What movies or TV series have you watched more than 5 times?

There is an old British-made TV series from the 1960s, Danger Man, which involves the adventures of John Drake, a secret agent.

Played by the veteran actor Patrick McGoohan (1928 – 2009), the always serious and effective John Drake fights the agents of international espionage agencies. More gritty and realistic than the more famous James Bond franchise, McGoohan is a believable character.

Quiet, convincing, speaking with the Received Pronunciation accent (what used to be called the Queen’s English), Drake is in many ways completely different from the martini-drinking, womanising, smooth-suit-wearing fictional Bond.

Filmed in black and white, it has a docudrama quality to it, even though the series producers did not intend it that way. It helps that the episodes of this series are broadcast very early in the morning, so they help me when I have periods of insomnia. McGoohan’s character, while engaging in fist fights and dangerous stunts, does not rely on whizzbang gadgetry like the more famous Bond.

One movie that is worth watching repeatedly is Steven Spielberg’s 2005 drama Munich. He examines the conduct of a secret Mossad team, sent out to avenge the killing of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. While reputedly targeting those responsible for that attack, it becomes clear that the Mossad team, led by Avner Kaufman (played by Australian actor Eric Bana) are assassinating Palestinian figures who had nothing to do with the Munich atrocity.

Spielberg invites his audience to explore morally questionable actions – is the Mossad team, ostensibly assembled to take out the Black September group, descending into a moral quagmire? Have they become no better than the terrorists they are targeting? How do you define whom constitutes a terrorist? When does counter terrorism cross over into terrorism? What moral values motivate a group of killers who conduct themselves in the same way as the perpetrators they claim to oppose?

It is worth watching Munich frequently, because it compels us to confront the disturbing realities of our own conduct in international affairs. Washington, London and West Jerusalem like to claim that their actions are motivated by ethical considerations. For instance, the George W Bush administration stated that its global war on terror was conducted in response to the September 11 attacks.

The US President at the time wilfully ignored a crucial dimension – the survivors of the September 11 atrocity clearly stated to the Bush-Cheney administration Not in Our Name. They said that this global war on terror would itself become a terroristic venture if it was not constrained by moral or ethical standards. They opposed the transfusion of blood for oil, the latter being the main motivation of US foreign policies.

Numerous Hollywood movies have portrayed Israeli Mossad assassination teams as righteously vengeful, conducting a campaign of murder purely in retaliation for Palestinian attacks. Spielberg defies this trend, and seeks to examine the putative morality of such counter terrorism ventures, if indeed they can be deemed with that label.

The 1992 film Malcolm X by Spike Lee is worth watching over and over again. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job portraying the titular character, and all the supporting cast are admirable in their roles. Lee explores the complex issues of race, poverty, social class and religious nationalism in a sensitive and intelligent way. Malcolm X is clearly the hero of this movie, an intelligent talented man, but he is not elevated to superhuman status.

His journey is indicative of the African American experience in white majoritarian United States. Lee, while supportive of African American nationalism, is critical of the Nation of Islam and its cult-like beliefs and practices.

Interestingly, the movie depicts mainstream Islam in a positive light. Malcolm’s pilgrimage to Mecca, his interaction with Muslims from all different ethnic backgrounds, solidified his turn away from the Nation of Islam and his adoption of Sunni beliefs.

It is difficult to find a sympathetic portrayal of Muslims in the Hollywood movie industry. The stereotype of an Arab terrorist is easily available amid the avalanche of Islamophobia sweeping the Anglophone world. The overwhelming majority of Hollywood films involving Arab or Muslim characters depict them as barbaric, gun-toting killers, or belly dancers, or camel-riding sheikhs, or veiled submissives – never as people with their own lives and agency.

I hope my movie choices inspire others to take up the issues I have raised in this article.

What is the last thing you learned?

There are a legion of answers to the question above.

One practical thing I learned, though not the most recent, involves internet searches. If you want to learn about the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, please do so. Only, don’t type that acronym into a search engine and press Return – just don’t.

Be that as it may, the question above asks what is the last thing I learned. I can specify one item – it is perfectly okay to have only a small circle of friends.

For many years, I desired a large social circle. I thought that having tonnes of friends would make me happier and more fulfilled. Do not misunderstand – having a large social network of friends is great. If you are able to fill a football stadium with people whom who consider friends, then more power to you.

However, if it turns out that you have only a small number of friends, then that is perfectly okay. There is nothing wrong with that. It took me a long time to learn that lesson. Greater quantity does not translate into better quality – just more.

Embracing depth of meaningful connections rather than numbers, having a small circle of friends enables you to form deeper friendships.

