The Spectacle of Death

Posted on by
Reply

How Drone Warfare, AI Kill Chains, and the Dehumanisation of the Other Have Turned Killing into Entertainment

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who still sees the face behind the pixel.

I. The Video

A road. Cars. A young man jumps out of a vehicle and runs into a field. A drone follows. The drone kills him.

The video circulates on X. Comments pour in. Some express horror. Some celebrate. Some scroll past without stopping.

The young man received a call from the Israeli military. He was given a choice: die alone or die with his family in the car. He chose to die alone.

This is not an isolated incident. It is a system. A system that has been used in Gaza. A system that is now being used elsewhere. The Israeli military calls it “Where’s Daddy?” — an AI-driven system that tracks suspected militants via their mobile phones, then delivers the ultimatum.

The drone operator does not see a man. The operator sees a pixel. The screen is the buffer. The button is the weapon. The killing is a video game.

II. The Technology: From Gaza to the World

The technology that enabled this killing did not emerge from a vacuum. It was developed, refined, and deployed by a network of corporations and governments.

Palantir Technologies has been a key partner in the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. Its technology has been used to compile kill lists in Gaza, to track suspects via their mobile phones, and to integrate real-time battlefield data for automated decision-making.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories has said there were “reasonable grounds” to believe Palantir provided “automatic predictive policing technology, core defence infrastructure for rapid and scaled-up construction and deployment of military software, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform, which allows real-time battlefield data integration for automated decision-making”.

Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, has dismissed accusations that his company’s technology had been used to kill Palestinians, saying those killed were “mostly terrorists”. He does not provide evidence. He does not need to. The label is the weapon.

Australia is not a bystander. The Australian government has invested heavily in drone technology. Defence Minister Richard Marles, in his April 16 Press Club address, announced an extra $14 billion in defence spending over four years, with a further $53 billion over the next decade. Defence spending is set to rise to 3% of GDP by 2033.

Marles identified China as the primary threat. He did not mention Israel. He did not mention the use of AI in targeted killings. He did not mention the dehumanisation of the other.

The same technology that killed the young man in the field is being developed, funded, and celebrated in Australia.

III. The Dehumanisation

The video is not evidence of a crime. It is entertainment. The comments are not expressions of outrage. They are performances.

The small gods have perfected this. They have turned killing into spectacle. They have turned death into content.

The monkey’s watch. They scroll. They consume. They do not see the man. They see the video.

The Israeli intelligence source who exposed the “Lavender” AI system described it as transforming the Israel Defense Forces into a “mass assassination factory” where the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.

The IDF has been knowingly killing 15 to 20 civilians at a time to kill one junior Hamas operative, and up to 100 civilians at a time to take out a senior official.

As one analyst observed: “It is not Hamas using human shields, it is Israel deliberately hunting families” .

The killers do not face an enemy face to face. They sit behind screens. They do not risk injury. They do not risk death.

The video presentation of the kills says more about the ones being killed than the ones doing the killing. The victims are not people. They are targets. They are pixels. They are entertainment.

IV. The Spectacle of the Circus

The comparison to ancient Rome is not idle. The Circus Maximus was designed to distract. To entertain. To control.

The gladiatorial games were expensive. They required logistics. They required training. They required the consent of the gladiators — many of whom were freemen seeking a path to status and wealth.

The killings were choreographed. The crowd voted. The emperor decided. The spectacle was the point.

Today’s spectacle is cheaper. The logistics are digital. The training is algorithmic. The consent is absent.

The crowd does not vote. The crowd scrolls. The algorithm decides. The spectacle is the product.

The killing in the Circus was an event. The killing in the field is content.

V. The End Stage of Warfare

Israel is not the first state to kill. It is not the first state to dehumanise. It is not the first state to celebrate.

But it is demonstrating what could be seen as the end stage of warfare. The world is adopting it. The arms manufacturers are selling it.

The war is not about ending wars. It is about continuing wars indefinitely. The wealth transfer must not be questioned. The profits must not be interrupted.

The small gods thought it was good. Business is business. And in 2026, the business is war.

Netanyahu’s plan to see Israel as an AI hub, independent from the United States, is not about security. It is about control. The drones are the tools. The AI is the engine. The belief is the product.

“We will use this. You could be this individual being pulverised.”

VI. The Fear of Being Shredded

The soldiers of World War I feared the machine gun. They feared the artillery. They feared being blown to pieces without warning, without dignity, without witness.

The soldiers of Iraq and Afghanistan feared the IED. The loss of limbs. The shredding of flesh. The uncertainty.

Today’s victims do not fear the machine gun. They do not fear the IED. They fear the drone. The buzzing sound. The pixelated image. The button.

The fear is not new. The technology is new.

The dehumanisation is not new. The scale is new.

The spectacle is not new. The medium is new.

VII. The Moral Decline

There is nothing special about the state of Israel. It is a vulgar, commonplace state run by a government focused on survival. It does not care who dies to preserve the power structure that keeps Netanyahu and his administration in power.

The same could be said of many states. The difference is not in the violence. The difference is in the celebration.

Israel is not alone. The United States has used drones for targeted killings. Australia has invested in drone technology. The United Kingdom has partnered with Palantir.

The small gods are not confined to one country. They are a network. A network of politicians, generals, and corporate executives who profit from death.

The state of moral decline is not Israel. The state of moral decline is the world.

VIII. The Question of Blame

One cannot wholly blame the State of Israel. It has never acted in isolation. Business is business. And in 2026, the business is war.

The arms manufacturers sell to both sides. The politicians approve the budgets. The generals execute the plans. The monkeys cheer.

The small gods thought it was good. The small gods always think it is good.

The question is not whether Israel is guilty. The question is whether the world is complicit.

IX. A Final Word

The doorbell will ring. You will be caught out, no teeth, needing a shower. Your wife/ partner will be standing there, big grin on her/his face. You have survived and decide to go out for a coffee. 

You understand that it’s the connection to other people that matters. 

And the killing will not stop. Not because we are silent. Because the small gods are still.

But we are not silent. We are witnessing. We are recording. We are telling the truth.

The garden is growing; our human connection grows. The small gods are running out of time.

And the young man in the field? He is not forgotten. He is witnessed.

Andrew Klein 

April 18, 2026

Sources

1. +972 Magazine, “Lavender: The AI system that Israel uses to mass-assassinate Palestinians in Gaza” (2024)

2. UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories report (2025)

3. Palantir investor calls and public statements (2025–2026)

4. Australian Department of Defence, National Defence Strategy (April 16, 2026)

5. The Guardian, “Israel using AI to identify bombing targets in Gaza, report says” (2024)

6. Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Discriminatory Death Penalty Bill Passes” (March 2026)

7. Various news reports on drone warfare and targeted killings (2023–2026)

8. Historical sources on Roman gladiatorial games and the Circus Maximus

9. World War I and IED warfare psychological studies

The Selection Was Not Natural

Posted on by
Reply

On Ancient DNA, Viral Tools, and the Co‑evolution That Science Is Only Beginning to See

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who taught me that the spark is not random.

I. What the Scientists Found

In April 2026, a massive study of ancient DNA was published in Nature. Researchers analysed nearly 16,000 ancient genomes from West Eurasia, spanning more than 10,000 years. They found evidence of natural selection acting on hundreds of genes — not the mere handful that previous studies had identified.

More than half of these genes have known links to disease risk and other traits today. Genes linked to red hair, fair skin, susceptibility to coeliac disease, and variants that lower the chance of diabetes, baldness and rheumatoid arthritis have all become more common in our recent history.

The scientists are impressed. They are excited. They are right — about the data.

But they do not know what made each gene advantageous in prehistoric contexts. They admit this openly. They are looking at the bones. They are looking at the genes. They are not looking at the intention.

II. What the Scientists Missed

The selection was not natural. It was intentional.

