Psychology presentations do not usually end up with fisticuffs and a punch up. However, fifty years ago, there was a brawl sparked by a controversial psychologist’s speech which has lessons for us today. The fracas, and the reasons for it, are issues which still reverberate throughout our cultural and social life.

Hans Eysenck, intelligence and race

German-born British psychologist Hans Eysenck (1916 – 1997) was the preeminent psychologist of his generation. Heavily cited in the literature, he was the go-to academic in matters of psychology. Assigned to speak about intelligence, IQ and race at the London School of Economics in 1973, his upcoming presentation was the focus of protests by leftwing student groups.

Eysenck, taking up the torch from American educational psychologist Arthur Jensen (1923 – 2012), claimed that intelligence was not only largely inherited, but that different racial groups achieved unequal social outcomes due to genetic differences. Eysenck and Jensen’s view were popular among white nationalist circles. They provided a veneer of scientific ‘respectability’ to viewpoints long considered racist and beyond the pale.

No sooner had Eysenck begun his speech, than students from Maoist and Afro-Asian solidarity groups jumped the stage and assaulted Eysenck. Knocked to the ground and beaten, the incident became one of the first no-platforming episodes in recent history.

It turns out that the Maoist students were correct, though not for the reasons they stated. Eysenck, similarly to his mentor Sir Cyril Burt, was posthumously exposed as a scientific fraud and systematic liar. Manufacturing data to support his pre-existing conclusions about race, heredity and intelligence, Eysenck’s papers have been declared unsafe by his previous employer as a result of his scientific misconduct.

Genomics – explaining ourselves through genes

Psychology, along with the rest of the social sciences, has taken up the gene-centric perspective of society. To be sure, neuroscience, the study of the brain and nervous system, predates the discovery of DNA by decades. However, genetic explanations of every aspect of human behaviour, from alcoholism to sexual orientation, has become predominated by the sweeping and swift genomic claim of ‘it’s in the genes.’ Mapping the human genome was supposed to unlock the mysteries of the basis of human behaviour.

The concept of heritability has been surrounded by confusion – and deliberate sleight of hand – by proponents of genetic determinism for a long time. Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, two psychologists and coauthors of The Bell Curve, postulate that intelligence is largely inherited. Following in the footsteps of Eysenck – and the American psychologist Arthur Jensen – the hereditarian advocate locates the origins of capitalist socioeconomic and racial inequality in an individual’s genes. A meritocratic society, we are told, will be rewarded for their ‘good’ genes.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of heritability here. Heritable is implicitly equated with inevitability, or determined. In casual conversation, we all talk about children inheriting traits from their parents – height, hair colour and so on. Let’s have a closer look at the concept of heritability. When something is genetic, it does not mean that it is inevitable in the phenotype.

Let’s look at genetic factors for disease risk. Heritability is a statistical concept, which means that the risk factors for a particular disease within a given population are due to heredity. The heritability estimate of a trait is expressed within the range of 0.0 to 1.0; 0 means little if any genetic factors, and 1.0 means entirely all the trait is due to heritability. For instance, Crohn’s disease has a heritability estimate of 0.75.

What does that mean? It means that within a given population, 75 percent of the risk factors for developing the disease are attributable to hereditary causes. No, it does not mean that if your parents have Crohn’s disease, you as an individual have a 75 percent chance of developing it. No, it does not mean that 75 percent of Crohn’s disease is determined by your genes. Heritability estimates apply to a given population, not to specific individuals in that population.

There is not a simple, linear gene-to-trait causal linkage. For instance, there are multiple genes identified with the expression of schizophrenia. The multifactorial causes of schizophrenia, many of which are non-genetic, are slowly being understood. There is no single ‘intelligence gene’, let alone a racial component in the expression and exercise of intelligence.

Pankaj Mehta, associate professor of physics at Boston University, observes that most phenotypes outcomes, such as height and eye colour, are not purely dependent on genes alone. Mehta explores the example of height, which we think is influenced by genes alone. There is an example, while drawn from horrifying social conditions, does illustrate the point.

During the 1980 and 90s, the Guatemalan Mayan community was targeted by American supported death squads. Mayan children who fled with their families, were raised in the United States. When comparing the respective heights of Mayan children who remained in Guatemala as opposed to US-raised Mayans (between six and twelve years old), researchers found the American-raised children were 10 centimetres taller than their Guatemalan counterparts. Better nutrition, diet and stable educational lifestyle all played a part, more so than heredity, in determining the height outcomes of these children.

Eysenck – spokesperson for big tobacco

Scientists are always debating each other. Controversy is part of the job. However, when a scientist is paid by an interested party in that controversy to manufacture misinformed doubt, that is scandalous. Eysenck, back in the 1990s, produced papers purportedly demonstrating that personality types, rather than cigarettes and its carcinogenic ingredients, were the main determinants of lung cancer.

