Since I was a teenager I have been interested in the topic of origins; the origin of humankind, life on Earth, the planets, the solar system and the cosmos. No, I am definitely not suggesting that I possess all the answers to these questions. No single individual can make such a claim. My late father had books on these topics, in particular human evolution, on the bookshelves. I read as many of them as I could.

Times have changed since I was in school, pouring over biology and geology texts, examining pictures of Richard Leakey holding hominin fossil skulls in his hands. Fossils are crucial, to be sure, but they are not the only way to uncover previously unknown hominin species.

When it comes to the origins and evolution of Homo sapiens, no other subject – with the possible exception of cosmology – has changed so much in the last fifty years.

Discoveries of extinct hominin fossils have changed our simplistic picture of human evolution. The linear model of from ape to human is not only wrong, but outdated. We are all familiar with the wonderful discovery of Lucy in 1974. But that is only one part of an increasingly complex, multifaceted picture.

Ancient DNA and modern humans

The impact of genetics – specifically ancient DNA – on the field of human origins cannot be overestimated. The dizzying array of discoveries of ancient hominins have revealed a complex picture; not only did Homo sapiens coexist with other, now-extinct hominins, they interbred with them.

Jordana Cepelewicz, writing in Quanta magazine in 2019, makes an astute observation. With the advent of ancient DNA, and the analysis of their contents, reveals that Homo sapiens are a mosaic combination. Rather think of the human genome as a blueprint, think of it as a tapestry, combining fragments of DNA from our now-extinct hominin brethren. Yes, humans migrated out of Africa; but we also coexisted with ancient lineages of hominins.

Ancient DNA analysis is not just the basis for Jurassic Park out-of-control threats to human existence Hollywood scenarios. Long before ancient DNA became the basis of fictional blockbusters, biologist and anthropologist Svante Pääbo was developing the techniques of ancient DNA analysis which would open up the burgeoning field of paleogenetics.

Denisovans

Extracting, sequencing and cataloging ancient DNA would lead to the discovery that Homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals. Not only that, but a completely new ancient hominin species was discovered, the Denisovans. Initially, the identification of Denisovans occurred based on the mitochondrial DNA extracted from a finger bone fossil, excavated from Denisova Cave, Siberia in 2010.

Since then, Pääbo and other researchers have done more work uncovering the mysterious Denisovans. Not only did they coexist with us, they also interbred with Neanderthals. The fossils of Denisovans are rare, and work on them has been painstaking. Nevertheless, scientists are starting to paint a fuller picture of the Denisovans, our evolutionary cousins.

Carl Zimmer, writing in the New York Times on the Denisovan origins, states that while fossils for the extinct lineage may be hard to come by, they make up for it with DNA. Indeed, Denisovan teeth and bones have been located in Laos and Tibet, indicating that they could survive in variegated climates and altitudes. It was not until 2019 that researchers found that Denisovans lived outside their ancestral home in Siberia.

In fact, Denisovan DNA fragments are extant in the genomes of indigenous people of Papua New Guinea. Researchers, in 2019, identified Denisovan DNA in modern day Papuan genomes, specifically how Denisovan contributions towards the immune system of Papuans. Not only did the Denisovans travel far and wide, they adapted to the various diseases they encountered along the way.

Darwin, fossils and the human genome project

It was the publication, in 1871, of Darwin’s book The Descent of Man, that really got tongues wagging about human evolution in the English-speaking world. Darwin barely mentioned human origins in his most famous work, On The Origin of Species. He covered all sorts of non-human species in his Origin book; barnacles, ants, aardvarks, lizards – you name it. He tiptoed around the topic of human origins, leaving that for a later date.

He tackled human evolution head on, in his Descent volume. The fossil record at the time was exceedingly thin, and he made a number of observations that have stood the test of time. Basing his case on comparative anatomy, embryology and behaviour, he hypothesised an African origin for Homo Sapiens.

So while he refrained from posing the definitive answer, he laid the foundations for others to follow. Darwin of course, never knew about DNA; that finding would not reveal itself until years into the future.

