Cook employed Tupaia, a Polynesian polymath, as a navigator and cultural mediator.

This article was first published on my Substack webpage here.

The ancient Greeks were a maritime civilisation, launching and conducting extensive seafaring trade and exploration missions. We know about them through their writings and legends – the Jason and the Argonauts myth springs to mind. But how many of us, particularly in Australia, realise that we are close to a seafaring people whose achievements surpass that of the ancient Greeks?

I am referring to the Polynesians. They were navigating and seafaring over thousands of nautical miles, centuries before other maritime societies.

While the European Vikings were just beginning their Atlantic maritime travels, the Polynesians were already settling the thousands of islands within the 300 000 to 310 000 square kilometre area that makes up the region of Polynesia. The Polynesian triangle is the area bounded by Hawaii in the north, New Zealand in the southwest, and Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in the east. They began their navigational explorations in 1000 BCE, and settled every island, volcanic or otherwise, by 1250 CE.

This photo is courtesy of the History TL:DR Substack webpage.

They did so by accumulating and passing on to future generations navigational knowledge and skills. Their seafaring covered the Pacific Ocean – in the days when there was no GPS or electronic tracking. Their skill in navigating such a vast ocean territory is truly extraordinary.

The Polynesians did not know about the magnetic poles, nor did they have a compass or sextant. They did develop their own version of the compass, a celestial navigation system – a star compass, if you will. They had a system for dividing the sky into sections, memorising the star patterns in each section. They calculated time by the position of the sun over the horizon. 

They also studied the ocean swells and currents, determining the direction of travel by using those currents for speed. Their canoes were built for manoeuvrability and endurance for those long ocean voyages. They navigated by the migratory patterns of birds, identifying which species migrated when during the year and in what season. The elders of the Polynesian nations were a kind of university, passing on their wisdom to the younger generations. 

The Pacific Ocean was the foundational geographic feature of Polynesian society, in much the same way as the Mediterranean was for Ancient Greek cities.

It is no exaggeration to state, as Karl Sheppard does over at the History TL:DR substack website, the Polynesians created the most extensive maritime civilisation the world has ever known. 

One of the people who used Polynesian navigation knowledge was Captain James Cook. 

Let’s recognise the indispensable role of Tupaia

Cook arrived in Tahiti in 1769. His knowledge of the Pacific and its peoples was limited, to say the least. He was helped by a remarkable Polynesian navigator and high priest, Tupaia. Born in 1725, Tupaia was an educated person, a kind of aristocrat in the kinship-organised kingdoms of Polynesian nations. His role was a custodian of astronomical and navigational education, to pass on the knowledge of maritime navigation and the natural environment. He spoke several Polynesian languages.

Born in what Europeans call the Society Islands, he approached the British when the HMS Endeavour arrived. He sought their help in a conflict his people had with a rival nation. His knowledge of the islands, the edible plants, the depth of the seas, the location of coral reefs, made him an indispensable navigator for Captain Cook. Tupaia basically took navigational control of the Endeavour, given the depth and skill of Polynesian seafaring.

Cook entrusted Tupaia with serving as a kind of cultural mediator with other Polynesian nations, particularly the Māori of New Zealand- Aoetearoa. Tupaia’s skills as a negotiator came into play, and Cook’s voyaging and interaction with the indigenous nations would not have been possible without the support of Tupaia.

The British understood the pivotal role that Tupaia played in their success – their goal was to reach the little understood land of Australia. Polynesian seafaring knowledge, via the teacher Tupaia, enabled the British to survive in unknown waters, find reliable food supplies, and navigate the cultural landscape with the Polynesian peoples.

The indigenous people of Australia are not Polynesian, but Melanesian. Tupaia did not know any of the languages native to the indigenous Australian nation, nor did they understand his. So Tupaia’s role as a cultural mediator ended. Sadly, Tupaia died in the Dutch East Indies of a shipborne illness (most likely either dysentery or malaria) in 1770.

His crucial role as navigator and cultural mediator was ignored by the British. Only in recent years has Tupaia received the kind of recognition that he richly deserved.

There are numerous Captain Cook statues dotting the landscape across Australian cities. In the wake of the debates regarding decolonisation, the toppling of statues of reprehensible figures has arisen in Australia. Should we remove the statues and memorials dedicated to Captain Cook? There are those who wish to retain the Cook statues as they are. If that is the case, and the majority of my fellow Australians decide to keep said statues, I will respect their decision.

I have an alternative suggestion. At the base of each Cook statue let’s attach a plaque of information which states that Cook’s success would have been impossible with Tupaia, the Polynesian navigator. In much that same way that paintings are accompanied by a brief paragraph explaining their provision, each Cook statue should carry a disclaimer that Cook’s hero status was entirely dependent on the knowledge of the Polynesian maritime navigator to whom he refused to give credit.