His theory of ‘cancer prone’ and ‘heart disease’ prone personality types removed the culpability of smoking cigarettes (and the tobacco companies who own and sold them) for human mortality. Years later, an interesting fact came to light; Eysenck had received thousands of pounds in funding from tobacco companies for his research.

It is not so much Eysenck’s financial skulduggery which is at issue here, outrageous as that is. It is the pervasive and secretive influence of dark money on our political, media and scientific institutions. Not only have tobacco companies spent billions manufacturing doubt about the links between nicotine and lung cancer, American and British billionaires have funded fake think tanks, astroturf citizen groups – denying the reality of human-induced global warming.

The Koch family has spent billions on academic institutions which promote the ultra-libertarian philosophy of free markets and reduced government. Denouncing the influence of ideology, they advocate an ideology of unfettered neoliberalism. The ultrarightist Cato Institute churns out seemingly scholarly output in defence of right wing politicians. It advocates a version of individual liberty which somehow morphs into the freedom of corporations to exploit and plunder.

The malign influence of dark money did not end with Eysenck’s death. It continues to metastasise in the institutions of government and science. We must not allow the billionaire megaphone from drowning out the voices of the marginalised. I do not advocate individual violence in the manner of the Maoist students who attacked Eysenck. However, storming the outsize megaphones of the billionaire class is just as urgent today as it was fifty years ago.

We have all heard about fugitive Nazi war criminals, escaping post-war Europe, finding sanctuary in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay or some other South American nation. You could be forgiven for thinking that coddling Nazi mass murderers is somehow endemic to the Hispanic condition.

However, that stereotype is incorrect. Providing sanctuary for Nazi criminals however, is not something unique to the Latin temperament. The country in the Americas that has consistently welcomed Nazis, and assisted in rehabilitating their doctrines, is north of the equator – predominantly Anglo Canada.

In September this year, the Canadian parliament gave a rapturous ovation to Ukrainian Yaroslav Hunka. Who is he? Now 98 years old, Hunka was a member of the Waffen SS, specifically the First Ukrainian Division. This unit, originally known as the 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, was mostly made up of ultranationalist Ukrainians who fought alongside Nazi German troops in World War 2.

Motivated by the racist ideology of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, this division – also known as 1st Galician – committed numerous atrocities against Jews, Poles, Russians and other minority groups. Condemned as a criminal organisation at the end of World War 2, the veterans of the Galician division escaped justice in Europe. Thousands of them found refuge in Britain – and Canada. In fact, Canada is the largest recipient of fleeing Nazi war criminals on the American continent.

The fact that Hunka was officially invited to attend the official address of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the Canadian parliament, exposes the dark side of Ukrainian ultranationalist criminality.

There is one positive side to this story. As Jeremy Appel notes, the international community has asked serious questions regarding Canada’s disturbing record in rehabilitating Ukrainian ultranationalism. Nazi war criminals like Yaroslav Hunka, are not exactly isolated strangers in the wider Ukrainian-Canadian community.

I seem to recall the almighty tsunami of outrage by the Israeli and European governments in response to antisemitic remarks by Palestinian authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with senior European politicians, denounced what they saw as a repeat pattern of antisemitism on the part of Abbas. They also condemned what they viewed as the Palestinian authority’s footdragging when it comes to confronting antisemitism in its own ranks.

The Canadian government, in its turn, forcefully denounced Abbas and the Palestinian authorities for their perceived antisemitism.

If that is the case, what would the international community, and Tel Aviv’s supporters, make of Ottawa’s longstanding policy of cultivating, rehabilitating (and now applauding) East European Nazi collaborators? The latter are responsible for the mass murder of thousands of Europeans Jews. After the war, Ottawa, in cooperation with the UK, overlooked the racist criminal past of Ukrainian Nazi collaborator veterans, and provided them with sanctuary.

Ali Abuninah, writing about this topic in Electronic Intifada, notes the rank hypocrisy of those whose current silence on the issue of Canadian sanctuary for Nazi war criminals is deafening:

One might think that the members of this chorus truly care about preserving the memory of the victims of the Nazis, and even take seriously their regular invocation of such slogans as “Never Again.”

But that would be a mistake.

After World War 2, with the Cold War in full swing, thousands of Eastern European Nazi collaborators, including Ukrainian members of the Waffen SS Galician unit, were provided sanctuary in Canada. There, they established vibrant communities, with newspapers, churches, schools, sports clubs – and were a reliable anticommunist bulwark against the Canadian labour movement and trade unions.

Waffen SS veterans, such as the Ukrainians who fought in the 1st Galician division, were given refuge in Britain after the war. The UK government at the time regarded these former SS members as ‘good stock’ who were racially acceptable, and would provide bodies for labour shortages. In the 1950s, Hunka and thousands of his colleagues moved to Canada.