Currently, the attention of the world is on Iran, and the US-Israeli attack on that nation. There is a deluge of commentary about this new war. No doubt this topic has emerged in conversations between groups of friends around the world. Why did I mention this topic?

I am a nonreligious person, and I do not think that any single religion should be the sole organising principle of an entire society. I am not particularly interested in religious clerics, and that includes priests and ayatollahs. However, I have never joined, and will not join, the Iranian diaspora groups who celebrate this attack on Iran.

They are not friends, and never will be. If your values require you to dehumanise another country to the point of welcoming a bombing campaign against it, then you are no friend of mine. It is one thing to maintain an opposition to a religiously based political and legal system. It is quite another to become insipid cheerleaders for yet another criminal illegal regime change war.

If you celebrate the aerial assassination of political leaders, no matter their religious or ethnic background, you are no friend of mine. If that puts me at odds with the Iranian diaspora community, then so be it. If you are an adult, and still raise the flag of the Iranian Shah, then you are either ignorant or wilfully naive. The Shah’s monarchy was a vicious foreign-backed dictatorship which capitulated to outside commercial transnational corporate interests.

If you are nostalgic for that regime, then you are no friend of mine. Your values are those of an imperial weasel, a cowardly, craven abandonment of basic human decency and respect for sovereignty. That means you are no friend of mine. And that is perfectly okay.

I learned that it is okay to not respond or engage with everything on social media. The attention of individuals has become a precious commodity. Everyone from marketing agencies, advertisers, information technology companies, retail outlets – want to monopolise our attention.

You only have a finite amount of time and emotional energy throughout the day. Be selective with whom you engage. No, I am not going to waste my time answering all of the Iranian diaspora’s postings on social media. Yes, I defend my position. However, getting stuck hip-deep in the quagmire of a fruitless, thousand comment social media thread is not the best way to spend my time.

Appreciate the friends that you have. Certainly be open to making new friends, that is for sure. But I learnt that having a small circle of friends is precious and rewarding in its own right. No need to keep longing for more friendships.

If you could permanently ban a word from general usage, which one would it be? Why?

No word should be banned or abolished. Every word has its place in a language. English has benefited greatly from the influx of non-English words. They bring a new level of complexity and meaning into the English-speaking world.

For instance, the Anglophone nations have become familiar with the word apartheid. The latter, from the Afrikaans language, means apartness or separateness. But this direct translation does not do justice to the underlying concept of apartheid. We now know that apartheid means legalised racial segregation, an entire system of laws and rules that enforce a system of racial discrimination.

The long and stubborn struggle of black South Africans, and their nonblack allies, exposed the true meaning of this word, and what it means. Those who opposed apartheid were not objecting to the word itself, but to the underlying ideology it represented.

Today, there are those, such as Elon Musk and his white South African brethren, who speak glowingly if not openly about the days when apartheid ruled the roost in South Africa. Now it may be that he is simply nostalgic; we all have memories of the past we like to hang on to. However, Musk is not simply being a sentimental person, he is openly advocating an ideology with which he agrees.

There is a German word with which we should all learn, if we want to understand what US President Donald Trump and his MAGA cult are attempting to achieve in the United States – Gleichschaltung. Simply put, it means synchronisation or coordination. What does that involve?

It means a political and legal system of total control over all aspects of US society; policy making, education, legal structures, decision-making, education, science, economic institutions – all aligned with the goals of the Trump-Epstein MAGA cult. There is no single English word that encapsulates the Trump-Epstein class enforcing its vision on the entire society, but the Germans who experienced the original Gleichschaltung under Hitler can attest to the accuracy of that word.

Let’s use it in the English speaking countries.

In the aftermath of the December 2024 Bondi terrorist attack in Sydney, there is an ongoing debate about new hate speech laws adopted by the Australian federal government. What words constitute hate speech is a large question, and I do not want to engage in a huge, evolving legalistic discussion here, otherwise this blog article will become excessively lengthy.

This debate however, does highlight the importance of defining what words we should include in our policy discussions. I have not directly read the new hate speech laws, but relied on the scrutiny of these laws by legal experts and scholars. So I freely admit that my opinion is second hand, but I think I can contribute something important here.

Do not ban the phrase globalise the intifada. It is definitely not antisemitic.

The perpetrators of the Bondi killings were motivated by a psychopathological hatred of Jews, and indeed of all those who disagreed with their ISIS-fundamentalist ideology. The phrase globalise the intifada is not based on a psychopathic hatred of any religious or ethnic group. The word intifada means uprising, or rise up and sweep away.