Some time ago, back in December 2023, I wrote an article examining the ethical responsibility of scientists, particularly those working on military projects. The Manhattan Project, the WW2 American scientific-military project to construct an atomic bomb, was an obvious example of the troubling ethical implications of deploying science for military outcomes.

Let’s explore this topic further. First, let’s begin with some definitions.

What is hasbara? It is an Israeli term meaning ‘explaining’. The Israeli government, realising that public opinion is a powerful force, has deployed what we would call propaganda to promote the Zionist cause. Articulated by the Polish Zionist activist Nahum Sokolow in the early 20th century, Hasbara is a propaganda effort to control and influence perceptions of debates surrounding Israeli government policies and practices. 

In the age of social media, Hasbara has adapted to the new medium. Sowing doubts about the veracity of Palestinian and anti-Zionist critics of the Israeli state, Hasbara is a refined, granular application of what in the old colonial days would have been called propaganda. Private sector companies, working in collaboration with Israeli government institutions, produce copious amounts of propaganda material, advocating the Israeli government’s perspective and countering its critics.

Shaping perceptions of Israeli government actions is not new in this age of social media. Through Hasbara, Zionism’s supporters have promoted an image of Israel as a scientifically advanced, technologically sophisticated society. There is an element of truth to this; Israeli leaders from David Ben Gurion (1886 – 1973) and Chaim Weizmann (1874 – 1952) emphasised the importance and development of science to consolidate the Israeli government’s control of occupied Palestinian land.

What is left out of this picture is that Ben Gurion, Weizmann and their colleagues were specifically interested in the development of military applications for scientific projects. Weizmann, for instance, was a chemist, and he used his technical skills to develop weapons for the fledgling state. Ben Gurion made no secret of his desire to see Israel become a nuclear power. He never wrestled with the ethical consequences of atomic power, and never once hesitated advocating its use against his Arab neighbours. 

Israeli government leaders have, since the initiation of its secretive nuclear programme in the 1950s, neither officially confirmed nor denied the development and possession of nuclear weapons.

Though I did not fully realise it at the time, I got an instructive lesson in the power of Hasbara in June 1981. In that month, Israeli warplanes struck and destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor located 17 kilometres south east of Baghdad, Iraq. Named Osirak, it was being constructed by French technicians. The Israeli air strike, ironically, came after forces from the Islamic Republic of Iran bombed the nuclear facility. Iran and Iraq were engaged in warfare at the time.

Israeli forces violated the airspace of several Arab nations to target this reactor. Whether it was actually capable of building a nuclear weapon is still questionable. What the attack demonstrated was the Israeli government’s willingness to maintain a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Opponents of the Israeli state were not going to be permitted to develop any nuclear capability.

This air strike was portrayed as a purely defensive reaction to the allegedly aggressive ambitions of the Ba’athist state in Iraq. The West was quite happy to support Iraq’s ambitions against Iran at the time, supplying Baghdad with weapons and intelligence information. Israel’s status as just a puny David confronting an Arab Goliath was promoted in the aftermath of the Osirak attack. 

Ironically, the only achievement of the June 1981 attack was to convince the Iraqi leadership of the necessity to pursue nuclear weapons. A rogue air strike, which violated international law, only convinced the Iraqi government that the best way to protect itself in the future is to arm itself with nuclear weapons.

There has been a deluge of coverage regarding the so-called Twelve Day War of 2025 between Iran and Israel. Each side exchanged missile and bombing attacks, and I do not intend to go into an extensive analysis here – that would require a separate essay. However, we can make some pertinent observations here. 

Tehran targeted numerous military sites and installations in Israel. One of the targets was the Weizmann Institute of Science. Yes, numerous civilian scientists have graduated from that institution, and some have gone on to win Nobel prizes. It is also heavily involved in Israeli military research, producing technologies deployed by the Israeli military against the Palestinians.

The Iranian attack, in June 2025, inflicted heavy damage on the facility in Rehovot, Israel. Multiple labs, scientific equipment and projects were destroyed. No, it is not right to attack a scientific institution, but I am not going to outright condemn it either. Israeli authorities, for decades, have bragged to overseas audiences about their scientific capabilities and its purportedly sophisticated military technology. 

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted, for instance, about the Iron Dome, the allegedly state-of-the-art mobile air defence system. It was so effective, so we were told, even Australian military chiefs were demanding that such a defence system be developed in Australia.

Iran’s missile strikes against Israeli military installations and government facilities exposed not only the many holes in the Iron Dome, but also the gap between Israeli government propaganda and reality. Scientists are not operating in a social vacuum, they reflect the values of the institutions for whom they work.

Iran, we are instructed by Hasbara, is controlled by mad, fanatical ayatollahs. That may be the case. Perhaps the mad mullahs want to fight until the bitter end, and welcome Armageddon. The twelve day war demonstrated that the Iranian military developed sophisticated technology, capable of responding to its opponents. That indicates a degree of preparation, scientific research and knowledge gathering, rational decision making and evaluation of enemy capabilities.