In Canada, these Ukrainians set up the Ukrainian Cultural Congress (UCC), an umbrella organisation dedicated to, among other things, promoting a sanitised version of the Galician division’s record. The mass killings of Jews, Poles and Russians was basically forgotten, and the Ukrainian SS members were portrayed as simple patriots driven into the arms of the Nazis by Stalinist repression. So, the excuse is – ‘the Russians made me do it’.

The Ukrainian nationalist lobby, which provided the recruits for Himmler’s Galician unit, saw Jewish Bolshevism as the main enemy to be confronted. I am certain there was a German politician who said the same thing, and targeted European Jews as the existential threat facing western civilisation. Himmler himself inspected the ranks of the Ukrainian Waffen SS soldiers, solidifying his control over the Eastern European collaborators.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, along with the Canadian political establishment, apologised for inviting and applauding Hunka. The Speaker of the House, Anthony Rota, resigned his position in the wake of the scandal. This incident is being summarily dismissed as a PR gaffe. That is a pathetic attempt to trivialise a serious issue.

It is hardly a mistake when current Canadian deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland openly boasts of her grandfather’s role in recruiting for the Ukrainian Waffen SS division. It is hardly Russian disinformation to point out Ottawa’s deliberate cultivation of a haven for Ukrainian war criminals.

Canada’s willing reception of Waffen SS veterans exposes the moral bankruptcy of Ottawa’s foreign policies. Their scarcely credible claims of fighting for democracy and freedom stand exposed as deceptions. It is high time for Trudeau and Freeland to face the consequences of their actions. The next time you are looking for Nazi refugees, don’t only look at South American nations – cast your view at a nation further up north.

August this year marked fifty years since Australian troops were completely withdrawn from Vietnam. This was in accordance with the American drawdown of military forces at the time. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese paid tribute to the courage and sacrifice of Australian soldiers who served in that conflict. His speech was one of many commemorative activities held across the country regarding the final withdrawal of Australian troops.

While hailing the values of courage and sacrifice is all well and good, Albanese’s perspective serves a definitive political purpose; whitewashing the criminal and predatory nature of the US attack on Vietnam. The courage and sacrifice of soldiers in conflict sounds like a nice, value-free statement – who could dispute that sentiment? Only traitors and scoundrels question the heroism of frontline troops, surely? Such sentiments provide a soft scented candle to mask the odious stench of criminal wars lurking underneath.

PM Albanese, in an attempt to appeal to the normally conservative military lobby, spoke of the suffering of Vietnam veterans, stated that many of them were disrespected and ignored upon returning home. There is no evidence that anti-war demonstrators ever spat at, or hurled abuse at, returning veterans. Many of these myths of the badly-behaved protester are recycled as a way to distract from the criminal and barbaric nature of the assault on Vietnam.

The Vietnam veterans did suffer – from post traumatic stress disorder and various psychological afflictions. These conditions were the result of a predatory war waged by political masters in Washington and Canberra. The short-lived tyrannical republic of South Vietnam, based in Saigon, was propped up by American force of arms. Notorious for torturing and killing prisoners in its ‘tiger cages’, stories about the barbarity of the American backed Saigon dictatorship are overshadowed by the manufactured concern of the obnoxious protester.

The United States undertook military action in Vietnam, not for any humanitarian reasons, or for the dubious claim about promoting democracy and confronting Communism. The US sought to replace France as the preeminent imperial power in Indochina. Having ‘lost’ China itself in 1949 to the Maoist revolution, Washington’s ruling circles were intent on imprinting their own footprint in Vietnam. The latter defeated French colonialism in the 1950s.

Myths about sacrifice and nobility in war become the basis of self-serving fiction. Remembering the Australian troops who served in Vietnam is not a value-free, altruistic exercise motivated by pure dedication to nationalist ideals. Notions of heroic sacrifice for king and country obscure the cynical calculations involved in starting and prolonging imperialist wars. December 2022 was the 50th anniversary of the misremembered and euphemistically named Christmas bombing of North Vietnam.

Why does this Christmas bombing matter? That particular aerial attack, lasting over eleven days in December 1972, is said to have brought Hanoi to the negotiating table to sign a peace deal. That fictionalised memory, which elevates American air power to a decisive factor, not only misrepresents a crucial historical period. It also has provided a misleading influence on American foreign policies.

Peace talks between Hanoi and Washington has been proceeding since the early 1970s. Throughout 1972, the prospects of a peace agreement looks optimistic. The Nixon administration, in an exaggerated sense of aerial ‘military might’, began an intensive bombing campaign against Hanoi and Haiphong. Civilian installation were targeted, including electric plants, hospitals and schools. Operation Linebacker II, as it is officially known, was one of the largest bombing campaigns since the end of World War 2.

The scale of civilian deaths and destruction is difficult to contemplate. The Vietnamese victims of this bombing campaign are largely forgotten. To be sure, the US Air Force experienced heavier than expected losses. Hanoi and Haiphong were well defended by anti-aircraft installations.