If there is one discovery that can truly be called epoch-making, it is the complete mapping of the human genome in 2001. While it is impossible to summarise the entirety of the genome project in one blog article, we can make a number of pertinent observations.

The unraveling the human genome was accomplished by much hyperbole about unmasking our true selves. The genome was compared to a blueprint, a CD-ROM of instructions if you will, and humans were supposed to be totally summarised by this finding.

Let’s not delude ourselves that we are reducible to genes. Language and culture, based on our labour power, is what makes us truly human. It is impossible to understand the emergence of humanity without understanding the decisive role of labour – bipedal locomotion freed up the hands from arboreal living.

To be sure, Neanderthals, Denisovans, even Homo Floresiensis – annoyingly nicknamed ‘hobbits’ because of their small stature – all demonstrated a level of toolmaking, symbolic production and the beginnings of stories and songs. As we uncover their genes, we need to make a careful analysis of their cultural environments, and the methods they used to shape it.

Why is everybody on LinkedIn claiming to be an entrepreneur, or intending to be one? Why cannot we take pride in the simple fact of being a worker? If entrepreneurship is not my passion, does that make me deficient in some way?

Copywriting involves, among other things, increasing brand awareness. Every corporation, big or small, wants to increase market share. Good copywriting is persuasive, whether it is business to customer or business-to-business. This kind of writing is great, and pays the bills. If this kind of entrepreneurship is your passion, then congratulations and best of luck to you.

I am a copywriter, but it is not my passion. No, I do not want to be an entrepreneur. Why not? Entrepreneurship consists of activity that is ultimately unfulfilling and emotionally draining – no offence to entrepreneurs and copywriters out there.

Entrepreneurship is all well and good, and if that is your passion, go for it. I do not find a sense of fulfilment in entrepreneurship, but in writing with meaning.

Persuasive writing for business

Please do not misunderstand – good copywriting is a necessary component of any business. What is an example of persuasive writing? Omsom. The latter is an Asian food restaurant business, and their web page contains great copywriting.

Leveraging their refugee background, the two sisters who run the business explain their commitment to cooking, which they learned growing up in their mother’s kitchen. Fleeing their native Vietnam, the Pham sisters have made a new ‘Phamily’ in the US. They have updated the traditional refugees-rags-to-riches story.

The people responsible for Omsom’s web page copy have done a fantastic job. It is a twist on the old story of penniless refugees becoming prosperous in their adopted homeland. Good copywriting will ensure repeat customers. I enjoy copywriting, but it is a job, not a method of achieving social connections.

I still describe myself as a writer. Using that word to describe my occupation feels archaic, a remnant from a bygone era. I should be using the term ‘content creator’. Writers belong to the early twentieth century and use a quill pen; today, content creators are the rage.

What is a content creator?

Since the rise of the internet, digital material is created for the intent of circulation. The instructional guides for using a software platform, the novels of George Orwell, and the videos of monkeys smelling their own fingers are all available for circulation. Clicks and likes have become ends in themselves. Clickbait has replaced cultural capital in big tech’s drive to turn the virtual crowd into individual consumers.

Public service internet

As a blog writer, I try to think of important topics, subjects which I feel are underreported. Yes, I use the internet to find topics. No, the problem is not using algorithms to search for news and long form content. The problem is that we have allowed big tech companies – Google, Meta, Microsoft, Apple – to monopolise the internet space and define it as a purely profit-driven mechanism.

I take notes (not on LinkedIn) about the subjects I read. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and his appropriation by the far right; Max Stirner and his ideology of egoism and self-empowerment; the aristocratic rebellion that underpins the viewpoint of Plato’s Republic.

No employer or corporation has ever asked me to write about these topics. These subjects belong to the humanities, and cannot be monetised, even though the modern university is being steadily corporatised. The growth of social media is a mixed blessing; of course you can find the works of the great philosophers and writers, but you can also find the conspiracy theories, the misinformation and harmful content, amplified by the megaphone of the virtual crowd.