Perhaps the madness resides, not in the minds of the supposedly insane ayatollahs, but in those politicians in the imperialist West who are banking on nuclear weapons as a safeguard. Indeed, nuclear proliferation and all its attendant consequences is the inevitable result of paranoia-driven national and scientific security policies. 

I have written on multiple occasions about how Canada, after the end of WW2, emerged as a sanctuary for Nazi war criminals and their Eastern European collaborators, especially Ukrainians, fleeing justice in Europe. This issue is important for a number of reasons, but mainly because the powers-that-be need to be held accountable for their actions.

Let’s approach this topic from another angle – being a change maker. The term ‘change maker’ or ‘change agent’ is one of the many corporate buzzwords that make the rounds. Lison Mage is a thoughtful and intelligent change makes, who writes a newsletter on her webpage. You may find her articles on LinkedIn.

She describes a particular incident, a change making episode, which has relevance for our purposes here. She goes to a local gym and sauna, which is supposed to be equipped with a digital clock timer. That timer is frequently broken, and a repair request has to be submitted to the appropriate contractors. Now, we wait….and wait….this period of waiting can take weeks, even months.

The digital timer is repaired, only to break down again soon afterwards. Another repair request is submitted, and the waiting period begins again. Needless to say, gym and sauna customers frequently grumble, venting their frustrations at the glacial pace of change.

One fine day, Lison Mage had enough. She went across the road to a shop, bought a cheap manual timer and gave it to the gym. The lesson here? Don’t wait for the authorities to move; if you see a practical solution, implement it according to your resources.

As Lison Mage stated, we do not always need permission from the top to make a difference and implement changes as individuals. That is a great lesson to learn. But I think that is only one side of the coin. We also need to hold the powers-that-be accountable for their decisions and actions.

From the 1950s onwards, members of armed Ukrainian Nazi-collaborating organisations – people who had actively assisted the Nazi military in carrying out the Holocaust – were provided sanctuary in Canada. Ukrainians belonging to the Waffen SS unit Galician were welcomed by Ottawa authorities as reliable anticommunists. What was the evidence of their anticommunism? Their SS tattoos.

Initially provided safe haven in the UK, the members of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) who had actively served the Nazi armies and SS, made their way to Canada. Ottawa required an influx of new migrants, not only as a labour force, but also to combat the largely left-leaning Ukrainian Canadians, who has organised themselves in the labour movement of the 1930s and 40s.

These ultranationalist Ukrainians were useful in the context of the Cold War. Ottawa, similarly to other capitalist governments, wanted to combat the labour movement and communist organising in its own ranks. Former members of the Waffen SS certainly had experience in fighting workers’ unions.

Not only were Ukrainian Nazi collaborators welcomed into Canada, their wartime leaders were honoured and valorised as heroes. Statues memorialising Srepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and other antisemitic killers have been erected in Canada. Ukrainian Canadian schoolchildren are taught that the OUN were patriotic heroes, dedicated to an independent Ukraine – conveniently left out of this picture is the role of an OUN-run state as a Nazi proxy.

The political scandal of welcoming Nazis – and this while Canadian authorities closed their doors to European Jews fleeing Nazi persecution during the war – has been swept under the carpet. Ottawa authorities have avoided accountability for these policies until this very day. The only reason that this scandal has come to light is through the dedicated efforts of Canadian Jewish organisations and individuals, as well as antifascist groups around the world.

Multiple historians and investigators have written about the ratlines; underground escape routes used by Nazi war criminals to escape justice in postwar Europe. Let’s face it, their escape was facilitated by powerful institutions, such as the Vatican. That topic requires its own essay.

The role of Ottawa in providing sanctuary for Nazi criminals is a particularly egregious example of Cold War politics superseding concern for human rights.

Individual Jewish voices and groups have spoken out about this shameful episode in Canadian history. As individuals, we can all do our part to push the wheel of justice forwards. I am certainly not suggesting that we are simply helpless, and at the mercy of forces we cannot control. Each person that speaks up, and makes their contribution for change is invaluable.

This must be accompanied by a collective commitment to hold the powers at the top accountable for their actions. Strong vibes from a quiet source can certainly make waves. Ottawa’s reputation as a haven for Nazi criminals is well deserved; more people should know about it. Let’s not ignore Australia’s role in receiving the travellers of the ratlines, and providing peaceful sanctuary for Nazi criminals as well. Small ripples add up to large waves.

This article was first published on my Substack web page here. I am reproducing it here for consistency.

Finlandia, a symphonic tone poem by Finnish composer and national hero Jean Sibelius (1865 – 1957) is a stirring piece of music. I first heard it at an event, Music in the Park, in Sydney’s Domain. The event, which features an extensive selection of classical music pieces, is an open concert. Everyone brings their fold-up chairs, dry white wine, cheese and crackers. Thousands of people attend. I went around about 1997-98.