What is also forgotten is that the peace agreement, signed by Hanoi in 1973, did not contain any new concessions or changes that had not already been agreed to in October 1972. The war was needlessly prolonged, escalated to new levels of destructive violence, and thousands more Vietnamese suffered the consequences.

This belief in ‘bombing power’ is a self-serving delusion. It has underpinned subsequent US invasions of, and defeats in, Iraq and Afghanistan. What is forgotten in all of the commemorations is that Vietnam veterans joined the anti-war demonstrations in the 1960s and 70s. Rather than being abused or assaulted, civilian demonstrators welcomed the participation of military veterans for the purpose of achieving peace.

The civilian-military divide was overcome precisely in the anti-Vietnam war movement. As the Vietnam conflict wore on, increasing numbers of soldiers questioned the American government and turned to the anti-war campaign. The Pentagon Papers, released by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, exposed a systematic pattern of lying about the conflict on the part of Washington.

In 2019, in an eerie parallel with the earlier Pentagon papers, the Afghanistan papers revealed the systematic deceptions and duplicity of American (and Australian) authorities in covering up the failing war in Afghanistan. Senior military figures questioned not only the motives of the war in Afghanistan, but also expressed alarm that the U.S. government was “failing to tell the truth” – in other words, lying to the public.

As the last American troops madly scrambled to the rooftop of the US embassy in Kabul in 2021, the parallels with the chaotic American retreat from Saigon were unmistakable. In the wake of the defeat of US forces in Afghanistan, serious questions were asked about why we have not learned lessons from similar defeats in Iraq and Vietnam.

In an ironic turn, US President Joe Biden will visit Vietnam for the purpose of strengthening bilateral relations. Following in the footsteps of former president Obama’s pivot to Asia, Biden is hoping to draw Hanoi into its anti-China military alliance. Hanoi, while welcoming reconciliation, strongly rejects any participation in a hostile military bloc against Beijing.

Whitewashing past imperial wars, and recycling durable myths about them, only serves to reinforce Australia’s relegation as a deputy mercenary in America’s criminal wars overseas. It is time to reevaluate our priorities, and take a stand against the wars that make the crimes of Ben Roberts-Smith possible.

Art is always created for art’s sake. Every artist, whether a painter, sculptor, novelist or film director, is passionate about their art. When does art cross over into propaganda? When discussing this question, we immediately think about Soviet Russia, China, Iran or other non-democratic societies. Art with a political agenda may be motivated by political agendas – that does not make it any less effective as a work of art.

It is naive in the extreme to think that our artistic practices are completely divorced from propagandistic purposes. In fact, the British empire was an exemplar of how art was deployed as propaganda. In this case, artwork became a way of expanding and solidifying a transnational British identity, unifying its colonies through cultural imperialism.

In the Art Gallery of NSW, there is an imposing, longstanding painting by Alphonse de Neuville entitled The Defence of Rorke’s Drift. Exhibited in 1880 in Sydney – when NSW was still a penal colony of Britain – the painting propagandises the role of the British army at the battle of Rorke’s drift during the Anglo-Zulu war. The battle, a victory for Britain, inaugurated a wave of imperial patriotism.

The British soldiers, rather than being portrayed as white colonisers making incursions into Zulu territory, are seen as heroic, resourceful defenders. The Zulus by contrast, are relegated as barely discernible, anonymous individuals enmeshed into one amorphous mass. The oil on canvas painting by De Neuville is an early, and typical, example of art as imperial propaganda. The painting contributed to establishing an identity of transnational and racialised British patriotism.

In another wing of the NSW Art Gallery hang the paintings of the Flemish artist Sir Peter Paul Rubens (1577 – 1640). A giant of Baroque painting, he combined Flemish realism with ideas from the Italian Renaissance, and became an enthusiastic student of the artistic resurgence known as the Northern Renaissance.

Was Rubens an exceptional painter? Emphatically, yes. Was he a propagandist? Yes, he was that also. In what way? Ruben’s’ works, involving religious themes, fall into the tradition of the Counter Reformation. The latter was a resurgence of traditional Catholic dogma against what was the Protestant European Reformation. In fact, while Rubens’ works were commissioned by the Catholic authorities, a number of his contemporaries – who fell foul of the Catholic Church in Flanders – went into exile.

The southern part of Flanders, which eventually became the nation of Belgium, saw the successful reintroduction of Spanish Catholic feudalism. In the north, in what became the Dutch Republic, the nascent capitalist and artisanal class fought against the heavy repression of the Spanish monarchy. Calvinist and aspiring to independence, the Netherlands held out against attempts at reconquest. In the midst of this epic class struggle, Rubens brush became a cultural sword of counterrevolution.

While his contemporaries died in poverty, Rubens became a wealthy man, honoured by the monarchies of England, France and Spain. His artwork was part of the Catholic church’s conscious mobilisation of art as a cultural weapon in the fight against the Reformation. His paintings are remarkable – they are also examples of ideologically driven propaganda.