The deleterious impacts of social media are only just beginning to be understood. The increase in depression, anxiety, isolation in the age of social media connection may seem counterintuitive. Surely we are all better interconnected because of TikTok, Snapchat and the like? Actually, we are all consumers, and digital advertising focuses on the click, the brand name, the shallow engagement.

The above-mentioned philosophers are from the past, to be sure. Are they obsolete? By no means. Understanding the heavyweights of the past is essential if we are to comprehend our current predicament. I enjoy copywriting, but it is the humanities (or social sciences) that make me feel connected.

Not just consumers in a marketplace

There is no shortage of practical proposals to open up the internet as a public service broadcaster. The digital commons is far from just a utopian fantasy; treating the digital space as public infrastructure reduces the harms visited upon the public by the commercialised monopoly that we now confront. Indeed, back in 1922, when a little broadcaster called the BBC was founded, it was envisioned as a public pulpit, dedicated to education, information, cultural diversity as well as entertainment.

The new media of that time – radio and television – opened up new audiences, new collectives of people ready to receive messages and content. Many of the debates that were had then are being revisited today with the rise of social media. Let’s be realistic; the birth of the internet was not motivated by the public good, but by the ultra libertarian philosophy of the companies which evolved into the Silicon Valley behemoths we witness today.

Ironically, the Silicon Valley titans, upheld as exemplars of private industry initiatives, were actually seeded by government money and military-industrial startups. Using public money, the tech giants promote individualistic consumerism as an end in itself. Parasitising public infrastructure and turning it into a profit-maximisation business model seems to be a widespread practice, even at universities.

Please enjoy the clicking and browsing hobbyhorse that is the internet. Once in a while, get to a page, and then – stop, log off social media, and read a book.

I wrote about the kitschy, gargantuan statue of Alexander the Great – officially named the Equestrian Hero – back in 2011. Constructed by the then right wing government of North Macedonia (as the former Yugoslav republic is officially known) it was a rebuke to the monopolisation of Hellenic history by the Greek authorities. Skopje was basically flipping the bird to Athens, despite the latter’s ongoing campaign to absorb the history of ancient Macedonia into his heritage.

Since then, there have been numerous interrelated developments. Time to do a follow up.

We all learnt about Alexander III (the Great) of Macedon at university. Building on the military innovations of his father, Philip II, he conquered vast regions of Asia and Africa, eventually defeating the main Eastern rival of the Greek city states, the Persians.

Why is this ancient history important? It is fascinating on its own merits, but that is only half the story. Macedonian national identity is a highly politicised and contested territory. The figure of Alexander III is deployed by both Macedonian and Hellenistic nationalists to construct an unbroken line of continuity between ancient city-states and today’s modern nations.

In 2014, the right wing Macedonian government of Gruevski launched an ambitious and expensive project to build statues of those considered important in Macedonian history. Attempting to cultivate a national identity, Gruevski wanted to solidify his political base. Named Skopje 2014, this project interestingly, continued the longstanding neglect of Communist-era statues and buildings left in disrepair since the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

Right wing nationalist ideology, overtaking the independent states of the former Yugoslavia, looks to the distant past to build a distinct national identity.

Expensive statues – from simplistic propaganda to absurd kitsch

Intended to rally the population around a basic Macedonian patriotism, Skopje 2014 had that affect, but the opposite result. Masses of Macedonians rallied, opposing the corruption, authoritarianism and financial wastage of the right wing Gruevski government. Skopje 2014 symbolised Gruevski’s obsession with nationalist myth making while ignoring the country’s social and economic problems.

In 2015, Kit Gillet reported in the Guardian that Skopje had become the capital of neoclassical kitsch, with statues dotting the capital city. The project because the target of sustained and heavy criticism, leading to the eventual resignation of Gruevski in 2016. He has faced criminal charges, and was sentenced to jail terms for money laundering in the following years.