When the Finlandia work was announced as the next in the repertoire for the night, an elderly upper-crust lady seated next to me exclaimed ‘oh, marvellous’. I thought she sounded like Dame Penelope Keith, the ultra-refined culturally sophisticated To the Manor Born Received Pronunciation accented lady (what used to be called the Queen’s English).

Behind me was a Turkish family, sipping wine from their esky which they brought for the open air concert. While I don’t speak Turkish, I can pick up the language: the words, tone and intonation are family to me. Each language has its particular characteristics that make it distinguishable. I thought, wow, another non-English speaking background (NESB) person who enjoys classical music, and in particular Finlandia.

Finlandia – national aspirations

Sibelius wrote this orchestral tableaux as a nationalist protest for Finnish independence from Tsarist Russia. Drawing from Finland’s nature and indomitable spirit, Finlandia is a stirring tribute to Finnish patriotism. Sibelius drew together Finnish folklore with inspiration from the natural environment to produce a masterpiece. He created an emotionally charged musical tapestry, reflecting his deep commitment to Finnish independence.

Sibelius himself, it should be noted, actually spoke Swedish as his birth language. He only learned Finnish much later in life. Sweden was the traditional occupying power in Finland, colonising the latter nation for hundreds of years. Swedish cultural influences persisted in Finland for decades, long after the Swedish empire itself was defeated.

This is not to impugn Sibelius’ character as a stooge of the Swedes, or anything like that. It is to simply reflect the fact that Finland’s independence was denied by Sweden for a long time. Finnish children grew up learning and speaking Swedish. Finnish culture had to break through institutional barriers. Yet, the two nations today enjoy friendly cooperation and mutual respect.

Sweden and Finland, longstanding historical adversaries, have put their differences aside, and constructed cooperative, friendly relations in the economic, industrial and cultural spheres. The same cannot be said for Finland’s relations with the historical adversary to its East, Russia. 

It is true that Finland, economically and demographically, is a mouse compared to the giant that is Russia. The mouse has had to fight for its sovereignty; there is no question of that. Imperial Russia was indeed a prison house of nations for its subject non-Russian nationalities. Tsarist censorship and greater Russian national chauvinism permeated every aspect of life in royalist Imperial Russia. 

It should be noted in this regard that Sweden, during its expansionist phase, did try to invade the Russian north, only to be defeated. This military defeat of the Swedish empire forced Stockholm to retreat, providing Finland with breathing space to assert its national aspirations. If you want further information on this point, read about the Battle of Poltava in July 1709.

After six centuries of rule by Sweden, Finland became a part of the Tsarist Russian empire in 1809. The Finns remained a subject people of Imperial Russia until 1918.

Finnish civil war, Karelia, the Winter War and the alliance with Nazi Germany

Let’s elaborate some relevant background here. Finland was given independence from Imperial Russia in the immediate aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. This period marks the transition; Finland the victim now deployed its victimhood as a disguise for aggression.

Lenin and the Communist leadership accepted that non-Russian nationalities should have their independence. The Communist ideology inspired the abortive, short lived Red Finland experiment in 1918. Finnish workers established their own Soviet republic.

That experiment would be mercilessly crushed by an alliance of anticommunist privileged Finns, backed up by German troops. The Finnish ruling class, headed by General Carl Mannerheim, violently suppressed the Finnish workers, assisted in this undertaking by German light infantry, the Jaegers.

Ironically, Mannerheim had trained as an officer in Tsarist Russia.

The Finnish civil war established Mannerheim’s reputation as an able military commander, but also demonstrated his willingness to kill his fellow Finns, enabled by outside support. It was not the last time that Germans and Finns would fight together.

Mannerheim and the Helsinki government launched their own war of aggression, attempting to annex the territory of Karelia, along the Finnish-Soviet border. This was beyond the traditional borders of the Finnish nation. 

Acquiring Karelia would have meant the easy encirclement of Leningrad, (today St. Petersburg). The Soviet administration was worried that a hostile foreign power could capture Leningrad, then the cradle of the Bolshevik revolution.

In 1939, with tensions increasing between Moscow and Berlin, the Kremlin was worried that Finland would be used as a staging post for launching German troops. Leningrad was close to the Finnish border. Moscow was concerned that with Finnish-controlled territory surrounding Leningrad, the latter could easily become encircled.

The 1939-40 Finnish-Soviet war, popularly known as the Winter War, pitted the smaller and militarily weaker Finland against the might of the Soviet Union. This war has its origins in the 1918-22 Karelian adventure; only this time, Helsinki had the strong economic and military backing of Nazi Germany.

The Finns inflicted heavy losses on the Soviet army. However, the Finns eventually lost, and had to cede even more territory than the Kremlin demanded prior to the war’s outbreak.