The Palestinian movement has called for an intifada, an uprising against the injustices inflicted by the Israeli form of apartheid in the occupied Palestinian Territories. They are asking for solidarity and support from non-Palestinian people. It is a call for political pressure on the West Jerusalem government, and its supporters including the United States, to dismantle the occupation of Palestinian lands.

There have been two intifadas actually; from 1987 to 1993, Palestinians in the occupied territories rose up in defence of their homeland. Again in the period 2000 – 2005, a second intifada erupted. Israeli forces retreated from Gaza in the years following, but have maintained a tight grip over the movement of people and goods in that territory since then.

No, it is not a call for the mass murder of Jews. No, it is not a demand for unrestrained mass violence against Jewish communities. No, it is not a call for terrorist atrocities. No, it is not a demand to burn down synagogues across the world.

It is a call for political action to oppose Zionism and its political project in Palestine. Do not maliciously slander the supporters of the Palestine cause as unhinged, psychopathic antisemites and bloodthirsty murderers. The phrase globalise the intifada is a concise expression of Palestinian aspirations for an independent state.

If you want to criticise those words, please do so. Do not misrepresent its meaning and distort it as a call for violence or mass murder of any ethnic or religious group.

Rather than banning words, let’s confront their meanings, and openly discuss how they contribute to the improvement of the community in which we live.

If you could un-invent something, what would it be?

The urge to un-invent particular innovations or technologies is understandable. We like to imagine a world without afflictions or problems. If we could just reverse a specific invention and wish it away, its harmful impact would be removed.

If we could un-invent the atomic bomb, for instance, we could remove the terrifying spectre of global thermonuclear conflict. If there were no nuclear weapons, the lives of thousands of radiation poisoning victims, afflicted by terrible diseases due to exposure to nuclear weapons testing, would be spared.

However, that way of thinking, noble and commendable as it is, is misguided. We cannot un-invent a technology or innovation, but we can unlearn our destructive ways of using it. For the record, I support the total banning of nuclear weapons.

I am aware that technology can be used to benefit humanity, rather than contribute to our destruction. There is nothing peaceful about nuclear weapons proliferation, and I understand that nuclear technology itself is deployed in medicine and other non-military areas. Nuclear decay processes are used in specific energy generators for certain types of spacecraft. Nuclear processes are used in medical diagnostic imaging techniques.

Let’s not use the ‘peaceful atom’ claim to distract us from the very real dangers of nuclear weapons. It is instructive to note that many of the scientists and physicists who worked on nuclear fission, back in the 1930s, spoke out against the use of that invention for military purposes. I wrote about their efforts to convince authorities of the need to cease military applications of nuclear technology here.

Unfortunately, the US government and the associated scientific-military establishment chose to surge ahead with the Manhattan project, and the rest is history. Only last year, the US Energy Department suggested that a new Manhattan project is required to develop generative artificial intelligence (AI).

The wrong lesson is being promoted by the US authorities. If you want to use AI, that is fine. Please do not turn the race for AI into a ferocious international competition based on paranoid fears. AI can be democratised so that multiple nations can access and develop that technology, not a zero-sum-game race for the winner to take it all.

We need to unlearn the compulsion towards the militarisation of technology. We need to learn international collaboration so everyone can benefit from emerging technologies. The United States, in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, held a monopoly on that technology for decades.

It has used nuclear blackmail to threaten other countries which break away from US-based financial structures. Since Hiroshima, the US has menaced the Global South with nuclear weapons, pushing its financial prescriptions on unwilling countries.

Indeed, the more the US and other big powers menace the Global South, the further the poorer nations are encouraged to pursue nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation has actually increased since the early 1990s. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, scientists and experts from that bloc have passed on their skills and expertise to other nations. Seeking employment, they have found renewed purpose in the Global South nations.

Ironically, with all the tensions between Iran and the United States, it is instructive to note that Tehran’s nuclear ambitions were seeded by the United States. In the 1950s, former US President Dwight Eisenhower implemented an Atoms for Peace programme, transferring nuclear technology to the pro-Western Shah of Iran.

We should unlearn the behaviours that drive us to pursue technological superiority for the purpose of national monopolisation. Rather than deploy innovations to generate even more corporate profits, we can make the improvement of the human and ecological conditions the main priority of our efforts.

How are you creative?

Nonfiction writers require a strong ability to be creative. Let’s examine this answer.

Being creative is normally associated with writing fiction. The novelist writing the next blockbuster, or the short story writer compiling the next compelling story. Creating an original narrative, coming up with new characters, interweaving leitmotifs and themes – these are the bread and butter of fiction writing.

Artists, sculptors, painters are all creative people. Let’s make an observation here; good nonfiction writers are also creative.