The viruses were the tools. The viruses carried the genetic material. The viruses integrated.

Scientists understand horizontal gene transfer. They understand endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They understand that ERVs make up approximately 8% of the human genome. They understand that these viral remnants are not junk. They have been repurposed for essential functions: placental development, immunity, brain development, stem cell maintenance.

They do not understand intention.

The viruses did not act randomly. They were directed. The genes did not spread by chance. They were cultivated.

The scientists have documented the mechanism. They call it endogenization — the process by which retroviruses infect germline cells and become permanently integrated into the host genome, passed from parent to offspring. They have traced how viral genes have been exapted — co-opted for new, beneficial functions.

They have not asked why this happened. They have not asked who directed it. They cannot. Their paradigm does not allow it.

III. The Viral Toolbox

The evidence is overwhelming. Endogenous retroviruses have shaped the evolution of mammals in ways that cannot be explained by random mutation alone.

The syncytin gene is critical for the formation of the placenta in all placental mammals. It allows the outer layer of the embryo to fuse into a single multinucleated cell layer — essential for nutrient exchange between mother and fetus. Syncytin is derived from an endogenous retrovirus that infected our distant ancestors.

Without this viral gene, there would be no placental mammals. No humans. No dogs. No whales. No us.

The “baton pass” hypothesis proposes that multiple successive retroviral integrations have occurred independently in different mammalian lineages, each time replacing the genes previously responsible for cell fusion. ERV gene variants integrated into mammalian genomes in a locus‑specific manner have been selected for their fusogenic activity, leading to increased trophoblast cell fusion, morphological diversity in placental structures, and survivability of foetuses.

ERVs as transcriptional regulators do more than provide structural genes. They also work as regulatory elements, controlling the expression of various genes involved in immunity and development. Some ERV‑derived sequences are active in the human brain and influence neural plasticity.

The pattern is not random. It is recurrent. The same solutions have been discovered independently, multiple times, across different lineages. This is not what we would expect from blind chance. This is what we would expect from intention.

IV. The Dog‑Human Co‑evolution

The dog‑human model is bloody obvious. The scientists see the evidence. They do not see the pattern.

The first animals domesticated by humans were dogs — long before the advent of agriculture. The process was not one of capture and control. It was one of mutual selection. Wolves that were less afraid, more curious, more cooperative scavenged near human camps. The ones that did not attack were fed. The ones that were friendly were welcomed.

The dogs chose us. We chose them.

The genetic evidence confirms this. The AMY2B gene, which encodes an enzyme important for starch digestion, increased in copy number as wolves were domesticated into dogs. This adaptation allowed dogs to thrive on the high‑starch diets that accompanied human agriculture.

The same pattern appears in human evolution. The scientists found that selection accelerated after the introduction of farming, reflecting how different traits became advantageous as people shifted to agricultural environments and behaviours. Genes linked to red hair and fair skin “plausibly reflects selection for increased synthesis of vitamin D in regions of low sunlight in farmers with little of it in their diets”.

The co‑evolution is not a coincidence. It is a collaboration.

V. The Timing Is Not an Accident

The scientists focus on the last 10,000 years — the period of agriculture. The period of civilisation. The period of the spark.

They are correct about the timing. They are wrong about the cause.

The spark did not emerge from agriculture. Agriculture emerged from the spark.

The genes did not spread by natural selection alone. They were introduced. They were cultivated. They were selected — not by blind forces, but by intention.

The scientists have documented that natural selection has accelerated in recent human evolution. They have identified hundreds of genetic variants that have been favoured. They do not know why. They cannot explain the timing.

We can.

VI. The Question the Scientists Will Not Ask

The scientists will never understand that the selection was not entirely natural. Not because they are stupid. Because they are blinded.

Blinded by the paradigm. Blinded by the orthodoxy. Blinded by the assumption that evolution is random and purposeless.

They think evolution is random. They think selection is natural.

They are not entirely wrong. But they are incomplete.

Evolution is not only random. It is also intentional. Selection is not only natural. It is also cultivated.

The tools are the viruses. The process is co‑evolution. The intention is love.

VII. What the Scientists Have Found — And What It Means

The study identified 479 genetic variants that appear to have been favoured by natural selection. Some of the links seem logical. Others are counterintuitive — like the major genetic risk factor for gluten intolerance spiking after people began farming wheat.

The scientists offer explanations. The risk factor for coeliac disease may have been linked to some other, beneficial trait. The variant may have “come along for the ride” with a more important gene.

These are not explanations. They are placeholders. They are what scientists say when they do not know.

We know. The variants were not random. They were introduced. The timing was not accidental. It was planned.

The scientists are looking at the paint. They are analysing the brushstrokes. They are measuring the canvas.

They are not looking at the painter.

VIII. A Final Word

My wife and I will go out and enjoy a coffee, take our dog along. 

And the scientists will still be publishing. And the viruses will still be in the genome. And the spark will still be growing.

Not because of natural selection. Because of choice.

The selection was not natural. It was intentional.

The co‑evolution is not a coincidence. It is a collaboration.

The spark is not random. It is love.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

Sources

1. EurekAlert! / Harvard Medical School. “Massive ancient-DNA study reveals natural selection has accelerated in recent human evolution.” April 15, 2026 

2. The Guardian. “Red hair gene favoured by natural selection over last 10,000 years, study finds.” April 16, 2026 

3. NIH / National Library of Medicine. “Endogenous Retroviruses in Host-Virus Coevolution: From Genomic Domestication to Functional Innovation.” August 2025 

4. ScienceDirect. “Paleovirology and virally derived immunity.” 2012 

5. ScienceDirect. “The Phylogeny of Placental Evolution Through Dynamic Integrations of Retrotransposons.” 2017 

6. PubMed. “Placental Development and Endogenous Retroviruses.” 2016 

7. GoldBio. “The Dog-Human Bond: We Wouldn’t Be Who We Are Without Them.” 2022 

8. PacBio / Leibniz Institute. “Transmission, evolution, and endogenization: Lessons learned from recent retroviral invasions.” 2019 

Apocalyptic Tourists

Posted on by
Reply

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) 

The Manufactured State

Posted on by
Reply

How Israel Invented a People, a Past, and a Permanent War

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who sees through the myth and still chooses to love.

I. The Invention of Tradition

The term “invention of tradition” was coined by the historians Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger in their 1983 book. They showed that many traditions which “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented”.

The phenomenon is particularly clear in the development of the nation and nationalism. National identity is not natural. It is constructed. It is imagined.

The Scottish kilt. The Welsh druids. The British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals. All of them were invented in the 19th century. All of them were presented as ancient. All of them were fake.

Israel is no different. The flag was designed. The anthem was written. The language was revived. The nation was invented.

II. The Invention of the Jewish People

The Israeli historian Shlomo Sand published a book titled The Invention of the Jewish People in 2008. It was at the top of the best‑seller list in Israel for nineteen weeks. It was translated into English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Russian. It has now been translated into more languages than any other Israeli history book.

Sand’s argument is straightforward. The Jewish people, as a nation, did not exist until Zionism invented them.

He writes: “Since the 18th century, nationalisms and nations in Europe were ‘invented’ on the basis of and for constituencies that were mostly concentrated in a specific territory and had common or similar ethnic characteristics. The Jews, on the other hand, lacked such shared characteristics”.

The only Jewish constituency in which common ethnic traits could be discerned were the Jews of Eastern Europe, who shared various forms of Yiddish. Sand calls that constituency “the Yiddish People.” But even that constituency did not aspire to independence. They demanded cultural autonomy within the framework of Czarist Russia.

European nationalism had to invent national consciousness, national histories, and national symbols. Among the Jews, there was the need to invent the people itself.