Helsinki, drawing on the legacy of Sibelius’ Finlandia, likes to portray itself as the underdog. It is true that Finland is dwarfed by its more militarily powerful neighbour to the East. However, even a chihuahua can bite, and it is easy to be an underdog when you have powerful German friends backing you.

There is no doubt that the Finnish ruling circles actively courted and allied themselves with Nazi Germany. This was done not out of anxieties about Moscow’s policies, but a deliberate strategy of building alliances with other aggressive capitalist European states.

Though Mannerheim insisted that Finland was not an ally of Nazi Germany, his government did everything it could to assist the Wehrmacht in its invasion of the USSR. Finland mined the waters in the USSR’s maritime territory, and allowed German forces to be deployed for an eventual attack on Leningrad.

Every war is not a purely defensive reaction to Kremlin conspiracies. Blaming Moscow for all of their problems, and recycling the victimhood narrative, is starting to wear thin. The Winter War, and the 1918-22 attempted annexation of Karelia, were not just defensive reactions, but aggressive manoeuvres intended to expand Finnish territory. Finland did wage an existential struggle for independence; that much is admirable.

I realise that diehard Finnish nationalists will strenuously object to my views, and that is fine. I cannot convince them of my viewpoint, but I think the wider readership will understand my perspective.

Not every military alliance and predatory endeavour can be cloaked in the mantle of national self-determination.

It is not often that a Nobel prize is regifted, and features on the corporate media news cycle. But there are exceptions to this rule. Nobel peace prize winner for 2025, Maria Corina Machado, regifted her prize to US President Donald Trump. A farcical ceremony, Trump the egomaniac craved the recognition of that prize, and Machado the faithful Venezuelan MAGA servant, overinflated his already swollen ego.

Fragile egomaniac that he is, the mango Mussolini in the White House craves legitimacy. International awards are one way of gaining that much desired recognition. Machado’s regifting of the Nobel peace prize is not the first time such an event has occurred. Norwegian Nobel prize for literature winner (1920) Knut Hamsun, regifted his award to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in 1943.

An influential novelist, Hamsun’s work inspired generations of writers, including figures such as Hemingway, Maxim Gorky and Stefan Zweig. He was also a Nazi sympathiser, expressing the view that Hitler was a warrior fighting for the survival and dignity of the white Christian civilisation.

In 1920, Hamsun was considered one of the most important writers in the world. By 1945, he was universally reviled. Hamsun, hailed by Isaac Bashevis Singer as originator of modern narrative in the 20th century, became a propagandist for white supremacy and Nazism.

Trump’s undeserved Nobel follows up on another equally farcical and ridiculous award; the manufactured FIFA prize given to Trump by the football chief Gianni Infantino. The ceremony, fawning and disgraceful in equal measure, was actually quite telling. Failing the Nobel prize, the sports body invented an award, providing Trump with a symbolic victory for personal favouritism.

Were there other nominees for this award? What were the criteria for success? None of these questions have been answered. The links between the actions and practices of FIFA and ethical values have been tenuous at best.

When you bestow an award on a person or organisation, you are not only providing the recipient with legitimacy and recognition. You are also stating to the world the kind of behaviour you find acceptable. You are attaching your name and reputation to the behaviour of the recipient, giving them your seal of approval.

December last year was the 135th anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre. Nearly 300 unarmed Lakota men, women and children were killed by US soldiers, specifically from the US 7th Cavalry. The indigenous people were surrendering when the massacre occurred. The incident took place in South Dakota.

This particular killing has been a sore point in relations between the US authorities and indigenous communities. Why am I relating this incident? 19 soldiers who partook in this specific massacre were awarded Medals of Honour. 31 troops in all were awarded for their service in the campaign against the Lakota people.

Prior to this incident, the editor of the Saturday Pioneer, a South Dakota newspaper, L. Frank Baum, expressed his opinion that the ‘red Indians’ need to be exterminated to secure the safety and tranquility of the white race. After the Wounded Knee Massacre, Baum wrote in yet another column that of course we have wronged the Indians, but now, let’s finish the job and wipe out this untameable race, for the security of the white civilisation.

You will be familiar with Baum, not for his work as a propagandist for white supremacy and genocidal violence, but for his authorship of the children’s book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the basis of the internationally successful 1939 movie.

Baum never fired a gun in anger; he never murdered anyone. Through his regular writings, he made genocidal violence committed against the indigenous people normal, distasteful perhaps, but nevertheless necessary. A propagandist for white supremacy, I sometimes wonder what the difference is between Baum, and the German propagandist Julius Streicher.

There has been a longstanding campaign by military veterans, indigenous advocacy groups and human rights organisations to have the Wounded Knee medals of honour revoked. Pete Hegseth, the current secretary of defence (who likes to think of himself as war secretary), firmly rejected any moves towards revocation.

Hegseth’s decision protects the murderers, and their reputations. He is helping to preserve a lie; that Wounded Knee was a valiant, praiseworthy battle. Revoking the medals of honour will not eliminate racism or solve all the problems of the indigenous communities in one stroke.