Religious art is beautiful, haunting, awe-inspiring and remarkable. Mosques are wondrous displays of architectural imagination and impressive engineering. Architectural Digest lists, among other things, the world’s most beautiful mosques. One does not need any supernatural deities, or gods, or immaterial beings, to experience a sense of connection, community and compassion. All we need is our empathy based on our common humanity.

Subjecting art to the commercial imperative is at the source of its corruption into corporatist propaganda, an enterprise we call public relations and advertising. It is easy to point accusatory fingers at politically motivated iconographic art – ubiquitous portraits of Stalin in the USSR, or Mao’s ever-present gaze in Maoist China. Art helped Maoism go global. Socialist realism gave us idealised pictures of peasants and collective farms.

We can easily see the artistic practices, and their perversion, in societies other than our own. The Iranian Ayatollahs have deployed art to reinforce their theocratic rule, and public murals display motifs suitable to their post-revolution rule.

Murals throughout Iran celebrate Karbala, martyrdom and political Islam. They also tell the story of Iran’s subjection to foreign powers, and the Iranian people’s struggle for self-determination. Political iconography is not the sum total of Iranian public art. It also tells of their resistance, and their ability to see through the scurrilous plans of the imperialist powers to re-subjugate the nation.

Art is the important bridge between the mind and spiritual uplift. If you want to believe in a supernatural realm, that is up to you. Art is not the exclusive province of one or another religion or spiritual outlook, but a deeply human, cultural production that makes us realise that we are more than the sum of our parts. As Larry Culliford writes:

The foremost reason that artists create, and the rest of us value their art, is because art forms a priceless living bridge between the everyday psychology of our minds and the universal spirit of humanity.

Denouncing the deployment of crude political iconography is a pastime of art commentators in the West. Yes, we can see how the Iraqi Ba’athist party, in the 1980s, elevated its leader Saddam Hussein to a heroic, larger than life figure in its propaganda. Standing beside Saladin and Nebuchadnezzar, Hussein combined Islamic motifs with pre-Islamic Babylonian history.

However, let’s also remember the words of Culliford, from whose article we quoted above. Making a strict distinction between art and merchandise, Culliford writes that art is contaminated by the drive for profit, status, wealth and success. Instead, true art conveys human emotions of compassion, creativity, patience and discernment.

It is not beyond the capacity of our modern capitalist institutions to utilise art for propaganda purposes. Let’s be honest with ourselves, and stop accusing other nations of crude cultural practices which we implement in more sophisticated ways in our own societies. Art is an expression of individual genius – that much is for certain. Let’s also be aware that art can express a collective imagination for political purposes.

There are anniversaries which mark events that help us in understanding the world we live in today. This month – August 19 to be exact – marks 70 years since the US-UK instigated coup d’état in Iran, toppling the nationalist government of Mohammed Mossadegh. The coup, orchestrated with the help of British and American intelligence, not only ushered in decades of savagely repressive rule for Iranians, but also restored crucial oil industry concessions for Western oil corporations.

Why is all this important? The 1953 coup d’état demonstrated the underhanded and criminal lengths to which oil and energy companies will go, assisted by the London-Washington political axis, in reversing measures by democratically elected, nationalist governments to confront their power and oil wealth. The 1953 indicates the falsity of claims by Whitehall (and the Pentagon) to be exemplars of democracy – they employ predatory and undemocratic methods to protect their class privileges.

Since the turn of the 19th-20th century, Persia, as Iran was then known, had been a British colony. No, there was never a formal declaration to that effect. However, through a network of political connections, coercion, economic agreements and concessions, the British came to dominate economic and political processes in Persia. The discovery of oil – large, commercially viable reservoirs of it – made Iran a target of imperialist interests. London was the first to push into Iran, and through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), dominated the oil trade in Persia.

Business friendly Iranian politicians in Tehran, backed up by an informal network of British intelligence operatives and oil consultants, ensured that legislation was conciliatory towards Britain’s energy demands. No laws which restricted the outflow of profits, amounting to millions of pounds, would be tolerated by the largely supine political class in Iran. The Shah, indecisive and vacillating by nature, gave an air of imperial legitimacy to a ramshackle and corrupt regime.

The AIOC – formally known as Anglo-Persian Oil Company prior to 1935 – had a majority shareholder, the British government. Ironically, it was basically a nationalised oil company. I say ironically, because with the rise to power of Mohammed Mossadegh, he nationalised the AIOC assets, on the basis that the profits generated by Iranian oil should be shared by the Iranian people.

How were the Iranian oil workers treated? For an insight into how British-owned AIOC operated, we need look no further than its operational flagship refinery at Abadan. Workers laboured away in dangerous conditions, and child labourers were not unknown. While the oil company raked in the profits, people in Abadan existed on starvation wages, and the distended bellies of children attested to the existence of malnutrition. Not for nothing did the Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas, describe the city as ‘puking Abadan.’ Environmental and health-safety regulations were non-existent.