Rather than promote a gaudy version of glorious Macedonian history, the government exposed its malfeasance, and the irrelevance of instrumentalising ancient history for modern political purposes. When unemployment is nearly 30 percent of the working age population, poverty and crime endemic, building statues of historically distant figures is not exactly the first concern on everyone’s mind.

Nationalism, Hellenic origins and non-Hellenic pushback

As for Alexander III, he is both Hellenic and Macedonian. There was no such thing as a concept of nation during his times. Modern nationalism, whether Greek or Macedonian, has attempted to monopolise ancient history on an exclusionary basis. Western philosophers have traced their origins to ancient Hellenistic civilisation, and this has politically charged implications, to be sure.

Hellenism, and our collective effort to base ourselves in the Ancient Greek tradition, rubs up against the Macedonian sense of identity. Ancient Greece – and Rome – constitute the cultural reservoir from which we, as Westerners, derive our sense of identity. Our art, philosophy, culture etc are (allegedly) derived from the originality of the Greeks.

The government of Skopje has the right to push back at the creeping Hellenisation process – if they want to build a statue to Alexander III, good luck to them. There are numerous attempts by historians and scientists to acknowledge the culturally narrow lens of focusing exclusively on Greco-Roman civilisation. The contributions of African, Asian, Arab-Islamic civilisations is only just beginning to be understood.

In our rush to repudiate the ‘Ancient Greeks invented everything’ claim, we cannot ignore the original contributions of the pre-Socratic philosophers to our own culture. For instance, the Milesians – a Greek city-state on the west coast of Asia Minor – developed a sophisticated philosophy of dialectics and natural science. Marx and Engels were, in a way, following in the footsteps of the Greek atomists and Heraclitus (c 540 – 483 BCE).

In the English-speaking world, we associate the perspective of biological evolution with Darwin. In fact, the concept of evolution dates back to Anaximander (c 610 – 546 BCE), who elaborated that species change over time, without requiring a supernatural deity.

The monotheistic conception of god was centuries into the future; polytheism was the order of the day for the Milesians. In a way, the ancient Greeks were atheists – nonbelievers – from the monotheistic perspective.

Do you see how far away we have moved from an ultranationalist reading of ancient history? Claiming descent from an ancient people is very appealing and soothes the conscience of right wing nationalists, but does not get us any closer to veracity.

Those who risked their lives rescuing European Jews from certain persecution and death at the hands of Nazi authorities earned a special place as righteous people.

After World War 2 concluded and the concentration camps liberated, numerous Anglo-majority nations, such as Canada, Britain and Australia, provided sanctuary for thousands of Eastern European Nazi collaborators. This long term policy dishonoured the victims of the Holocaust, and is a slap in the face of those who rescued Jewish lives.

I have written about this subject before. Before anyone worries about covering old ground, there are two points to make here. First, we will cover new material in this article; second, this topic contains many lessons relevant for today.

Some people keep newspaper clippings of articles they find important or emotionally significant. I keep bookmarks of webpages – legions of them. One of them is an investigative piece in the Smithsonian magazine of a little-known episode of World War 2 – the rescue of thousands of Moroccan Jews from certain death by the Sultan of that country.

Morocco, ruled by Mohammed V at the time, was a French protectorate. The French installed the young Mohammed Ben Youssef in 1927. Seen as a pliant instrument, the French colonial authorities continued their rule over Morocco through their compliant lackeys, the Alawi dynasty.

How did developments in Europe impact Morocco? In 1940, France, with its much vaunted army, was soundly defeated by Nazi Germany. The French established a Nazi collaborationist government at Vichy, composed of ultranationalist French forces. Already antisemitic, Vichy enacted a series of antisemitic laws. France’s overseas dominions, such as Morocco, fell under the control of Vichy.

The Moroccan sultan was under pressure to apply Vichy’s antisemitic policies in his nation. Morocco’s 250 000 strong Jewish community was integrated into the wider society. Antisemitism was very much a European innovation and importation. The Sultan resisted implementing the antisemitic legislation of Vichy, arguing that Jews were people of the book. The followers of the Abrahamic cousins of monotheism – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – were taken seriously by the Sultan.