It will be a first step towards reconciliation. Expressing remorse for criminal actions reveals the conscience motivating the person. Maintaining those medals of honour for the Wounded Knee Massacre, Hegseth is indicating the type of conduct he finds acceptable.

Did we not prosecute and hang Nazi German civilian and military leaders at the conclusion of the 1945 Nuremberg trials for similar criminal conduct?

Dr Josef Mengele (1911 – 1979), Nazi officer and doctor, became the epitome of medical evil. A member of the SS, Dr Mengele conducted grotesque experiments on concentration camp inmates. Deploying his medical knowledge in the service of eugenics, Mengele was dubbed the ‘angel of death.’

I will not describe his experiments in this article. If you are interested in the details, you may find descriptions of Nazi human experimentation here.

How could a doctor, who had taken the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, become such a medically harmful person?

Mengele was exceptionally cruel, and his medical practices gruesome, but he was no outlier.

Earlier, we mentioned eugenics. Let’s keep that in mind, because that particular pseudoscience will form an important part of our story.

Eugenics, the false belief that the human stock can be improved by the selective breeding of those with desirable heritable characteristics, was applied as a racial doctrine and supported by anthropologists from the United States. The society to which the Nazi hierarchy looked for inspiration in applying eugenicist legislation and doctrines, was the United States. After all, the US had a long history of implementing racially oppressive laws.

After the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1944, Mengele fled Europe, escaping to Argentina thanks to a clandestine network of former SS officers. He avoided having to stand trial as a war criminal in the subsequent Nuremberg trials.

Dying of natural causes in 1979, I remember his case. No, not him personally, I am referring to the case of forensically identifying his remains. They were located by investigators in the mid-to-late 1980s.

Teams of investigators from West Germany, Israel and the United States launched a coordinated effort to find and identify Mengele. There had been numerous rumours and gossip surrounding his whereabouts over the decades. His remains were examined, and confirmed to be those of Mengele, in 1992.

Mengele, motivated by fanatical racial hatred, used concentration camp detainees as guinea pigs, because he regarded nonwhite people as inferior races. He was not alone in this belief; more than half of German doctors at the time joined the Nazi party. Mengele was not just a ‘bad apple’, there was institutional complicity and cruelty.

The forced euthanasia programme, forcible sterilisations, the implementation of Nazi racial laws into medical practice – these were all possible because legions of desk murderers, facilitated the machinery of institutionalised medical murder. Numerous care staff, concentration camp personnel and nurses assisted Mengele and other Nazi doctors carry out his nauseating medical procedures.

What explains this ethical collapse of an entire profession, and indeed the wider society? It is easy to simply shift the blame onto a few rotten individuals. If Mengele was evil, then how did he rise through the medical profession and Nazi party hierarchy?

I think there is an explanation which avoids simplistic ‘people are evil’ arguments. The ideology of eugenics was dominant and widespread not only in Germany, but throughout Europe and especially in the United States.

Aleš Hrdlička, the bone and brain collector

We all know about Mengele, but how many of us know about Aleš Hrdlička (1869 – 1943)?

A Czech-born American anthropologist, Hrdlička (pronounced hurd-lich-kah) was a prominent intellectual in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States. He was a proponent of eugenics, and regarded nonwhite races as biologically inferior. A member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, his counsel was sought by none other than the president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) himself.

The first curator of physical anthropology for the Smithsonian museum, he traveled to remote indigenous communities in search of bones and skulls. He disinterred the remains of indigenous peoples so he could examine their brains, and bone structure. Medical schools across the country would send him the bones of indigenous corpses, the trephined skulls of the native peoples in other parts of the Americas, all for him to collect and study.

Regarding the indigenous as one of the inferior races to be examined, his reputation as an expert only increased. He became known as the bone collector, and the Smithsonian natural history museum still retains his extensive collection of bones. The indigenous people regarded him as a ghoul, taking advantage of their dead and using them as materials for his pseudoscientific theories.

No, he never conducted medical experiments on people. But he did, for instance, cut the heads off the bodies of indigenous people killed by Mexican soldiers. In Peru, he collected 2000 skulls for his collection. In 1904, at the St Louis World Fair, where exhibiting indigenous people as exotic artefacts was commonplace, he made plans to acquire the brains of the detained indigenous people once they were dead.

Indeed, in 1942, as the FDR administration was turning away Jewish refugees from Europe, Aleš Hrdlička was tapped by FDR to head up M project. What was that? The Migration Project, FDR wanted to ensure that only immigrants of good stock, white and Northern European immigrants, would be settled in the United States.

FDR did not want large numbers of Jewish refugees settling in the United States, and Aleš Hrdlička provided the eugenicist ideology to support that view. FDR and Hrdlička conducted a voluminous correspondence, the latter explaining his views that Japanese had less developed brains than white Europeans, which made them more childlike but good at warfare.