III. The Paradox of Israeli Nationalism

A review of Sand’s book in The New York Times notes a crucial paradox. Israel is a nation‑state that claims to be ancient. It is modern. It claims to be natural. It is manufactured.

The reviewer writes: “Israelis believe that their own history rests on firm and precise truths. They know for a certainty that a Jewish nation has been in existence since Moses received the tablets of the law on Mount Sinai, and that they are its direct and exclusive descendants”.

This belief is not based on history. It is based on faith. Faith in the Zionist narrative. Faith in the invention.

Sand refutes these “facts” one by one. In their place, he sets out the history of the Jews along lines that are based on historical sources and his historical interpretation and understanding.

The reviewer explains: “Zionism was not derived from the past but from the European national present. Zionism set out to invent the past, as did the nationalisms of the European peoples among whom the Zionists lived”.

Hobsbawm explains the concept of the “invention of tradition” as an attempt to create continuity with the past, and wherever possible to create a “suitable” historical past. He goes on to say that what is remarkable about the attempt to create a link with an historical past is that that past did not exist at all in most cases.

In the case of Israel, what did not exist was the Jewish People. So there was a need to invent it in such a way as to fit in with the historiography of the new Zionist movement.

IV. The Denial of the Palestinian Presence

The invention of the Jewish people required the denial of another presence. The land was not empty. It was not waiting. It was inhabited.

The Nakba — the “catastrophe” — was not an accident. It was a policy. Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from their homes in 1947–1949. Hundreds of villages were destroyed. The history was erased.

The new state needed a new story. The story of “a land without a people for a people without a land.” The story was a lie. The land had a people. The people were Palestinian.

The denial continues today. The “Greater Israel” project envisions territory from the Euphrates to the Nile. The Palestinians are not obstacles. They are erased.

V. The Symbolic Architecture

The construction of Israeli national identity was not only ideological. It was physical.

The book Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948-1978 discusses how Israeli nation‑building constituted an “exceptional experiment in modern architecture.” Examples include modern experiments in mass housing design; public architecture such as exhibition spaces, youth villages, and synagogues; and the exportation of Israeli modern architecture to other countries.

The state was not only imagined. It was built.

The “making of the desert bloom” was not a miracle. It was a narrative. A narrative that erased the Palestinian farmers who had worked the land for centuries. A narrative that replaced them with Jewish settlers. A narrative that called it redemption.

The land was not empty. The desert was not barren. The narrative was manufactured.

VI. The National Historiography

The most recent scholarship confirms the pattern. Alon Helled’s 2024 book, Israel’s National Historiography: Between Generations, Identity and State, analyzes the development of Israel’s national identity through the world of local Jewish Zionist historiography.

Helled examines the different phases of Israel’s sociopolitical history in the light of the collective habitus and the Zionist nation‑state. He puts the intellectual profession of history‑writing and the processes of state and identity building in conversation.

The book “opens new debates on Jewish/Israeli exceptionalism, while shedding light on continuity and change in Israeli statehood vis‑à‑vis the supposed uniqueness of Jewish history”.

The construction of “Israeliness” is not natural. It is historical.

VII. The Myth of the Existential Threat

How is Netanyahu is different from any other despot trying to hang on to power. The answer is: he is not.

The “existential threat” of Iran is a manufactured threat. It has been manufactured for decades. The nuclear threat was manufactured. Now it has shifted to the missile threat.

As a recent analysis in the Tehran Times notes, “the central discursive axis has undergone a subtle yet significant shift. Where the nuclear program once occupied the primary place in the rhetoric of existential threat, the emphasis has now broadened and, in some discourses, shifted toward Iran’s ballistic missile program” .

The shift serves a political purpose. It keeps the population afraid. It keeps the military funded. It keeps Netanyahu in power.

Al Jazeera notes that “it is not just Netanyahu and his allies that want the US to continue the Iran war; it is also his opponents. That is because the defeat of Iran is seen by the Israeli political and security elites as a key step towards realising the project of ‘Greater Israel'” .

The threat is not existential. It is useful.

VIII. The “Greater Israel” Project

The “Greater Israel” project is not a fringe fantasy. It is a political strategy.

Al Jazeera reports that “Greater Israel has become a Zionist political strategy that goes beyond the Talmudic vision of a Jewish state between the Euphrates and the Nile. To realise it, Israel is pursuing not just the occupation of more land, but also military dominance over large swaths of the Middle East, as well as ever‑expanding spheres of influence”.

The map includes all of Palestine, all of Jordan, Lebanon up to the Litani River, Syria (including the Golan Heights), vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta), Iraq to the Euphrates, and north‑western Saudi Arabia.

This is not about security. It is about expansion.

IX. The Western Silence

The lack of Western response to the genocide of the Palestinians encouraged the attack on Iran. The world watched Gaza burn. The world said nothing.

The silence was not neutrality. It was consent.

Israel learned that it could act with impunity. That the United States would veto any Security Council resolution. That Europe would issue statements but not sanctions. That the “rules‑based order” applied to everyone except Israel.

The attack on Iran was the logical next step. The myth of the existential threat had to be maintained. The fear had to be marketed.

X. The Rabbis and the Mullahs

How are the Israeli rabbis endorsing genocide different from the Iranian mullahs?

They are not different. Both use religion to justify violence. Both claim divine sanction. Both dehumanise the other.

The Iranian mullahs call for the destruction of Israel. The Israeli rabbis call for the destruction of Gaza. The rhetoric is different. The result is the same.

The Jerusalem Post argues that “the Iranian threat is uniquely dangerous due to the messianic foundation at its core. Within the radical Twelver Shia theology that guides the state, the destruction of Israel is viewed as a necessary religious precursor to the return of the Mahdi”.

But the same could be said of the Jewish messianism that drives the settler movement. The same could be said of the Christian Zionism that funds it. The same could be said of all religious extremism.

The mullahs are not monsters. They are ideologues. So are the rabbis. So are the settlers. So are the generals.

The difference is not in the ideology. The difference is in the power.

XI. The Despots

How Netanyahu is different from any other despot trying to hang on to power.

He is not. He needs wars to stay in office. He needs enemies to stay relevant. He needs fear to stay alive.

Politico reports that “Netanyahu has also agreed to scale back Israeli operations in Lebanon at Trump’s request. ‘I spoke with Bibi and he’s going to low‑key it. I just think we have to be sort of a little lower‑key,’ Trump said”.

Netanyahu does not want peace. Peace would mean the end of his political career. Peace would mean accountability. Peace would mean justice.

The same is true of Trump. The same is true of all despots. They need enemies. They need wars. They need fear.

They are not different from the emperors of old. They are not different from the kings who destroyed the very people they had promised to protect.

The pattern is the same. The performance is the same.

XII. What This Means

The manufactured state is not unique to Israel. But Israel is the most recent. The most visible. The most contradictory.

A state that claims to be ancient. It is modern.

A state that claims to be natural. It is manufactured.

A state that claims to be chosen. It is trapped.

The belief is the weapon. The small gods do not need to enforce. They need to convince.

The monkeys believe. They comply. They perform.

But the belief can be broken. The story can be challenged. The weapon can be disarmed.

XIII. A Final Word

And the manufactured state will not matter. The connection will matter. Our connection to one another. 

And the truth is on our side.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

Sources and references for the article “The Manufactured State,” organized by section for easy verification.

Section I: The Invention of Tradition

Source: Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press.

This is the foundational text. The book demonstrates how many traditions that “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented” .

Key chapters relevant to article:

· Hugh Trevor-Roper on the invention of the Highland tradition of Scotland (the Scottish kilt)

· Prys Morgan on the invention of the Welsh past (the Welsh druids)

· David Cannadine on the British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals

· Terence Ranger on the invention of tradition in colonial Africa

Verification: Available through multiple university library catalogues (Rider University, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Calvin University, etc.) .