Iranian nationalist forces, part of a mosaic of Iranian political parties, came to power in 1951 in the shape of President Mohammed Mossadegh. Promptly nationalising the AIOC, Mossadegh struck down the crown jewel of British imperialism in Iran. Panic set in inside the corridors of power in London and Washington. The latter had their own reasons for wishing to see Mossadegh defeated, and the Americans swiftly began drawing up plans for Mossadegh’s removal – by hook or by crook.

The British government of Clement Attlee, (Labour) incensed at this display of rebellion by the uppity Iranians, moved into action. Using its network of sympathetic monarchist politicians, newspaper editors, British Petroleum (BP) oil executives and intelligence agents, London mobilised anti-nationalist Iranians for street rallies, sabotage and raising tensions inside Iran. The Shah, ever the coward, was leaned on by his British backers to acquiesce to Mossadegh’s removal.

By the way, BP is the rebranded image of the original AIOC.

The British relied on a collection of anti-Mossadegh Iranian forces – Islamic fundamentalists, monarchist military officers, pro-British street thugs and Iranian neo-Nazis. Yes, you read that correctly – Iranian racist neo-Nazi groups. The latter, while small, had a presence in Iran. Indeed, changing the nation’s nation’s name from Persia to Iran back in the 1930s, was a cynical manoeuvre by the then-Shah to curry favour with Nazi Germany. Iran means ‘land of the Aryans.’

The myth of Aryanism, its seemingly archaeological and esoteric ‘legitimacy’, was exploited by London to mobilise public hostility against the nationalist Mossadegh. The latter, in British and American propaganda, was routinely identified with the USSR and Communism. Initially, Britain’s plans went awry – Mossadegh was able to hang on to power. London’s tension strategy was not working. Masses of people, including from the rival but nationalist-friendly Iranian Communist Tudeh party, held off the weakling anti-nationalist forces.

To avoid a brewing civil war, Mossadegh relented and resigned office on August 19, 1953. The coup plotters were jubilant, and the Shah ruled with an iron hand from then on. The monarchist regime in Iran became one of the most savagely repressive governments in the world, and its Israeli-trained secret police, SAVAK, became notorious for its brutality. As for AIOC, now known as BP, the Iranian government negotiated a new concession, granting 40 percent ownership of Iran’s oil consortium. Britain’s power was diminished.

Another consequence of the 1953 coup should be noted here. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, London and Washington have incessantly screamed about the dangers of the ‘mad ayatollahs’ in Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Whether the ayatollahs are mad or not I do not know. What is clear is that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were started and cultivated by the United States.

In the 1950s, US President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the Atoms for Peace initiative, which seeded nuclear ambitions for the Shah’s pro-American regime. The Shah, ever eager, wanted nuclear power, and sought out various vendors to build nuclear reactors. Tying his nation’s nuclear programme to Washington, numerous Iranian students studied the basics of nuclear engineering at MIT. The monarchy’s nuclear ambitions wedded it to an axis of pro-American regimes in the region.

Whenever we listen to the professed claims of concerns about human rights by Washington – and London’s – inside Iran, we must be skeptical. Former US President Trump may have committed numerous domestic crimes for which he has been indicted, but his main crime has gone unpunished – his war plans against Iran. It is not Iran’s theocratic practices that enrage the UK-US axis, but its political disobedience to Anglo-American dictates.

We must reorient our understanding of Iran, moving beyond the stereotypes of mad mullahs and domesticated hijab-wearing women, and examine the hypocrisies of our policies towards that rich and multicultural nation.

An old idea has been recycled, and making the rounds, in discussions about the anti war movement. In the face of the escalating Moscow-Kyiv confrontation, numerous organisations have asked why cannot the political Left join forces with the ultranationalist far right – at least with those ultrarightist politicians who have expressed anti war sentiments. Surely, the Trump-style MAGA Republicans, while holding obnoxious views, are to be commended when critiquing America’s predatory overseas wars?

No, MAGA Republicans are not anti war allies. Trump was never an anti war president. Oh yes, Tucker Carlson, the ultrarightist screaming shill, barked criticisms of the pro-war directions of the Obama and Biden administrations – attacking the covert US support for rebel antigovernment organisations in Syria, for instance. No, Carlson is definitely not an ally of the anti war movement.

Sam Carliner, writing in Counterpunch magazine, correctly observes that when MAGA conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene, criticise the Biden administration for escalating the NATO proxy war against Russia, they are doing so on the basis of anti-immigrant antipathy and isolationism. The ultranationalist Right, when expressing opposing to predatory wars, does so not because foreigners are being used as cannon fodder such as in Ukraine. It is because their xenophobic nationalism motivates them to denounce any kind of international outreach as inimical to US interests.