Vichy officials, and their Nazi overlords, applied pressure to Mohammed V, the latter reluctantly signing into law restrictive antisemitic measures. However, he still treated the Jewish community with respect, invited rabbis to celebrate religious holidays, and refused to meet Nazi officials. There were no mass roundups or deportations of Jews from Morocco. In 1942, Allied troops landed on the Atlantic coast of Morocco, and Vichy French forces were thrashed.

In 1943, Casablanca – yes, that town, associated with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall – hosted a pivotal meeting of FDR and Churchill, the two major Western powers.

Mohammed V is remembered fondly by Morocco’s Jewish community today. Since 1948, with the creation of the state of Israel, thousands of Moroccan Jews emigrated to Israel, where they became settlers in the newly colonised land of Palestine. While Morocco and Israel established formal diplomatic relations only in 2020, contacts and cooperation between Tel Aviv and Rabat go back decades.

As Algeria, another French colony, was fighting for its independence in the 1950s, Israel and Morocco cooperated secretly with the French to ensure that the Arab nationalist revolt would be put down. Morocco has acquired Israeli expertise in military and intelligence matters; on at least one occasion, Israel helped the Moroccan monarchy assassinate an opposition leader.

As Israel continues its genocidal assault on the people of Gaza, the nations that have normalised relations with Tel Aviv must re-examine their reasons for doing so.

Ancient history is one thing; the cynical manipulation of historical ties is quite another. Morocco has been home to Jewish communities since 1492, when the Jewish population was expelled from Spain and Portugal at the conclusion of the Reconquista, Cooperative relations between Tel Aviv and Rabat have nothing to do with ancient relations between Jews and Moorish people.

Let’s change tack for the moment – Albania can rightly claim to have rescued Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust. The Albanians, even though they were occupied by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, took in Jewish refugees in an under appreciated episode from World War 2.

Albania emerged from the war with a larger Jewish community than before the start of the war. This episode of sanctuary remained largely unknown since Albania was isolated from the outside under the longtime Communist premiership of Enver Hoxha.

In 1935, a young Albert Einstein transited through Durrës, an Albanian city, before continuing on his journey out of Europe. Benefiting from Albanian passport, he escaped encroaching antisemitism. Albania granted travel documents to those Jews who wished to leave.

In Pristina, capital of Kosovo, a monument was erected in 2023 to 23 Kosovar Albanians who provided refuge for escaping Jews. It is no secret that Israel enthusiastically recognised Kosovo’s independence, and contributed to investment in the fledging nation. Actually, Kosovo has been turned into an American protectorate, with most industry privatised.

We are repudiating the memory of those who rescued Jewish refugees from a genocidal regime, by supporting a government in Tel Aviv that is carrying out a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in our own times.

The Australian rugby league games in Las Vegas, showcasing the NRL to an American audience, were intended to be the equivalent of a Russian hypersonic missile in the field of sports. It turned out to be the misfiring English Trident of the sporting world instead. A long analogy, perhaps, but one worth exploring in some detail.

The latest Trident launch was only the latest in a succession of failures

The British nuclear programme, Trident, has been aggressively promoted by both major parties of English politics for decades. Portrayed as the sterling silverware of nuclear weapons, Trident was supposed to herald the UK’s arrival as a serious nuclear-capable military power on the world stage.

The latest test, launched at a site off the coast of Florida, was intended to be a demonstration of British nuclear power. Fired from the submarine HMS Vanguard, the missile was supposed to travel 6000 kilometres. It traveled a few yards, then fell back into the water. Senior military officials, including UK defence secretary Grant Shapps, and First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Ben Key, witnessed the debacle.

The previous test of Trident, back in 2016, was a similar disaster.

The test failure of Trident last month was not unusual; there is a long catalogue of failures. Cost blowouts, engineering and technical problems, and long delays all expose the lie that Trident represents the very best in nuclear deterrence. The submarine from which the missile was launched went in for repairs estimated to last three years. The refit took seven years and went millions of pounds over the initial budget.