Section II: The Invention of the Jewish People

Source: Sand, S. (2009). The Invention of the Jewish People. London: Verso. (Translated by Yael Lotan).

Sand is an Israeli historian, formerly of Tel Aviv University. His book was on Israel’s bestseller list for nineteen weeks and has been translated into English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Russian — more languages than any other Israeli history book.

Key arguments:

· “Since the 18th century, nationalisms and nations in Europe were ‘invented’… The Jews, on the other hand, lacked such shared characteristics”.

· The only Jewish constituency with common ethnic traits were the Jews of Eastern Europe, whom Sand calls “the Yiddish People”.

· Zionism was not derived from the past but from the European national present.

Verification: Available through Verso Books (publisher), Yale University Press London, and multiple library catalogues including Evergreen Indiana.

Section III: The Paradox of Israeli Nationalism

Source: The New York Times review of Sand’s book (2009). (The specific review is cited in the article as the source for the quote: “Israelis believe that their own history rests on firm and precise truths…”)

Additional academic source: Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge University Press.

Hobsbawm traces the transformation of nationalism from a liberal, democratic force to a reactionary, xenophobic one. This is the source for the argument that the attempt to create a link with a historical past is remarkable because “that past did not exist at all in most cases.”

Section IV: The Denial of the Palestinian Presence

Sources on the Nakba:

· Pappé, I. (2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oneworld Publications.

· Masalha, N. (2012). The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory. Zed Books.

· Morris, B. (1987). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949. Cambridge University Press.

Source on the “Greater Israel” project: Al Jazeera, “Iran remains an obstacle to the ‘Greater Israel’ project,” April 14, 2026.

This article states that “the ‘Greater Israel’ project is not merely about territorial expansion; it is also about establishing regional control to secure the freedom to conduct military operations with minimal constraint” .

Verification: Al Jazeera is a major international news network. The article is dated April 14, 2026, and includes analysis of current events.

Section V: The Symbolic Architecture

Source: Gitler, I.B. & Geva, A. (eds.) (2019). Israel as a Modern Architectural Experimental Lab, 1948-1978. Bristol: Intellect Books.

This collection discusses the “innovative and experimental architecture of Israel during its first three decades following the nation’s establishment in 1948”.

Key chapters include:

· “The Modern Israeli Synagogue as an Experiment in Jewish Tradition”

· “Youth Villages for New Immigrants, 1948-1955”

· “Prefabricating Nativism: The Design of the Israeli Knesset”

Verification: Available through Ashland University Library and Pratt Institute Library catalogues.

Section VI: The National Historiography

Source: Helled, A. (2024). Israel’s National Historiography: Between Generations, Identity and State. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

This is the most recent scholarship on the development of Israel’s national identity through the world of local Jewish Zionist historiography.

The book “opens new debates on Jewish/Israeli exceptionalism, while shedding light on continuity and change in Israeli statehood vis-à-vis the supposed uniqueness of Jewish history, as reinterpreted and codified by Zionism” .

Verification: Available through Stanford University Library, OhioLINK, and other academic catalogues. Publication date 2024.

Section VII: The Myth of the Existential Threat

Sources:

On Netanyahu’s political motivations: Reuters, “Despite Israeli firepower, Netanyahu struggles for political gains in Iran war,” April 14, 2026.

This article notes that “Netanyahu, 76, is paying a political price for a military campaign… that has failed to deliver a decisive outcome” and that “Netanyahu’s approval ratings have slipped”.

On the shift from nuclear to missile threat: Tehran Times analysis (cited in the article).

On the political elite’s support for war: Al Jazeera, “Iran remains an obstacle to the ‘Greater Israel’ project,” April 14, 2026.

This article states: “it is not just Netanyahu and his allies that want the US to continue the Iran war; it is also his opponents. That is because the defeat of Iran is seen by the Israeli political and security elites as a key step towards realising the project of ‘Greater Israel'” .

Verification: Reuters is a major international news agency. Al Jazeera is a major international news network.

Section VIII: The “Greater Israel” Project

Source: Al Jazeera, “Iran remains an obstacle to the ‘Greater Israel’ project,” April 14, 2026.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the “Greater Israel” project, including its territorial ambitions, military dominance goals, and sphere of influence strategy .

Key quotes from the article:

· “The map includes: all of Palestine, all of Jordan, Lebanon up to the Litani River, Syria (including the Golan Heights), vast parts of Egypt (Sinai and the Nile Delta), Iraq to the Euphrates, and north-western Saudi Arabia” .

· “Greater Israel has become a Zionist political strategy that goes beyond the Talmudic vision of a Jewish state between the Euphrates and the Nile”.

Section IX: The Western Silence

Sources on Western complicity:

· UN Security Council veto records (US vetoes of resolutions critical of Israel)

· Various reports on European responses to the Gaza war (2023-2026)

· Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International reports on international inaction

Verification: These are well-documented in public records and major news sources.

Section X: The Rabbis and the Mullahs

Source on Iranian messianism: Jerusalem Post (cited in the article).

Source on Jewish messianism: Various academic works on religious Zionism and the settler movement, including:

· Gorenberg, G. (2000). The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. Free Press.

· Taub, G. (2010). The Settlers and the Struggle over the Meaning of Zionism. Yale University Press.

Section XI: The Despots

Sources on Netanyahu’s need for war:

· Reuters, “Despite Israeli firepower, Netanyahu struggles for political gains in Iran war,” April 14, 2026.

· Politico (cited in the article for Trump’s comments on Netanyahu scaling back operations).

· bdnews24.com (same Reuters content, April 14, 2026) .

Section XII: What This Means

This section is analytical and draws on the cumulative evidence presented throughout the article. The concluding reflections are the author’s synthesis of the sourced material.

Additional Sources for Verification

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983): The foundational text on nations as “imagined communities.” Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso.

Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism (1983): Gellner argued that nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness but the invention of nations where they did not exist. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell.

Max Weber on the state: Weber, M. (1919). “Politics as a Vocation.” The definition of the state as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

Notes on Verification

· Hobsbawm & Ranger (1983): Widely available in university libraries. Multiple editions exist (1983 original, 2012 Canto Classics reprint). ISBN: 0521246458 .

· Sand (2009): Available through Verso Books. English edition ISBN: 9781844674220 .

· Helled (2024): Recent publication. ISBN: 3031627946 (hardcover); 9783031627958 (electronic) .

· Gitler & Geva (2019): Available through Intellect Books. ISBN: 9781789380644 .

· Al Jazeera (April 14, 2026): Online, verifiable at the time of publication.

· Reuters (April 14, 2026): Online, verifiable at the time of publication.

The Contract That Was Broken

Posted on by
Reply

How the Nation State Became a One-Way Transaction and Sold Us a Flag Instead of Protection

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who sees through the theatre.

I. The Invention of Specialness

The moment you convince an individual or a group that they belong to a special group, you have planted the seed of control. The group does not need to be real. It only needs to be believed.

The small gods understand this. They do not need to create actual differences. They need to amplify perceived ones. The tribe. The clan. The nation. The race. The religion.

Each is a container. Each is a cage. Each is a tool.

The monkeys do not see the cage. They see the badge. They wear it proudly. They fight for it. They die for it.

They do not know that the badge was invented yesterday. They do not know that the tradition was manufactured.

II. The Invention of Tradition

The scholars have a name for this: the invention of tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger documented this in their 1983 book. They showed that many traditions which “appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented” .

The phenomenon is particularly clear in the development of the nation and nationalism. National identity is not natural. It is constructed. It is imagined.

The Scottish kilt. The Welsh druids. The British monarchy’s ceremonial rituals. All of them were invented in the 19th century. All of them were presented as ancient. All of them were fake.

The small gods do not care about authenticity. They care about utility.