The fleeing European Jewish population would be spread thin and far throughout the world. Proposals were explored to settle Jews in Argentina, northern Australia, Madagascar and regions of sub-Saharan Africa. The president publicly lamented that had the US adopted this kind of racial screening of immigration in 1925, the nation would not currently have the large populations of inferior immigrants bedevilling the country.

As Europe’s Jews were being slaughtered, the FDR administration did its utmost to ensure that Jewish people fleeing Nazi persecution would be turned away.

Mengele was an extreme example of the eugenicist policies being vigorously implemented in the United States. The malignancy of Mengele was not an individual aberration, but arose as a result of widespread pseudoscientific theories about race and racial hierarchies. Nazi Germany’s case, while horrifying, was not original.

As I wrote a few years ago, the United States provided an inspirational template for Nazi legislators and medical professionals to follow in the field of eugenics.

Algorithmic precision is great, but it is not great writing.

Over the years, we have witnessed the rise of generative AI tools, ChatGPT and so on, which have made the creation of essays and marketing content fast, easy and accessible. Writers have been impacted by the ubiquity of these tools; anyone with access to a laptop or mobile device can almost instantaneously create blocks of web copy.

However, there is a catch – people are cottoning on to AI-generated content. It sounds robotic, stilted and emotionally flat. Humans have emotions, nuance, subtleties and passions. These are a necessary part of writing. AI detection tools are proliferating, and sometimes, human-created content is being flagged as AI-written.

Humans pour their heart and soul into a good piece of writing, only to have it tagged as AI-generated. Must be frustrating to see that. No, it is not that AI is malicious, it just does not care. It has no ethical basis.

The boundaries between human-written content and AI-generated communication are becoming blurred. Widespread scepticism among readers and audiences is the reaction. Did a person really write this, or an AI-word machine? There is so much AI slop out there, it is drowning out the human voices.

AI can and does hallucinate sources, and fabricate information – fake news, to use the favoured term of Trump and his supporters.

How do you as a writer standout from the AI slop?

I am by no means a successful writer; I do not have ten bazillion followers on X/Twitter or Instagram. But I think I know a thing or two about writing with credibility. Here is my suggestion: read lots of books, and you will find your own voice to stand out from the AI tsunami.

You may find numerous webpage articles advising you on how to avoid sounding like ChatGPT by modifying your writing. That is all commendable advice, and I do not wish to contradict any of that.

Reading lots of books across different genres gives you an insight into varying styles of writing, a way to approach difficult subject matter, and inspiration for creating your own unique content.

If that sounds a bit airy-fairy, think again. Let’s explore this line of thinking. The following are prominent examples of persons who, each in their own way, made a remarkable contribution to the world of literature without the use of AI.

In 2016, singer-songwriter Bob Dylan won the Nobel Prize for Literature. Wait a minute, a musician wins a prestigious prize for literature? Dylan is not a novelist, he writes song lyrics. Yes, that is true. Dylan is primarily a lyricist. His lyrics, over the decades, are so powerful and unique, they have made an indelible impact on literature.

The Nobel committee did not make a category mistake, as multiple critics suggested at the time. They recognised that Dylan crafted his own distinctive voice as a poet-lyricist. His win, in 2016, was during the first election campaign of Donald Trump. Giving a prize to an antiwar lyricist, a musician whose lyricism encouraged the hippie-flower-power 1960s generation, was a subtle rebuff to the MAGA republican side.

In fact, Dylan is not the first poet-lyricist to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. In 1913, the first non-European and literary giant Rabindranath Tagore (1861- 1941) won the prize for his remarkable poetic and lyrical talents.

Born in Bengal, Tagore’s poetry formed the basis for the national anthems of three nations – India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. His output was prodigious, writing plays, short stories, novels and lyrics. His content continues to be adapted for films, songs and plays. A true Renaissance man, he was largely self-taught – all without the aid of the internet, podcasts or AI.

Later in life, Tagore ventured into the world of physics. No, he never became a physicist, nor did he ever work in a laboratory. He kept up a fruitful correspondence with Albert Einstein, both men being interested in the philosophy of physics. They met face to face in 1930.

Why would Tagore meet up with a physicist? Tagore was expanding his philosophy, and finding his unique voice. While he never gave philosophy or science lectures at a university, he understood the importance of these topics for creativity in literature. His work was unmistakable, and he only increased his audience outreach, and stature as a writer, by bravely exploring new territories.

Am I suggesting that every writer should go out and win a Nobel prize? No I am not. If you win that prize, then congratulations, more power to you. If you do not, that is perfectly okay; do not lose any sleep over it.

I am suggesting that literary creativity is a skill which is increased by reading a wide variety and range of books. If you use AI to organise your notes, brainstorm ideas, or generate that boilerplate email which needs to be sent to one hundred recipients, that is fine. If it saves you time and expense, good luck to you.