Another Trident-capable submarine experienced a depth gauge malfunction, diving perilously close to the crush-depth zone. Submarines must be strong enough to withstand water pressures. Luckily, sailors noticed the malfunction and the submarine ascended to safe water depths.

So much for showcasing post-Brexit Britain’s national resurgence.

The NRL in Las Vegas was an exercise in hubris and futility

In Sydney, the land where the NRL is a secular religion, badmouthing the rugby league is akin to waving a red rag to a bull. The NRL’s legion of fans, worshipping the thuggish brutality of the game, take out their venom on those who would sully the reputation of the league. No, I am not dismissing the entertainment value of the game, or the physical fitness of the players, but trying to get Americans interested in it has been attempting before, on numerous occasions. The results were underwhelming, to say the least.

The Las Vegas games, while undoubtedly entertaining, failed to make much of a dent in the American market. Lukewarm is the best adjective that can be used to describe the reception of NRL football in the US. No expense was spared to promote rugby, and no doubt Peter V’landys and Andrew Abdo, the NRL chiefs, were thinking about anticipated revenue streams from the Las Vegas launch.

Nick Tedeschi, writing in the Guardian, notes that while V’landys is a visionary for taking the NRL to America, there is a long and disappointing history of rugby forays into the EL Dorado that the US allegedly is. At least since the 1920s, numerous rugby promoters have taken the game into the US, with only modest success. The Americans have the NFL, the basketball, and NASCAR to be getting on with, so interest in an Australian import is moderate at best.

It is not only the fact that TV ratings were poor for the NRL double-header in Las Vegas. The American audience has proven resilient to the vaunted charms and spectacle of NRL. In the 1950s, Australian rugby executives tried to take the game to the United States. That was at best a moderate success.

In 1987, the regular display of brawling parochialism, the State of Origin, was played in California. That match, attended by Australian expatriates exercising this insular ‘NSW versus Queensland’ feud, failed to make a dent.

In this latest misfire in Las Vegas, the NRL incorporated the efforts of Russell Crowe, football fan, part owner of the South Sydney Rabbitohs and gladiator fantasist. Intoning sonorously in a YouTube promotional video, Crowe informs his American audience that in the NRL, no helmets or padding are used.

That is all well and good – American football tries to reduce the bloodletting and violence with tactics; in the NRL, tempers fraying is encouraged, and thuggish brawling is lauded as entertainment. Peter Mitchell, journalist and resident of the US for 25 years, states that Americans just don’t care about the NRL.

The Las Vegas venture was great for Australian and New Zealander expatriates. We Australians find it hard to accept that Americans are simply unimpressed by a sport that we love so enthusiastically.

To return to the original analogy; the NRL in Las Vegas misfired just like the Trident launch. For an example of a successful missile, look no further than the Russian hypersonic Kinzhal (Dagger).

Rather than spend exorbitant amounts of money attempting to expand into a market indifferent to the NRL, let’s clean up the multiple scandals and toxic culture that plague Australian rugby league until today. Misfires, whatever field they occur in, are an opportunity for reflection. If a venture does not work out, try a new direction.

We are all familiar with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, they were not the largest nuclear detonations carried out by the US military. March 1 was the 70th anniversary of a nuclear weapons test in the Marshall Islands, codenamed Castle Bravo. Occurring at Bikini atoll, it was the first in a long series of thermonuclear tests dubbed Operation Castle.

The March 1 explosion released the equivalent of 15 megatons of TNT, one thousand times the strength of the Nagasaki bomb. In fact, that was far more powerful than the military authorities expected. That test was not an isolated event; between 1946 and 1958, the United States carried out a total of 67 nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands, the polluting effects of which are still being felt today.

The series of nuclear tests were done without the consent of the Marshallese indigenous people. The resultant radioactive fallout from these weapons tests, the full details of which were never disclosed to the Marshallese, produced higher than normal rates of cancers among the population for generations.