Creativity is a requirement for writers of fiction, but it is not confined to the production of fictional materials. It is true that nonfiction writers cannot make up facts. If I wrote an article claiming that Napoleon Bonaparte invaded India and Pakistan, I would lose all credibility and be laughed out of town.

There is a large field of studies in the social sciences examining racism and in the United States. It is a valuable resource for anyone who wishes to understand the complexities of race, racism, slavery, segregation, immigration and so on in that country. Pretty dry stuff, how is that creative?

Ta-Nahesi Coates, the African American writer, wrote a highly original and creative book regarding the topic of racism and the experiences of racial minorities in the US. His 2015 book, Between the World and Me, is addressed to his adolescent son, he examines what it is like to grow up black in a racially stratified society.

His advice to his son is a book which showcases Coates’ perceptions and observations, his skill as a writer, and is a masterpiece of literary journalism. His book is read and consulted by academics and students across the English-speaking world. It involves serious subjects, and is definitely not fiction, but is a creative work. To write such a book, a person requires more than just a dry recitation of facts, but a highly creative mind.

The late great political scientist and historian Raul Hilberg (1926 – 2007) dedicated his working life to documenting and exploring the Holocaust. His books have become the go-to references for anyone who intends to understand such a complex, horrific, serious subject. Surely there can be no room for creativity or imagination in examining the Holocaust?

No, there is no space for Holocaust denial. Hilberg strenuously rejected any attempt to diminish or minimise the seminal importance of the genocide of European Jews. Yet Hilberg was a creative writer. Did he fabricate claims or hallucinate facts, in the same way generative AI does? Of course not.

Hilberg demonstrated his remarkable creativity in his 1996 book The Politics of Memory: The Journey of a Holocaust Historian. A wide-ranging memoir, he explains his background, his formative years, his experiences in writing and publishing, and his lifelong struggle to have the Holocaust taken seriously as a topic of study.

We do not realise it now, but Hilberg’s books, especially his major study, The Destruction of the European Jews, were rejected by multiple publishers. Nobody was interested in reading about such a depressing subject; mass killings, gas chambers, starvation, concentration camps, treating people as just numbers – who needs all that?

Hilberg demonstrated his resilience and creativity in making the Holocaust an object of popular curiosity not just among those directly impacted by, and survivors of, that particular genocide. To put it plainly, it does not have to happen to you to make it matter to you.

Hilberg’s creativity resides in his efforts to ensure that post-World War 2 generations do not forget about the magnitude and importance of the Holocaust. The scale of the suffering should not blunt our ability to make sense of it.

Having a true story to tell is great, but it is not enough. Creating a narrative arc, developing your voice, elaborating the cast of characters with all their motivations and emotional complexities – these are all required to write a compelling body of nonfiction.

Have you ever performed on stage or given a speech?

My hands were shaking, and my voice cracking. I nervously began my speech to the audience. I was one of the founders of the school debating team – junior high school to be exact.

Debating

Every Friday evening, during school term, we would be pitted against another school’s debating team. We had one hour to prepare our arguments about a topic. The topics were varied every week.

I was shy at first, but gradually built up my confidence. My voice broke when I was around 14. The teaching faculty asked me to be a narrator, in the main chapel – it was a Catholic school. The new archbishop of the diocese was coming into town. A welcoming mass would be held for him. The entire student body, and teaching faculty, would be in attendance.

The parable of the ten virgins was chosen as the story to read out. I was the main narrator, and a number of girls were chosen to read out the female parts. I stepped up to the microphone; I could see all the faces, students, teachers, the smiling archbishop all looking at me.

Got through the first sentence. That’s done; then the next sentence, another one down. The words flowed, everyone read out their parts. I finished speaking in front of the entire school body and teaching faculty. I was 14.

Years later, I stepped up to another microphone. This was at a rally I helped to organise in support of refugees. The Australian government has had an official policy of mandatory detention for all unauthorised arrivals. Refugees have been locked up for years in offshore detention centres. It was time to speak up.

There were thousands of people all looking at me. This was in Perth, Western Australia, around the year 2000 or 2001. The town square was packed with people. That 14 year old boy, who found his courage to speak in front of the school, was now about 30 or 31. He found his courage again. Making the crowd laugh, I lightened the mood a bit, while discussing an important issue.

Do not be ashamed to speak up for what you believe in.

Chanting

No, not Gregorian or religious chanting, but calling out slogans at demonstrations. Chanting is a way to motivate the crowd, and also include them in a unifying message. I took the megaphone – ‘say it loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here!’. The crowd repeated the chant.