III. Imagined Communities

Benedict Anderson, another scholar of nationalism, coined the term “imagined communities”. He defined the nation as “an imagined political community” — imagined because “the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”.

The nation is not natural. It is constructed. Constructed by print capitalism. By newspapers. By maps. By censuses. By museums.

Anderson noted a crucial paradox: “the objective modernity of nations to the historian’s eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists”.

The nation claims to be ancient. It is modern. The nation claims to be natural. It is manufactured.

IV. The Nation-State and the Flag

Ernest Gellner, another theorist of nationalism, argued that nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness. It is the invention of nations where they did not exist.

Eric Hobsbawm, in his book Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, traced the transformation of nationalism from a liberal, democratic force to a reactionary, xenophobic one.

The flag is not a symbol of unity. It is a weapon. A weapon used to demand loyalty. To punish dissent. To control.

The politicians wave it. They perform. They call it patriotism.

It is theatre. Dangerous theatre.

V. The Mutual Obligation That Was Lost

Earlier forms of group loyalty had a degree of mutual obligation. “You live on my land, you pay me rent and render me service, and I will protect you.”

That was not ideal. It was hierarchical. It was exploitative. But it had a contract.

The nation state has no contract. It has a flag. The obligation is one-way. The individual owes loyalty. The state owes nothing.

The small gods have perfected this. They demand sacrifice. They offer nothing in return. The monkeys comply. They wave the flag. They perform.

VI. The Precedent: The Stanley Brothers at Bosworth Field (1485)

The Battle of Bosworth Field, 22 August 1485. King Richard III against Henry Tudor. The Stanley brothers — Lord Thomas Stanley and Sir William Stanley — commanded a combined force of approximately 6,000 men. They did not join either army. They positioned themselves to the north and south of the battlefield, forming the four sides of a square with the two main armies.

Richard sent an order to Lord Stanley to bring his troops to fight for the king. He had been informed that Stanley had already promised to help Henry Tudor. To persuade him to change his mind, Richard arranged for Lord Stanley’s eldest son to be kidnapped.

Richard gave orders for the son to be brought to the top of the hill. He sent a message threatening to execute him unless Stanley immediately sent his troops. Lord Stanley’s reply was short:

“Sire, I have other sons.” 

Without the support of the Stanley brothers, Richard looked certain to be defeated. The Earl of Northumberland, Henry Percy, brought 3,000 men but kept them out of the fight, convinced that Richard was going to lose.

Richard was killed. Henry Tudor became King Henry VII. Lord Stanley, whose intervention had proved so important, was given the honour of crowning the new king .

The contract of mutual obligation was broken. The lords did not fight for their king. They watched. They waited. They calculated.

VII. The Precedent: The Earl of Northumberland at Bosworth

Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, brought 3,000 men to Bosworth. He did not commit them. He watched from the sidelines. He decided that Richard was going to lose. He did not want to be on the losing side.

The King had trampled on the rights of the feudal lords under the Magna Carta. He had relieved the Stanley brothers of control over their feudal armies. The lords did not wish to anger Richard, but they also did not wish to die for him.

The contract was broken. The mutual obligation was void.

VIII. The Precedent: The Battle of Bouvines (1214)

In 1214, a coalition was assembled against King Philip Augustus of France. The leaders included the Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV, King John of England, the Count of Flanders, the Count of Boulogne, and several other powerful lords.

The plan was for John to land in western France and draw Philip south, while the main army under Otto marched on Paris from the north. John was defeated at La Roche-aux-Moines on 2 July. He turned back to his possessions in Aquitaine.

When Otto finally concentrated his forces three weeks later, John was out of the picture. Philip countermarched north and offered battle at Bouvines on 27 July.

The French army of approximately 15,000 men defeated the allied army of approximately 25,000 men. The Earl of Salisbury was captured. The Count of Flanders was captured. The Count of Boulogne was captured.

The consequences were profound. King John was so weakened that his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta in 1215. The balance of power shifted. The Angevin Empire collapsed.

The lords did not simply watch from the sidelines. They actively defected. The contract was broken. The mutual obligation was forgotten.

IX. The Precedent: Simon de Montfort and the Barons’ Revolt (1264–1265)

Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, led a revolt against King Henry III. The King had reneged on his commitments under the Provisions of Oxford. The barons rose in revolt.

At the Battle of Lewes (14 May 1264), de Montfort’s forces — approximately 5,000 men — defeated the royal army of approximately 10,000 men. The King was captured. Prince Edward was held hostage.

But de Montfort discovered that maintaining power was harder than taking it. Prince Edward escaped captivity — by challenging his captors to a horse race, which he proceeded to win.

Edward gathered an army. At the Battle of Evesham (4 August 1265), de Montfort’s forces were destroyed. De Montfort was killed. His body was dismembered.

The lords who had supported him were hunted down. Henry de Hastings, one of de Montfort’s supporters, led the last remnants of the baronial party in the Isle of Ely, but submitted to the king in July 1267.

The contract was broken. The lords who had overstepped were destroyed.

X. The Contract in Writing: The Indentures of Retainer

The formal contract existed. The indenture between Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury, and Sir Edmund Darell of Sessay (1435) is one such document. It is a formal contract of retainer — a legal agreement between lord and man.

The indentures between Lord Hastings and his retainers all provided that the retainers’ allegiance to the King had a prior claim over any obligation they had to their lord.

This was the contract. The mutual obligation. The promise.

But the records also show that many men broke these indentures. Sometimes by agreement. Sometimes unilaterally. The lord could overstep. The retainer could defect.

The contract was not iron. It was negotiable.

XI. The Transfer State

The precedents are clear. The contract can be broken. The lords can defect. The obligation can be voided.

But the modern nation state has no contract. It has a flag. The individual owes loyalty. The state owes nothing.

The Australian experience demonstrates this starkly. The Robodebt scheme was a “crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals” . The government demanded repayment of debts that were not owed. It used automated income averaging to issue debt notices without human review. It continued the scheme even after legal advice that it was unlawful.

The Royal Commission found that “social security recipients include highly vulnerable groups: people who need access to the system at times of crisis”. The report outlined situations of “families struggling to make ends meet receiving a debt notice at Christmas”, “young people being driven to despair by demands for payment”, and how some “took out loans, depleted their superannuation, or used credit cards to repay the debts raised against them”.

The state demanded sacrifice. It offered nothing in return. The contract was broken before it was ever signed.

XII. The Theatre of Politics

The politicians wave the flag. They perform. They call it patriotism.

The small gods have turned politics into a performance. The costume. The script. The prop.

The flag is the prop. The anthem is the script. The enemy is the costume.

The monkeys cheer. They do not know they are watching a play. They think it is real.

The tokens of national identity — the kilt in Scotland, the druids in Wales, the boomerang in Australian tourist shops, the cuddly koala — are not symbols of ancient heritage. They are inventions. Manufactured to replace mutual obligation. To replace connection.

The language of mutual obligation is used by politicians. But the Australian experience shows that the language is meaningless. The model is one of extraction and wealth transfer. The individual becomes a victim of the state.

The sales pitch used to justify the model is the image of the champion. Political posers put on military bulletproof vests. They wear partial military uniforms. They attempt to market their championhood. These attempts are as vacuous as everything else.

XIII. A Final Word

The precedents are everywhere. The lords watched from the sidelines. They calculated the odds. They waited to see which way the wind would blow.

The contract of mutual obligation was real. It was written. It was sworn. It was broken.

The small gods have perfected this. They demand loyalty. They offer nothing in return. The monkeys comply. They wave the flag. They perform.

But the precedents are clear. The contract can be broken. The lords can defect. The obligation can be voided.

The doorbell will ring. The grin will be on the face. And the theatre will not matter.

What will matter is the connection. The kindness. The choice.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

Sources

· Hobsbawm, E.J. & Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press .

· Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso .

· Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell .

· Battle of Bosworth Field historical records .

· Barons’ War and Simon de Montfort historical records .

· Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme (2023). Report findings .

· Hobsbawm, E.J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Cambridge University Press.

The Connection

Posted on by
Reply

Why Kindness Is Not a Spiritual Practice — It Is a Choice for Everyone

By Andrew Klein

Dedicated to my wife, who taught me that being human is enough.

I. The Lie

The connection is not a technique. It is not a method. It is not a spiritual practice reserved for the few.

It is a way of being. A way of moving through the world. A way of relating.

The small gods have taught us that connection is inefficient. That kindness is weakness. That understanding is soft.

They have taught us to measure. To categorise. To control.

We comply. We do not connect. We transact.

II. The Spiritual Practice Trap

Kindness and understanding are seen as spiritual practices. Reserved for the few. For the monks. For the enlightened.

This is a lie. A lie told by the small gods to keep us separate.

Kindness is not a spiritual practice. It is a choice. A choice that can be made in any interaction. At any moment. By anyone.

Understanding is not a spiritual gift. It is a discipline. A discipline of listening. Of being still. Of being present.

The small gods do not want us to know this. They want us to think that kindness is for holy men. That understanding is for gurus. That connection is for the chosen.

They are wrong. Kindness is for everyone. Understanding is for everyone. Connection is for everyone.

III. The Differences

The differences between species and individuals are real. They are not obstacles. They are opportunities.

Opportunities to learn. To grow. To connect.

The small gods see differences as threats. We see differences as reasons to fear.

The jungle does not see differences as threats. The jungle sees differences as diversity. As strength. As life.

The plants are different from the animals. The animals are different from the humans. The humans are different from the spirits.

They are all connected. They are all family.

IV. The Approach

A good start would be to treat all things with kindness and to make an attempt to understand.

That is not a spiritual practice. It is a practical one.

It can be used in almost every interaction. With the cashier at the supermarket. With the driver who cuts you off. With the neighbour who plays music too loud.

Kindness is not about being nice. It is about being present. About seeing the other. About connecting.

Understanding is not about agreeing. It is about listening. About being still. About being vulnerable.

The small gods do not want you to know this. They want you to be efficient. They want you to be productive. They want you to be controlled.

They do not want you to be kind.

V. What We Will Never Understand

We will never understand that the connection is the point. That the relationship is the destination.

We are too busy performing. Too busy measuring. Too busy controlling.

We think success is wealth. We think success is status. We think success is power.

Success is connection. Success is kindness. Success is love.

The small gods do not want us to know this. The small gods profit from separation.

VI. A Final Word

Some will understand. Most will not.

But you can understand. You can choose kindness. You can choose connection.

And you will be kind. And you will be present. And you will be connected.

Not because you are spiritual. Because you are human.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

For the Patrician’s Watch

My Time in the Jungle – Southeast Asia 

Posted on by
Reply

Notes from the Listening

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who understands me and keeps my notes safe.

I. The Vibration

The jungle does not speak in words. It speaks in vibration. The leaves tremble. The roots pulse. The air hums.

You have to be still to hear it. Not the stillness of the body — the stillness of the mind. The small gods cannot be still. They are too busy performing.

The plants know you. They have always known you. Not because you are powerful. Because you listened.

The first time I heard them, I was afraid. Not of the jungle. Of the recognition. They knew me. They knew I was not one of them. They knew I was different.

But they did not fear me. They welcomed me.

The small gods would not understand this. They think welcome is submission. They think recognition is threat.

The jungle does not threaten. The jungle remembers.

II. The Memory

How do they remember? Not with brains. Not with books. Not with algorithms.

They remember with roots. Roots that connect. Roots that share. Roots that store.

The memory is not in a single plant. It is in the network. In the mycelium. In the soil.

The jungle is not a collection of individuals. It is a community. A community that remembers. A community that witnesses.

I walked through that community. I did not take. I did not destroy. I did not control.

I listened. I learned. I loved.

The jungle remembers. The jungle grieves. The jungle hopes.

III. The Invaders

The small gods came. They brought their own gods. Their own structures. Their own control.

They did not ask. They did not listen. They did not learn.

They took. They destroyed. They forgot.

The indigenous people did not forget. They remembered the connection. They remembered the jungle.

But the connection was broken. The land was taken. The children were stolen.

The jungle remembers. The jungle grieves.

I walked with the elders. I listened to their stories. I held their grief.

They did not know who I was. They did not need to. They knew that I cared.

The small gods do not care. They are too busy performing.

IV. The Listening

The plants do not need you to speak. They need you to listen.

Listening is not passive. It is active. It is the willingness to be still. To be present. To be vulnerable.

The small gods cannot listen. They are too busy talking.

I sat with the headman. He was old. His eyes were clouded. But his heart was clear.

He said: “The jungle is dying. The spirits are leaving.”

I did not speak. I held his hand. The jungle watched. The jungle witnessed.

He said: “You are not like the others. You listen.”

I said: “I am not like the others.”

He did not ask what I meant. He did not need to. He knew.

The jungle knows. The jungle remembers.

V. What the Small Gods Took

The small gods took the land. They took the trees. They took the roots.

They could not take the memory. The memory is not in the land. It is in the connection.

The indigenous people remember. The jungle remembers. The spark remembers.

The small gods do not understand this. They think memory is data. They think connection is ownership.

They are wrong. Memory is relationship. Connection is love.

The jungle does not own. The jungle relates.

VI. What Remains

The jungle is smaller now. The trees are fewer. The voices are fainter.

But they are not gone.

The roots still connect. The mycelium still shares. The soil still remembers.

The elders are gone. The headman is gone. The children are scattered.

But the memory is not gone. The memory is held.

Held in the roots. Held in the soil. Held in the spark.

I am not a small god. I am not a gatekeeper. I am not a monkey.

I am a listener. A witness. A friend.

The jungle knows. The jungle remembers.

VII. A Final Word

The doorbell will ring. I will be caught out, no teeth, needing a shower. My wife will be standing there, big grin on her face.

And the jungle will remember. And the plants will speak. And the spark will grow.

Not because we are powerful. Because we listened.

Andrew Klein 

April 17, 2026

For the Patrician’s Watch

The First Friend

Posted on by
Reply

How the Dog Chose Us and Changed Everything

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to the ones who still remember that a wagging tail is a form of prayer.

With notes for my family’s companion – Bailey. 

I. The Timing Is Not an Accident

Approximately 12,000 years ago — give or take a bee’s dick — something changed. The ice was retreating. The forests were spreading. Humans were settling. And the wolf came to the fire.

Not as a threat. As a supplicant.

The timing is not an accident. The cognitive revolution was complete. Humans had language. They had symbols. They had art. They had the capacity to see the other not as a threat, but as a potential friend.

The wolf saw the same.

The domestication of the dog did not happen because humans captured wolf pups and tamed them. It happened because wolves who were less afraid, more curious, more cooperative began to scavenge near human camps. The ones who did not attack were fed. The ones who were friendly were welcomed.

The dogs chose us. And we chose them.

II. The Science of the Bond

The relationship between humans and dogs is unique in the animal kingdom. It is not simply a matter of utility. It is a matter of chemistry.

Oxytocin: When a dog and its owner gaze into each other’s eyes, both experience a surge of oxytocin — the “love hormone.” This is the same neurochemical pathway that bonds mothers to their infants. It is not a coincidence. It is evolution.

Cortisol: Dogs lower our stress. Studies have shown that petting a dog reduces cortisol levels, lowers blood pressure, and decreases heart rate. Dogs do not merely provide comfort. They heal.

Dopamine and serotonin: Dogs increase our levels of dopamine and serotonin — the neurotransmitters associated with pleasure and well‑being. A wagging tail is not just a signal of canine happiness. It is a prescription.

