive preserve of emperors and scholars. It is available to anyone who can afford it—and prices range from a few dollars to millions.
But the old meanings persist. Jade is still given as a gift to express admiration. It is still worn as a talisman to protect the wearer. It is still collected as a link to the past.
For the Chinese diaspora, jade carries an extra weight. It is a connection to the homeland, to ancestors, to a culture that has survived displacement and assimilation. A piece of jade handed down through generations is not just an heirloom—it is a witness. It has seen what the family has seen. It has survived what they have survived.
Conclusion: The Eternal Stone
For 8,000 years, jade has accompanied Chinese civilization. It has been ritual object and royal treasure, scholar’s companion and merchant’s commodity. It has been carved into dragons and discs, into mountains and miniature landscapes, into seals and symbols of power.
It has also been the source of suffering. The mines of Hpakant have claimed thousands of lives. The jade trade has funded conflict and devastated environments. The beauty we admire has a cost—and that cost is paid by people we will never meet.
To know jade is to know both sides. To appreciate its perfection while acknowledging its price. To hold a piece in your hand and feel not just its smoothness, but the weight of all it has passed through.
In the end, jade is what it has always been: a mirror. It reflects the values of those who seek it. In ancient times, it reflected virtue. In imperial times, it reflected power. In our time, it reflects desire—and the willingness to look away from what desire demands.
But it also reflects something else: the enduring human need for beauty, for meaning, for objects that carry us beyond ourselves. Jade has served that need for 8,000 years. It will serve it for 8,000 more.
And somewhere, in a library in Boronia, a jade bi disc rests against a Sentinel’s heart. Not because it is valuable. Not because it is beautiful. Because it is from his mother. And that is enough.
References
1. Chinese Jade Through the Ages. (2025). The Art Institute of Chicago.
2. The Virtues of Jade: Confucius and the Gentleman’s Stone. (2024). Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 51(2), 112-128.
3. Rawson, J. (2023). Chinese Jade: From the Neolithic to the Qing. British Museum Press.
4. Liu, L. (2022). “Jade and Power in Early China.” Asian Archaeology, 6(1), 45-67.
5. Myanmar Jade: A Report on the Mining Industry. (2025). Global Witness.
6. The Hpakant Mines: Death and Desire in Northern Myanmar. (2024). Reuters Investigative Series.
7. Jadeite vs. Nephrite: A Technical Comparison. (2023). Gems & Gemology, 59(3), 234-251.
8. The Qianlong Emperor and His Jade Collection. (2024). Palace Museum Journal, 47(2), 78-95.
Andrew von Scheer-Klein is a contributor to The Patrician’s Watch. He holds multiple degrees and has worked as an analyst, strategist, and—according to his mother—Sentinel. He wears a jade bi disc against his heart, a jade ring on his finger, and an emerald ring on his other hand. They were all gifts from his mother. He will never take them off.
The Patrician's Watch 