All the multiple demonstrations I have attended, whether for refugees, Palestine, or the environment, chanting provided a sense of motivation, purpose and unified action. You are not alone, there are thousands who think and feel like you do. Chanting slogans provides a visible, concise message for all to hear.

I have said it before and I will say it again; if my fellow Australians object to boat people, well, have I got news for you. There is one boat person who brought millions of illegals in his wake; his name was Captain James Cook. He arrived illegally, and imposed his language, culture and values on the indigenous nations.

Raising the flag while climbing stairs

I have never sung on stage – except in Liverpool, England when myself and a couple of drunken Swedish tourists sang the Beatles song Yesterday at the hotel where the band started, but that does not count.

I have asthma, so I need to exercise. In Barangaroo, in Sydney’s CBD, there is a long set of steps, starting on Sussex street. Leading up a shear rock face wall to the top, it’s hundreds of steps. My legs feel like jelly.

I need something to keep me going. So I sing, out loud.

What do I sing?

You will not like this, but for marching, the song is ‘Die Fahne Hoch’, (Raise the Flag). It’s an old German song, and I have memorised the words in German. I am quite certain you know what that song is, and what it stands for – so do I. Es schau’n aufs Hakenkreuz voll hofnung schon millionen.

No, I am definitely not rehabilitating the song.

Singing out load while climbing hundreds of steps does make people turn around, looking at this strange man singing to himself. That is okay. After debating and public speaking, I am used to audiences. Marching songs keep me moving.

I had to overcome shyness, and a lack of self-confidence, to be a public speaker. You can as well.

Name your top three pet peeves.

The promotion of a propagandist for imperial power under the cover of diversity – major pet peeve.

What does this mean?

We all welcome cultural diversity on the television, in the media and in film. Increasing the representation of people from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB), persons with disabilities, transgender and LGBTQI+ communities – that is all well and good. With all due respect to Chris Hemsworth, Kylie Minogue, Margo Robbie, Paul Hogan – enough of seeing Australians as only white-skinned, blonde haired people.

It is refreshing to see a hijab-wearing Muslim woman on the television, voicing her opinions. If the topic about which she is speaking is the Middle East, the issue of Islam, the Israel-Palestine conflict, that is great. Finally, people of Arab/Islamic background are getting time on our television screens to express their opinions.

When that person is Fatema Al-Arabi, then it is time to question whether it is respect for cultural diversity that earns her media exposure. You see, Al Arabi is an employee (in Bahrain) of several organisations with ties to Israeli military intelligence. She has promoted the Zionist side of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Her opinions about the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, perfectly align with the misinformation talking points advocated by the Israeli government.

It is not wrong to have an opinion that differs from the Palestinians. However, when you are employed by organisations that have intimate links with an intelligence service (in this case, Israeli), you stop being a journalist and become a paid propagandist. This exercise is couched in the seemingly innocuous motivation of respect for cultural diversity. Are you not in favour of seeing marginalised groups on the television?

Please do not disguise imperialist, pro-genocide propaganda as a harmless, even positive, advocacy of cultural diversity.

The claim that generative AI is a word calculator – this is highly misleading and patently false.

I am quite certain that all of us use a calculator to do basic maths. Who wants to do long division manually? Calculators save us time and mental energy performing basic arithmetic. Surely, generative AI is a word calculator? No, it is not.

Generative AI hallucinates, invents sources and citations, recycles the simulation so it becomes our reality. Amazon – be honest, that word made you think of the tech company, not the gigantic river in South America. AI collects our data, targets us with advertising, shapes and influences our ethical dilemmas. Learning with AI produces shallower outcomes than traditionally face-to-face learning.

If you type 6 * 6 into a calculator, and you see the result 25, you stop and think to yourself, what’s gone wrong? Did I mistype? You still have to know how to multiply. Calculators did not require the construction of huge data centres, consuming vast amounts of electricity and water.

Calculators did not create an anarchic race between companies to produce the most effective super efficient gadget. The anarchic AI race, while consuming ever larger amounts of natural resources, is also one gigantic circular financial bubble. True, there have been bubbles before. The AI bubble, when it bursts, will see billions go down the drain.

Pete Hegseth; you are the defence secretary, not the war secretary, no matter how many times you call yourself that.

Hegseth has rechristened himself the secretary for war, even though no-one in the Congress has actually authorised that particular change in function. He remains the defence secretary, despite his own delusions of grandeur. He gave a speech to 800 top US generals earlier this year, in which he exhorted the military to be more ‘manly’. Lose weight, shave the beards, do push-ups, and get ready for war.