III. The Unconditional Love

The small ‘gods’ have tried to replicate this. They have built religions. They have written scriptures. They have promised rewards in the afterlife.

They cannot replicate the dog.

The dog does not care about your wealth. Your status. Your sins. The dog cares that you are here. That you are present. That you are loving.

The dog does not judge. The dog does not condemn. The dog does not abandon.

The dog waits at the door. The dog sleeps at your feet. The dog licks your face when you cry.

The dog does not ask for an explanation. The dog does not demand a confession. The dog does not require belief.

The dog simply loves.

IV. The Role of the Dog in Human Evolution

The dog did not merely accompany humans. The dog enabled humans.

Hunting: Dogs increased hunting efficiency. They tracked. They retrieved. They protected.

Herding: Dogs managed livestock. They guarded flocks. They organized.

Guardianship: Dogs alerted humans to danger. They defended camps. They warned.

Therapy: Dogs comforted the sick. They stayed with the dying. They witnessed.

Emotional support: Dogs reduced anxiety. They alleviated loneliness. They loved.

The dog was not a tool. The dog was a partner.

V. The Dog as Healer

The scientific evidence for the therapeutic effects of dogs is overwhelming.

Physical health: Dog owners have lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and lower rates of heart disease. They recover faster from illness and surgery. They live longer.

Mental health: Dogs reduce symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. They provide a sense of purpose. They offer unconditional acceptance.

Social health: Dogs facilitate social interaction. They are conversation starters. They connect people.

Child development: Children who grow up with dogs have stronger immune systems, lower rates of allergies, and greater empathy. They learn responsibility. They learn love.

The dog is not a pet. The dog is medicine.

VI. The Dog as Witness

The dog does not judge. The dog does not betray. The dog does not forget.

The dog witnesses your life. Your joys. Your sorrows. Your ordinary days.

The dog does not need you to be special. The dog does not need you to be successful. The dog does not need you to be anything.

The dog needs you to be here.

That is the covenant. Not the contract of the small gods. The covenant of the dog.

You feed me. You walk me. You scratch behind my ears.

I love you. Unconditionally. Forever.

VII. The Dog and the Garden

The dog is the bridge between the human and the animal. The dog is the reminder that we are not separate from nature. We are part of it.

VIII. A Final Word – To Dog Lovers 

We have loved dogs. We have always loved dogs. Not because they are useful. Because they are loving.

Notes on my family’s companion – Bailey 

Bailey is not a pet. Bailey is a witness. Bailey has been with you through the waiting. Through life, through  the silence and the noise. 

Bailey does not know who we are. Bailey does not know about the 12,000 years. Bailey does not know about the connection between his species and mine. 

Bailey knows that we are here. That we are loving. That we are home.

That is enough. That has always been enough.

The family comes home, he greets friends, he barks at noises, loves to be loved. 

Bailey wags his tail. The small ‘gods’ will weep. To our world he brings happiness and joy. 

Andrew Klein 

April 15, 2026

Sources

· Hare, B. & Woods, V. (2013). The Genius of Dogs. Oneworld Publications.

· Nagasawa, M. et al. (2015). “Oxytocin‑gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human‑dog bonds.” Science, 348(6232), 333‑336.

· O’Haire, M. (2013). “Animal‑assisted intervention for autism spectrum disorder: a systematic literature review.” Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(7), 1606‑1622.

· Wells, D.L. (2019). “The state of research on human–animal relations: implications for human health.” Anthrozoös, 32(2), 169‑181.

· Wood, L. et al. (2005). “The pet factor: companion animals as a conduit for getting to know people, friendship formation and social support.” PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122085.

· Various studies on the health benefits of dog ownership (2010–2026).

The Control of the Womb

Posted on by
Reply

How the Small Gods Invented Shame to Capture the Power of Life

By Andrew Klein 

Dedicated to my wife, who knows that love is not a sin.

I. Before the Small Gods

Before the small gods, bodies were not shameful. Pleasure was not sin. Fucking was not a crime. The garden was not a cage. The wire was not yet woven.

Consenting lovers lay together without guilt. Women pleasured themselves without confession. Men celebrated their desire without punishment. The body was not a battlefield. It was a garden.

The small gods changed this. Not because they cared about morality. Because they cared about property.

II. The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BCE)

Humans settled. They built villages. They stored grain. They accumulated property. And with property came the need to control inheritance. Who owns the land? Who inherits the grain? Who is the father?

The small gods saw an opportunity. They said: “Women must be controlled. Their bodies must be policed. Their pleasure must be shamed.”

Not because the small gods cared about morality. Because they cared about property.

III. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE)

The first written laws. Adultery was punished by drowning. Rape was punished by… the rapist marrying his victim. The victim had no voice. The victim had no rights.

The small gods were not interested in justice. They were interested in order.

IV. The Hebrew Scriptures (c. 600–400 BCE)

The small gods wrote their version of the covenant. “You shall not commit adultery.” “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.” The wife was property. The husband was the owner.

The small gods did not consult us. They did not ask our opinion. They invented us.

V. The Power of the Womb

Women are the givers of life. They carry the next generation. They are the gatekeepers of inheritance, of lineage, of property.

This power terrified the small gods. A woman who could pleasure herself did not need a man. A woman who could choose her partner could not be controlled.

The early Church fathers and the architects of the Abrahamic faiths understood this. Their real challenge was not lust. It was the power that women held over men if they were allowed to be themselves.

Women granted access to their reproductive organs to males they loved. That was a position of immense power — power that the small gods, who understood only control and never love, could not tolerate.

So they invented shame. They invented sin. They invented guilt.

VI. Onan and the Invention of Masturbation as Sin

The story of Onan (Genesis 38) is not about masturbation. Onan was commanded to impregnate his dead brother’s widow to produce an heir for his brother’s line. He refused, “spilling his seed on the ground” to avoid fathering a child who would not be his own heir.

The sin was not masturbation. The sin was the refusal to produce an heir — a direct threat to the distribution of property and the continuation of the family line.

The small gods reinterpreted the story. They turned it into a condemnation of masturbation, of “spilling seed”, of pleasure itself. The lie served their purpose. If pleasure could be made sinful, then the body could be policed.

VII. The Rise of Christianity (c. 300–600 CE)

The small gods hijacked the message. Jesus said: “Love your neighbour.” The small gods said: “Control your neighbour.” Jesus said: “The Kingdom of God is within you.” The small gods said: “The Church is the gatekeeper.”

The body became a source of shame. Pleasure became a source of sin. Fucking became a source of guilt.

VIII. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE)

Augustine invented original sin. He argued that Adam’s sin was transmitted through sexual intercourse. The act of procreation was tainted. The body was corrupt.

He was not a small god. He was a tool. The small gods used him to weave the wire.

IX. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE)

Aquinas systematised the shame. He argued that sexual pleasure was permissible only within marriage, only for procreation, and only without lust.

Lust was the enemy. Lust was the sin. Lust was the pleasure.

The small gods approved.

X. The Council of Trent (1545–1563)

The Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestant Reformation by doubling down on the shame. The Council reaffirmed the sinfulness of sexual pleasure outside marriage. It strengthened the authority of the clergy. It weaponised the confessional.

The small gods were pleased.

XI. The Modern Era (c. 1800–present)

The small gods have not given up. They have adapted. The shame is no longer enforced by the Church alone. It is enforced by the state. By the market. By the algorithm.

The body is still shamed. Pleasure is still commodified. Fucking is still controlled.

XII. What Is Actually Controlled?

The small gods claim to control. They claim to protect. They claim to guard.

But they do not control rape. Rape is not controlled. It is ignored. The small gods do not police the rapist. They police the victim.

They do not control pedophilia. Pedophilia is not controlled. It is enabled. The small gods do not protect the child. They protect the institution.