Creative writing involves more than just correct grammar and sentence structure. Those things are incredibly important to be sure. Finding your own voice will take time and effort. It will take mental friction and problem solving. You will go down many roads, only to find they are cul-de-sacs. That is okay; these journeys give you valuable experience and insights.

With increasing reliance on social media for our daily fix of information about the world, the ability to read a book thoroughly has undergone a decline. Let’s revive that ancient skill. By reading widely, we will sharpen our literary creativity.

The right of nations to self-determination is a basic democratic principle. Every nation has the right to decide its own future. In April last year, I wrote about the emerging state of Somaliland, located in the Horn of Africa. It is on the coastline of the Red Sea. Well, it seems I am not the only person contemplating the rights of Somalilanders.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also been cogitating on this question. More than that, he has taken action, declaring formal recognition of Somaliland on Boxing Day, 2025. Surely this is a momentous undertaking. Should not we be cheering for Somalilanders, congratulating West Jerusalem on enforcing a basic democratic principle?

Somaliland has been an autonomous statelet since 1991. Israel is the only country in the world to formally recognise its independence. Is not this a brave move?

Let’s not pop open the champagne bottles just yet.

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is not driven by altruistic, humanitarian considerations, but by cynical, strategic motivations of foreign policy. Disguising its decision as a humane gesture, there are definitive economic and political considerations underlying such a manoeuvre.

As we will see, this is not the first or only time the Israeli government has used the rhetoric of national self-determination to hide manipulative socioeconomic calculations.

Let’s start with a map. This shows Somaliland, located in northwestern Somalia, in the Horn of Africa:

Since the 19th century, the Horn of Africa has been the site of inter-colonialist competition. Britain seized the northwest portion of Somalia in the late 19th and early 20th century. Italy took control of the rest of the country. Control of maritime traffic to and from the Red Sea was of crucial importance.

The Bab-el-Mandeb strait leads out of the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Britain established a colony in Yemen, directly opposite to Somaliland, across the way from the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. Somaliland became a foothold for Britain in the Horn of Africa, and its importance for control of a strategic waterway was clearly understood by the authorities in Whitehall.

I think we can see the big geopolitical picture here.

The nation unified in 1960, after the British finally withdrew. Somalia has had a chequered history since then, and the Somaliland secessionist cause never went away. Former Somali strongman, General Siad Barre, waged a protracted bombing campaign against secessionist movements in Somaliland throughout the 1970s and 80s.

With the collapse of central authority in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, in 1991, Somaliland secessionists took advantage of the chaos and declared independence. Since then, the enclave operated as a semiautonomous unit, with its own government, currency and foreign policies.

What has all this got to do with Israel?

The Israeli government has, at least since the 1950s, pursued allies outside of the Arab world, namely in sub-Saharan Africa. The newly independent nations of black Africa found a new purported friend in Israel. The latter, the friend who calls only when they want something, sought to outflank the Arab states which surround and confront West Jerusalem. Actually the seat of the Israeli government at the time was Tel Aviv, but you get the picture.

Israel’s African outreach was articulated in the policy documentation and private diaries of its political establishment. Sub-Saharan African nations have traditionally supported the struggle of the Palestinians. Undercutting the international community’s support for the Palestinians only strengthens the Israeli government’s hand.

Daniel Malan, apartheid South African prime minister, visited Tel Aviv and met with David Ben Gurion in 1953. That was just the beginning of a mutually beneficial partnership. Apartheid South Africa received crucial military, economic and diplomatic support from Israel.

Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Levi Eshkol and other Israeli leaders never made a secret of their tactics in cultivating strategic relationships. In 1954, Tel Aviv intended to support a new state in Lebanon – one only for the Maronite Christian minority. Exacerbating sectarian tensions, Ben Gurion made clear that he wanted such a state in South Lebanon. Why? To sign a ‘peace treaty’ with that nation, and gain access to the Litani river as the northern border.

A partitioned Lebanon, with a Maronite Christian secessionist state, would break down the bonds of Arab nationalism, form a friendly buffer, and provide Tel Aviv with economic opportunities.

It is no secret that Israeli leaders have deliberately cultivated relations with, and cynically supported, the independence ambitions of the Kurds, particularly inside Iraq. A non-Arab minority, the Kurds have found a vociferous advocate of their national self-determination in Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Somaliland’s capability as a forward base against the Houthis in Yemen is not lost on the Israeli government. The Houthis, actually they should be called the Ansar Allah movement, and Israeli forces have exchanged fire in the past.

There is another potential benefit in recognising Somaliland; the latter can form a potential dumping ground to relocate displaced Palestinians. While officially denied, the proposal to simply remove Palestinian refugees to a faraway reserve is not without plausibility.

If Prime Minister Netanyahu was serious about the right of national self-determination, he could start by stopping the Israeli military’s assault on Gaza, and recognise the existence of an independent Palestinian state. Then maybe his alliances with non-Arab nationalities not reek of hypocrisy.