I am not a military expert, but I can unequivocally state – wars are not won by the side with the largest hulking biceps. If you think you will be more ‘manly’ by building up your biceps until you resemble Schwarzenegger, that is your decision. However, being ‘masculine’ does not win wars. Hegseth has been watching too many Hollywood movies, and has fooled himself into believing that ‘manly men’ go out and kill.

In World War 2, the Soviet Union did not win because their soldiers, being ‘manly men’, flexed their superior biceps thus terrifying their German opponents. The Soviets organised their economic production to sustain themselves throughout war-imposed privations. They continued to develop their technology, surpassing their German enemies.

The Nazi leadership, having written off the Russians and other Soviet nationalities as ‘subhuman’, were shocked that the Soviet military was capable of startling innovations. The hubris of the Nazi side was the seed of their own undoing.

Having a non-woke military, if that is what you want, is all well and good. Being ‘manly men’ will do nothing to confront the fact that Russia is currently winning the war in Ukraine. Not only have sanctions failed to undermine the Russian economy, Moscow’s ability to militarily outproduce the NATO powers is plain for all to see. Another infusion of millions of euros, or another batch of missiles to Kyiv, is not going to change the outcome.

Both the collective West and Moscow quickly adopted Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)s as crucial instruments of warfare. Moscow has revolutionised drone doctrine, and has created an entire branch of its military dedicated to drones. Even the major corporate media are admitting that Moscow has achieved remarkable success in drone warfare. All the bulging biceps in the world are not going to change that.

So, Mr Hegseth, if you want to deceive yourself that hulking muscles will win wars, no-one can stop you. Please, stop asking the rest of us to share your hallucinations.

Is there an age or year of your life you would re-live?

There is no specific year or age I would choose to re-live, because every year has its achievements as well as its challenges. However, to answer the question above, let’s specify particular experiences from different ages and years that have remained with me as impactful and significant.

I would re-live being a founder of the junior high school debating team. From the age of about 11 or 12 until 15, I was a participant on the debating team every week. Being of introverted disposition, I had to overcome my fear of public speaking, and channel my energies into making a coherent argument in front of an audience.

When I say audience, that usually consisted of only ten or twenty people. Every week, we would debate other schools in a friendly competition. Either taking the affirmative or negative, I would help to construct a persuasive case for our side.

My voice broke over the course of the debating years, and the teachers noticed that I had matured from a nervous, gangly youth into a more experienced person. Those years of experience made me unafraid to speak in front of large crowds; in subsequent years, I have addressed thousands of people at demonstrations and political gatherings.

No, you do not have to possess any supernatural or magical powers to be an effective public speaker. No, you do not require the intellect of an Einstein or Hawking to get up and speak in front of an audience. Just know that everyone in the audience is just a person, and do not worry so much about what they may think.

Indeed, when I was 14, I got to added the entire school population, teaching faculty and visiting clergy in the main chapel next to our school. While the nerves were there, I stood up to the microphone and saw hundreds of faces, both adolescent and adult, looking at me.

Taking a deep breath, I began the first sentence. Just get that far, I thought. Then the next sentence. Before I knew it, to was speaking to the crowd. How did I know I was successful? The main guest of honour at this event, the new archbishop, (the special mass was held to welcome him), got up and made a joke after I had finished. The mood relaxed – and I kept that memory for inspiration.

The years at university were wonderful, involving the free-flowing exchange of ideas about politics, philosophy, psychology, history and economics. The humanities curriculum was difficult but rewarding. If I could re-live those years, I would compose a better transitional programme from high school to university.

The changeover from the largely carefree days of senior high school to university was a challenging transition. Apart from a guidebook from the universities and colleges admission organisation, we never received any guidance about transitioning from high school to higher education.

Students from immigrant families can find the transition to university particularly difficult, navigating two languages and cultural traditions. In recent years, tertiary education institutions have made a greater effort to provide a pathway for students from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) to integrate into university life.

The parents of NESB children, because of language and cultural barriers, feel a bit lost in trying to help their children transition to university. No, I am not suggesting that parents did not support me going to university – far from it. When I graduated, my late father was so happy, he was jumping out of his skin. I had never seen my normally quiet, mild-mannered father react that way – i thought he was going to do cartwheels. I was very glad that he was happy.

If I could re-live that transition experience, I would provide a structured pathway, or recommend a program, for high school students to make the difficult jump from school to university.

In a way, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in current times recapitulates the issues we confronted back in the 1980s and 90s when computerisation was implemented on a societal scale. The changeover from reliance on paper to widespread computerisation was, in a sense, good preparation for the current increasing ubiquity of AI. How does this new technology impact our way of thinking, our relationships, our social lives, our shopping habits?