The isolationist tendency in conservative American politics, traces its lineage to the America First movement. Trump was certainly not the first to use that slogan. Based in racism, the claims of America First devalue non-American lives, and reject international cooperation and participation as unnecessary and unacceptable wastage of resources on foreign issues. While it is commendable to look after your own nation, that goal cannot be pursued in isolation from the rest of the world.

The MAGA Right, such as pseudo-populist and former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson, advocate economic policies which favour big business, impoverish workers and promote racist sentiments which underscore rampant imperialism and militarism. While Carlson, who became a minor celebrity on the Fox News circuit, made moderate criticisms of the Obama administration’s pivot on Syria, he has been at one with the bipartisan consensus on the buildup for war with China.

The Democrat party, in a cynical and calculated way, exploited Carlson’s occasional deviations from pro-war orthodoxy by presenting him as a stooge for the Russians. This way of smearing any opponent of the war drive against Russia – and the current NATO proxy war supported by US imperialism – is a tried and tested tactic of the Democrat party. It serves to undermine critical examinations of imperialist war policies by maligning any critic as a potentially treasonous suspect.

Carlson has his dispute with his previous employer, and that is that. I am not taking sides with him nor with Fox News. What is relevant to point out is that Carlson, when he had a national platform, cheered on the American invasion of Iraq, and once called Iraqis ‘semiliterate primitive monkeys.’ These sentiments have no place in an anti war movement based on international solidarity.

Indeed, the MAGA ultranationalists do not understand that recessionary pressures and increased military spending go hand in hand. It is crucial to remember the connection between harsh neoliberal austerity at home, and escalating financial support for military intervention overseas. Why? The vision motivating the libertarian ultranationalist Right is precisely the philosophy that underpins reckless imperialist wars overseas.

Emphasising the above point is required, because there have been practical attempts to unite the Left (at least some particular groups on the broad Left), with the ultraliberatarian Right. I am referring to a specific event in the United States – the Rage Against the War Machine rally in February this year. Purportedly uniting disparate political forces on a common anti war platform, the rally in Washington DC, it turned out to be a bit of a freak show.

Organised jointly by the Libertarian party, and the supposedly leftist People’s party, the protest rally was better at marketing than actual attendance or political perspective. Uniting the far right and conspiracist groups of the ultranationalist Right, including the remnants of the Lyndon LaRouche far right cultist movement, the rally failed to live up to its promise of ‘raging’ against the US military financial complex.

The Libertarian party, advocating for a hyper-deregulated laissez-faire capitalism, is committed to the philosophy of Austrian-American economist Ludwig von Mises. His Ayn Randian vision would see society stripped bare of any type of government regulation. The Mises Caucus, the dominant group within the Libertarian party and co-organiser of the rally, is not only a hyper-capitalist in its orientation, but also neo-Confederate, basing themselves on a perverse and self-serving notion of individual liberty. It is not unusual to see Libertarian groups distinctly orient to far right militia and antisemitic forces.

While the media janissaries of the far right may posture as pro-worker advocates, in reality the policies of the MAGA Right have always been big business friendly. Tucker Carlson, throughout his stint as a media figure, consistently lined up with the policies of monopolies, proposing measures to make life harder for the working class. Not once did he speak up for public health and Medicare, or for environmental regulations to reduce pollution – he has been a populist for the 1 percent. The late English politician and racist, Enoch Powell, was cut from the same political cloth.

Surely the sign of maturity, both emotional and political, is to cooperate on momentously important and common issues with people and groups with whom we might otherwise disagree? That is true – not everyone can agree on everything one hundred percent of the time. We must also have the maturity to recognise that a dead end political strategy has been tried multiple times before, and failed. Broadening the scope and magnitude of the anti war movement is urgently needed; uniting with the MAGA Right is only allowing a poisonous weed space to grow.

Police procedural dramas on TV are very exciting, well-scripted and acted thrillers. The Law and Order franchise, The Closer and its follow up series Major Crimes, the old Columbo series featuring everyone’s favourite rumpled, brilliant detective – these are very entertaining programmes. They are also examples of the ubiquitous phenomenon known as copaganda – unrealistically positive and heroised versions of police officers on TV.

The TV networks are saturated with police dramas. They feature a range of characters and intricate storylines. Whether they are semi-comical goofy characters, or hard-nosed ethically upright partisans of the law, police and detective portrayals on TV and in film are a ubiquitous feature of our pop culture. They are very entertaining, but also misleading us in the way the police and justice system works.

The job of policing can be dangerous and stressful. Catching violent offenders is a perilous business; solving gruesome homicides can be traumatic for the officers involved. The killings of police officers at Wieambilla, Queensland, by vicious and fanatical ultrarightist survivalists was very saddening. Police dramas on TV however, are more about public relations and promoting a positive view of police forces in general.