The long term environmental contamination was ignored by the American authorities. Until today, the US government has not acknowledged its responsibility for the pollution and adverse health impacts in the Marshall Islands from its nuclear testing.

If the indigenous people were evacuated – such as those from Enewetak and Bikini atolls – they were returned to polluted lands, and the US authorities engaged in a prolonged coverup. Marshallese people who have lived through these tests, and their descendants, have explained that it is not a case of if they will develop cancer, but when and what type, eg thyroid cancer. To add insult to injury, the United States, without consulting the Marshallese, shipped 130 tonnes of irradiated soil from its testing sites in Nevada, mainland US, to the Marshall Islands.

The Runit dome, a concrete structure built to contain the radioactive waste, is starting to crack and leak. With rising sea levels due to human-induced climate change, it is only a matter of time before another ecological disaster occurs in the Marshall Islands.

Atoms for peace disguises the predatory aims of nuclear armed powers

While the Marshall Islands were being pulverised by nuclear explosions, the American president Dwight Eisenhower gave a speech to the United Nations in December 1953. Named Atoms for Peace, Eisenhower elaborated his vision for the distribution of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes among cooperative nations.

Purportedly concerned at the prospect of atomic warfare, Eisenhower made the proliferation of nuclear technology contingent on a collective commitment to peace by participating nations. Eisenhower’s speech to the United Nations general assembly was more about public relations, responding to increasing calls for greater scrutiny about the uses of nuclear power.

As news of the horrific effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings spread, revealing the scale of human suffering and environmental destruction, Eisenhower decided to recast the atom as a largely peaceful, benign entity. What did that achieve? Disguising the atomic aspirations of the US as mainly peaceful countered the perception of the US military-industrial complex as a greedy, blood-stained imperial power.

The peaceful use of nuclear technology was emphasised to obfuscate the military uses of that technology. We all know that radioisotopes are used in medical technology, for instance. Nuclear methods are used in agriculture and food security, detecting and preventing transboundary and zoonotic transmission of diseases. None of this can obscure the true purpose of nuclear power – military applications.

When former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal into parliament, taunting his opponents by stating ‘see, it cannot hurt you’, he was not merely making a juvenile attack. He was denying the reality of fossil fuel driven climate change. Upholding the peaceful atom as a harmless object serves the equivalent dishonest purpose – obfuscating the catastrophic harm of nuclear detonation.

Eisenhower, Truman, and their colleagues, should have listened to Albert Einstein in the immediate postwar world. Much has been made of the fact that Einstein, along with his fellow physicists, signed a letter to FDR in 1939 urging the American president to build atomic weapons first, beating Nazi Germany to the punch.

On the strength of that advice, so we are told, the Manhattan project was born. Nazi Germany’s efforts to build a nuclear reactor were modest, and their proximity to constructing an atomic bomb wildly exaggerated. Be that as it may, Einstein, along with his colleague Leo Szilard, campaigned strongly for disarmament and international supervision of nuclear technology. Einstein’s efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament have been ignored in the post-Cold War world.

Einstein advocated international laws to govern the dissemination of nuclear technology. Pushing for worldwide disarmament, he and his co-thinkers were isolated from the corridors of power in Washington and London. Chairing an emergency committee of atomic scientists in 1946, he warned of the threat of nuclear catastrophe. He provided more than enough anti-nuclear advice for Truman and Eisenhower.

In the ultimate irony, the CIA and US national security authorities launched a PR campaign for nuclear power in Japan. In the 1950s, the United States wanted to cultivate Japanese public opinion favourable to nuclear power – and by 1957, Japan had its first nuclear reactor, built with American assistance. Japanese antinuclear sentiment has remained strong nevertheless.

Russia’s threat to deploy its nuclear arsenal to attack Ukraine obviously heightens anxiety about a nuclear conflagration. To assign responsibility for nuclear anxieties exclusively to Moscow’s actions is hypocritical in the extreme. The US – along with Britain – have done everything in their power to initiate and exacerbate the nuclear weapons crisis.