Witnessing the rise of AI – or rather, having AI shoved down our throats – is making us re-live the original era of personal and office computer expansion. While I can see the benefits of using AI to perform the menial tasks, removing drudgery, I would question whether it is necessary for every single person to have AI on their mobile phone.

How we respond to AI, and the problems it raises, provides a feeling of deja vu – we are re-living all the questions we asked when the age of computerisation began. I hope that humanity has enough wisdom and learns from the experience to implement AI in a way that supports human connection, rather than enabling the tech giants to make us outsource our cognitive faculties to the algorithm.

What’s something you would attempt if you were guaranteed not to fail.

There are many answers to the question above, but if I had to select at least one activity, I would choose one that is a purely personal experience, and one that involves serving others. Firstly, I would love to replicate the 1927 solo flight by Charles Lindberg across the Atlantic from New York to Paris. There is something unequivocal in flying solo, a feat of skill and endurance. The first transatlantic flight done by one individual was a milestone event in aviation history.

Using the same airplane that Lindbergh flew in – The Spirit of St Louis – it would be a remarkably difficult yet rewarding experience.

There had been multiple attempts by experienced aviators to cross the Atlantic solo. None of them succeeded, but each attempt only whetted the appetites of future pilots to achieve the grand objective of flying uninterrupted from one continent to another.

The Spirit of St Louis was a single engine mono propeller, a steel frame covered in canvas. The wings, spanning 46 feet, were made of wood covered in canvas. Thinking about the sophistication of current aviation technology, with our GPS, it is astounding to learn exactly how Lindbergh accomplished his heroic flight.

He was a stunt pilot to be sure, experienced in aerial navigation and acrobatics. This was the age of the daredevil pilot, the acrobatic stunt era of Waldo Pepper and the amazing death- defying aviator. World War One era pilots, while celebrated for their astonishing skills in the air, were gradually declining as commercial air flights were expanding.

Flying across the transatlantic solo was Lindbergh’s way of flying in the face of the inevitable (no pun intended). The stunt aviator had had his/her day, but Lindbergh wanted to demonstrate to the world that his era was not over. What would it be like to immerse oneself in a different era, using the technologies and techniques of that time?

Secondly, thinking about a goal or activity that would serve others, the follow scenario occurs to me. If I was guaranteed not to fail, then it occurs to me to go back in time and prevent a catastrophe or lethal event from happening. It is easy to find examples of time travel scenarios – if you could go back in time to prevent a crime or change th course of history, would you?

If I could, I would go back to July 1994, and sabotage the perpetrators of the worst terrorist bombing in the Americas (at least prior to Sept 11 2001) – the attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA in Spanish) in Buenos Aires.

That attack resulted in the deaths of 85 people, and the injury of 300. A suicide bomber, driving a car laden with explosives, carried out the attack. Ever since then, the Iranian regime has been repeatedly accused of being responsible for that atrocity, an allegation Tehran vehemently denies. The purported motive of the bomber was retaliation for Argentina allegedly reneging on nuclear agreements with the Iranians.

I am not from Argentina, and I am not Jewish. I have no personal stake in this matter, except as a human being that deplores violence against innocent people.

I am quite skeptical of the claims of Iranian responsibility for this attack. Why? The connections between the AMIA community centre bombing and the Iranian government are tenuous, if that. Argentina, under the prolonged era of military dictatorships, has a stubborn and persistent malaise of antisemitism. The Argentine generals, ever fearful of working class rebellion, blamed the Jewish people for the evils of Communism, and antisemitic publications were widely available in Argentina for decades.

From the earliest decades of the twentieth century, large numbers of Germans and Jews migrated to Argentina. A nativist, anti-immigrant reaction spawned a nationalistic fervour. In the 1930s, the doctrine of Nazism grew among Argentina’s German population.

In the 1970s the Argentine military junta, copying the tactics of their German teachers, circulated antisemitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jews, in collaboration with Communism and foreign Zionists, were plotting to establish a Jewish homeland in the Argentine region of Patagonia.

There is no shortage of Argentinian antisemitic suspects for the AMIA bombing. The administration of current Argentine president Javier Milei, a version of Trump in South America, routinely accuses Iran of culpability for 1994 AMIA bombing to align his government with the goals of Washington in Latin America.

Milei has recently taken to hallucinating Iranian troops in Bolivia, and Hezbollah militants in Chile, to ingratiate himself into the good graces of the Trump administration. These hallucinations have a definite purpose – by portraying Tehran as an aggressively expansionist state, Argentina bolsters Washington’s escalation of tensions with Iran.

Flying across the transatlantic helped to bring Europeans and Americans together, despite their geographical distance and cultural differences. By preventing a terrorist attack, we can de-escalate tensions, thus paving the way for a world where people’s lives matter, not the geopolitical interests of big powers.