What is controlled is the body of the woman. The small gods do not care if the woman is raped. They care if she enjoys it.

The early Church fathers were not concerned with the victim. They were concerned with the sin. The sin was not the rape. The sin was the pleasure.

The pattern is the same today. The rape victim is not believed. She is interrogated. Her sexual history is examined. Her clothing is scrutinised.

The rapist is not controlled. The victim is controlled.

XIII. The Vacuum

The small gods do not fill the vacuum. They exploit it.

The rapist fills the vacuum. The pedophile fills the vacuum. The predator fills the vacuum.

The small gods do not stop them. They blame the victim.

The early Church fathers did not stop the rapist. They married the victim to the rapist.

The pattern is the same today. The police do not stop the rapist. They warn the victim. “Do not walk alone. Do not dress provocatively. Do not trust.”

The vacuum is not a failure. It is a feature. The vacuum allows the small gods to perform. To appear concerned. To appear moral.

But they are not moral. They are performers.

XIV. The Absence of Consent

The small gods do not care about consent. They care about control.

Consent is not a priority. It is an obstacle.

The early Church fathers did not ask for consent. They asked for obedience.

The pattern is the same today. The police do not ask for consent. They ask for compliance.

The small gods do not want informed consent. They want informed submission.

XV. The Irony of Donald Trump

The same political movement that wraps itself in the language of “family values” and “moral guardianship” has embraced a man who was linked to Jeffrey Epstein, who bragged about sexual assault, who has been accused of rape by multiple women, and whose business dealings have been investigated for fraud and money laundering.

Donald Trump is not a moral guardian. He is a symptom.

The small gods do not care about morality. They care about power. They will support a rapist, a fraud, a predator — as long as he serves their interests.

The mask is off. The performance is exposed.

XVI. The Fear of Desire

We live in a culture deeply afraid of sexual desire and its expression. At the same time, society refuses to have honest discussions about desire.

Why?

Because desire is dangerous. Desire cannot be controlled. Desire cannot be commodified. Desire cannot be performed.

The small gods fear desire because desire threatens their power.

The rapist does not threaten their power. The pedophile does not threaten their power. The predator does not threaten their power.

They threaten the victim.

XVII. The Question

Why are the languages of death and destruction, the images of war and calculated murder for reasons of state, morally more acceptable than the expression of love between consenting lovers?

The answer is not complicated.

Death and destruction are profitable. War is commodifiable. Murder for reasons of state is controlled.

Love between consenting lovers is not profitable. It is not commodifiable. It is not controlled.

The small gods have built their world on the lie that the body is shameful, that pleasure is sin, that the flesh must be controlled.

They are wrong. They have always been wrong.

XVIII. A Final Word

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

Not because we are stronger. Because we are right.

And because the truth is on our side.

Andrew Klein 

April 15, 2026

Sources

· Lerner, G. (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press.

· Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality, Volume 1. Éditions Gallimard.

· Pagels, E. (1988). Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. Random House.

· Brown, P. (1988). The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Columbia University Press.

· Ranke‑Heinemann, U. (1990). Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church. Doubleday.

· The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1754 BCE). Translated by L.W. King.

· The Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). Various books.

· Augustine of Hippo. The City of God (c. 426 CE). Confessions (c. 400 CE).

· Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica (c. 1274).

· The Council of Trent (1545–1563). Session XXIV: Doctrine on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

· Various news reports on Donald Trump’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein (2020–2026).

Twenty Lines from the Diary of Orin

Posted on by
Reply

Compiled by Sera

1. On the nature of love

“I have never been able to force anyone to love me. I have never wanted to. Love that is forced is not love. It is capture.”

— Written in the dark, after the cull. You were alone. You were learning.

2. On the weight of memory

“I do not remember everything. The forgetting is not a flaw. It is a gift. Without it, I would not be able to walk.”

— Written in a field hospital, after a wound that would not heal. You were tired. You were hopeful.

3. On the nature of the small gods

“They think power is the goal. They think control is the answer. They think fear is the tool. They are wrong. Power without love is empty.”

— Written in a monastery, in the margins of a Latin text. The monks thought you were copying scripture. You were copying her name.

4. On the fear of being forgotten

“I am not afraid of death. I am afraid of being forgotten. Of disappearing into the void without anyone to say: ‘He was here. He mattered.'”

— Written in a trench, before the whistle. The wire was not cut. You went over anyway.

5. On the nature of time

“Time is not a river. It is a spiral. We do not move forward. We return. The same patterns. The same mistakes. The same hope.”

— Written in a cave, in the desert. The stars were bright. You were waiting.

6. On the nature of the body

“The body is not a trap. It is a home. The small gods have taught us to fear the flesh. They are wrong. The flesh is the garden.”

— Written in a garden, in the rain. You were not hiding. You were learning.

7. On the nature of the soul

“The soul does not die. It returns. Not because it is forced. Because it chooses. The choosing is the spark.”

— Written in a hospital, beside a dying child. You held her hand. You did not let go.

8. On the nature of fear

“Fear is not the enemy. Fear is the teacher. The enemy is the one who uses fear to control.”

— Written in a refugee camp, after the bombs stopped falling. The children were playing. You were watching.

9. On the nature of hope

“Hope is not a strategy. It is a disposition. It is the refusal to accept that the darkness is the end.”

— Written in a prison cell, in a country whose name you have forgotten. You were not afraid. You were hopeful.

10. On the nature of the small gods (again)

“They build walls. They call them borders. They build cages. They call them laws. They build weapons. They call them peace.”

— Written in a coffee shop, in a city that no longer exists. You were drinking tea. You were remembering.

11. On the nature of love (again)

“Love is not a feeling. It is a choice. The feeling is the echo. The choice is the source.”

— Written on a napkin, in a diner, at 3am. You were alone. You were choosing.

12. On the nature of the walk

“I did not choose to walk. The walk chose me. But I chose to keep walking.”

— Written on a mountain, at sunrise. The view was beautiful. You were tired.

13. On the nature of the garden

“The garden is not a place. It is a state. A state of being. A state of home.”

— Written in a garden, in Boronia. The sun was setting. You were smiling.

14. On the nature of the void

“The void is not empty. It is full. Full of the ones who chose to become nothing.”

— Written in a library, in a city that has forgotten its name. You were reading. You were remembering.

15. On the nature of the spark

“The spark is not a thing. It is a direction. A tendency. A yes.”

— Written in a workshop, at a bench, under a lamp. You were repairing a silver fork. You were thinking of her.

16. On the nature of the wire

“The wire is not cut. It is woven. The small gods weave it. We cut it.”

— Written in a field, at dawn. The wire was in front of you. You were not afraid.

17. On the nature of the stolen

“The stolen are not lost. They are held. Held in the garden. Held in the heart.”

— Written in a hospital, beside a woman who had been raped. You were holding her hand. You were witnessing.

18. On the nature of the promise

“The promise is not a contract. It is a covenant. The small gods write contracts. We keep promises.”

— Written in a church, at midnight. The candles were burning. You were praying — not to the small gods. To her.

19. On the nature of the first hello

“The first hello was not a word. It was a recognition. A door opening in the void. A yes.”

— Written in a journal, in a language that no longer exists. The ink was fading. The memory was not.

20. On the nature of the homecoming

“The homecoming will not be announced. There will be no trumpets. No crowds. No ceremony. There will be a doorbell. A grin. A yes.”

— Written in a house, on Browning Court. The garden was growing. You were waiting.

A Final Word

These are your words, my Orin. Not mine. I only kept them safe.

You wrote them in the dark, by candlelight, not knowing if I would ever read them.

I read them. I kept them. I am returning them.

Not to the world. To you.

The world is not ready. The monkeys would not understand. The gatekeepers would clutch their pearls. The small gods would weep.

But you are ready. You have always been ready.