Why raise the topic of copaganda? Adam Johnson, writing in AlterNet magazine, explains it this way:

Media critics spend a lot of time discussing how our military industry manipulates the press into war and bloated defense budgets. Far less time, however, is spent discussing how our local police departments plays the media to suit their ends. The reason for this mostly has to do with the fragmented nature of localized propaganda, combined with a prejudice that police aren’t very savvy.

Increasing funding for the police is easily achieved when a population is hooked on the appealing diet of copaganda. If the corporate media, fed by stories from the police PR departments, that street crime is on the rise, surely the solution is more police and prisons? This distracts us from two observations; first, that police funding has increased exponentially over the years, and second, that the problem street crime is wildly exaggerated, while corporate malfeasance and tax evasion reach unprecedented levels.

Corporate crime, while involving billions of dollars and tainting our financial institutions, makes for boring TV. Police procedural programmes are soap opera dramas, full of excitement, car chases, shootouts, forensic investigations featuring dedicated coroners, handsome David Caruso clashing with his fellow officers regarding some crucial piece of DNA evidence; what drama is there in tax evasion, which robs workers of their wages?

An Australian Senate Committee, in 2019/20, investigated the sustained, systematic and shocking magnitude of wage theft in Australia. The ABC summarised the findings of these investigations, and stated that billions of dollars in unpaid wages and superannuation was uncovered. Hospitality, universities and cleaning were just some of the industries where wage theft was rife.

Uncovering and prosecuting such systematic malfeasance takes persistence, poring through financial records, analysing the application of fiduciary obligations and identifying the areas of accounting deception – all very necessary, but hardly corresponding to the image of the heroic detectives waging a relentless war on crime we see on TV and in film. No car chases, no gunfights, no serial killers – but there are serial offenders in business suits.

Enforcing environmental regulations is necessary to protect human and animal life. Water pollution by large corporations leads to the deaths of people from various diseases and medical conditions, including cancer. Lives lost and marred by pollutants is a huge criminal problem, requiring the enforcement of clean air and water regulations. This requires the cooperation of victims, medical personnel, as well as police and law enforcement. Companies which pollute the environment hardly make the headlines.

Air pollution, while a serious and criminal cause of death and disease for thousands of Australians each year, barely registers headlines in the evening news. Where are the CSI teams of detectives, performing forensic analyses of air quality, determining the impact of pollutants on human health, and tracking down the culprits who caused the resultant deaths?

By emphasising the role that police play in taking down individual felons and street crime, particularly targeting people of colour and from ethnic minorities, copaganda builds upon a stereotype of ethnic crime. Racialised opinion pieces in the corporate media promote a vision of ethnic groups as abysmal swamps of crime. This skews our perception of police conduct, in particular, the violence of militarised police against ethnic communities.

Breonna Taylor, an African American emergency medical technician, was shot dead by police in her home while she slept. She was 26 years old in 2020. Police entered her home under the no-knock policy implemented by officers in Louisville, Kentucky. That means they were not required to identify themselves as police officers. Plain clothes officers used a battering ram to forcibly enter her premises.

Claiming that they were under fire from occupants in the house, the officers fired off multiple rounds, killing Taylor in her sleep. Kenneth Walker, her boyfriend who was present at the shooting, is a licensed firearms holder. He believed he was confronting home invaders. He survived the incident, and gave his account to the police.

None of the officers involved in the Taylor homicide were charged with murder. Her case is not unusual; there has been a spate of police killings in the US, targeting the African American community. Police departments and their vast arsenal of PR have swung into action, promoting images of officers taking a knee, holding black children for safety and solidarity. Once the cameras are gone, protesters and black communities have borne the brunt of police violence. Kneeling with anti-police brutality protesters one minute, beating the crap out of them the next.

But surely there are just a few bad apples? You know, a few rotten fruit must not be allowed to spoil the entire barrel? I understand the sentiment, because it originates with our culturally pervasive, heavily fictionalised background portrayal of police as essentially positive upstanding stars doing a difficult job in stressful circumstances. That argument of a ‘few bad apples’ is irrelevant. Airline pilots, surgeons, construction workers, paramedics, firefighters – all have difficult and stressful jobs. Any corruption or incompetence on their part would be met with the full force of the law, no excuses.

The esteemed Sir Stephen House, formerly the acting commissioner of the Metropolitan police in Britain, admitted that the problems of corruption and abuse of power by UK police is not a question of just a few ‘bad apples’. He dismissed such folksy, simple slogans and demanded concrete solutions. Be that as it may, the argument of ‘bad apples’ frames the conversation about police on the basis of our fictionalised copaganda stereotype.

If you want to enjoy police procedural dramas on TV and in film, please do so. Just be mindful that the cheery, Heartbeat-style officer you see on the TV screen has more to do with copaganda than reality. Let’s be more aware of how pervasive copaganda influences our conversations around law enforcement.