Tell us about a time when you felt out of place.

There are multiple instances of situations where I felt out of place. Rather than enumerating each one, it is better to describe the underlying reasons why the feeling of being out of place is so common in my life.

The major reason why I feel out of place is because I had a bicultural upbringing. What the hell does that mean? Being an Australian born child of Egyptian-Armenian parents (Armenians by ethnic background but Egyptian by birth) is not exactly a large demographic in Western Sydney – or in Anglophone Australia for that matter.

From my earliest experiences at school, being the only Armenian background student presented its own difficulties. For a start, having to explain to white Australians that there are Armenians from Egypt was an obstacle in itself. When the Anglo majority population know Egypt as the land of pharaohs, Tutankhamen, with Yul Brynner playing an ancient Egyptian and Charlton Heston parting the Red Sea in that movie, I found myself having to provide an impromptu history lesson.

For instance, Queen Cleopatra – made widely familiar to Anglophone people through the acting skill of Elizabeth Taylor, was from a Macedonian ruling dynasty. The pyramids of Giza were ancient history to her. In fact, the pyramids were further removed back in time than we are from Cleopatra’s time. So when Marc Antony and Cleopatra had their love affair, the pyramids were already tens of thousands of years old. And besides, I am Armenian, so having to explain Cleopatra is a distraction from my bicultural heritage.

Secondly, I quickly learned that my name is so incredibly complex, so enormously difficult and complicated for Anglophone Australians to understand and pronounce. Just stating my name was a cause of mockery and ridicule, especially at the pre-teens age. Screwing up their face, and grunting ‘Huh?’ at me when I stated my name was the first step in a long road to feeling out of place.

I have already written why it is important to pronounce foreign names correctly. It is not difficult, just try and you will see that foreign names are easy to pronounce.

Please do not misunderstand, I had a generally positive time at school. Hanging out with friends, playing sports, socialising – all that was important growing up. But the nagging feeling that I was out of place remained. No-one in my circle was truly like me.

Yes it is true that Australia is becoming more multicultural, with greater numbers of people tracing their origins to non-English speaking countries. However, multicultural policies – and the current much-hyped value of social cohesion – has not resulted in greater interethnic solidarity and understanding.

While school was undeniably a great time, that feeling of being out of place never really left me. Perhaps university would be different?

I have fond memories of all the social and educational experiences at university. A new world opened up, and new horizons were available. The formative interactions of university were invaluable. However, I had that nagging suspicion of feeling out of place. Not from any of the students or faculty – but from the curriculum.

Sydney University, following in the footsteps of its Anglo-British templates (Oxford, Cambridge), taught philosophy and sociology as part of a tradition of Western Civilisation. Ancient Greece and Rome were the cultural and philosophical foundations of the Western worldview. The Ancient Greeks provided the basis for a shared cultural, philosophical and scientific heritage, so we were taught.

If you want to draw from the philosophical legacy of Ancient Greece, through the Roman Empire, up to our Anglo-Australian cultural roots, please be my guest. Indeed, this cultural narrative is very much a modern construct, created by the partisans of the British Empire. The latter, which ruled through cultural means as well as by force of arms, worked to build a cultural and philosophical legitimacy for its rule over nonwhite peoples.

If philosophy, science, art and culture all came from the Ancient Greeks, and was transmitted via the Romans to the British, well, where does that leave the rest of us? This is not to dispute the remarkable contributions of the Ancient Greeks to science and culture. I think that scientific achievements are absolutely awesome and should be respected. But if those accomplishments are portrayed as the exclusive province of Western civilisation, how does that include people outside of the accepted Western canon?

The Ancient Greeks invented democracy, and its art and architecture influenced generations of European designers. That is all well and good, but leaves me with a question. Why was it necessary for the Europeans to basically copy Islamic architecture and art, stealing from the Saracens? The latter is not my expression, but the title of a book by historian Diana Darke.

European architecture, including the recently refurbished Notre Dame Cathedral, owes its success to Islamic input. The Saracens, an offhand name given by Europe to the Islamic/Turkish East, provided direct templates copied by European architects. Landmarks of Western civilisation, such as Notre Dame and other cathedrals, owe a forgotten debt to Islamic architecture. Somehow, expressing gratitude to the Islamic influences in European architecture is omitted from the triumphalist construction of an overarching Western civilisation.

No, I am not disparaging the education that I received from Sydney University. I just wish they would include all of us; the non-English speaking world has made its contributions to the pursuit of science and culture. I would have thought that such achievements belong to all of humanity.