When do you feel most productive?

There are obvious answers to the question above. Getting a good night’s sleep, waking up refreshed the next morning, full of energy and vigour, makes for a good start to a productive day. Looking after your physical and mental health, maintaining a healthy lifestyle – all these things are necessary to be productive, no matter what profession you are employed in, or activity you engage in.

Let’s step away from the basic idea that writing can be measured by the number of words you write. Being physically and mentally healthy is a great beginning, and if you hammer out ten thousand words in one day, more power to you. I have a different understanding of being productive, one that is not easily quantifiable in numbers of words written, or articles published.

It is most productive when exposing the systematic deceptions and lies deployed by imperialist governments to manufacture consent for overseas wars. No, I am not suggesting that I have a direct wifi connection to the ultimate truth. No, I am not an expert on every topic under the sun.

It is nevertheless necessary, and productive, to counter the lies and propaganda deceptions of the rich and powerful, to expose the agendas behind their calculated language.

In the latest flare up of conflict between the US-Israeli axis and Iran, it is noteworthy to examine how the nation of Iran is portrayed in our Anglophone corporate media. Iran is routinely depicted as a problem nation, a menace to be confronted, a rogue element that is constantly obstructing peaceful resolution and development in West Asia.

Indeed, most nations in the West Asian/Middle Eastern region are portrayed as problem nations, entangled in seemingly intractable conflicts, places where ancient hatreds between Jews and Muslims play out their inevitably destructive psychopathologies.

Iran, a country with which I have no direct connection, is an ancient civilisation. It has had numerous empires, such as the Achaemenid, which developed their economic and cultural influence over the centuries. That empire, which reached its height in the sixth century BCE, was just as geographically large and culturally diverse as the Roman.

Iran was invaded by numerous foreign conquerors – Greek/Macedonian, Arabs, Mongols, Turks – Persians regard the rule of Alexander the Great as a time of cultural darkness and repression.

In the Anglophone nations, we only hear about Iran in the context of mad mullahs, sanctions, nuclear brinkmanship, and oil chokeholds. All these are important, but they contribute to a picture of Iranians as a telegenic soap opera villains, rather than a civilisation with continuity and shared identity.

It is productive to explore and understand other nations, not as targets of regime change, but as countries with civilisational cultures in their own right.

In the early 1990s, with the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, American political scientist the late Samuel Huntington, postulated his now famous ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis. He proposed that with the withdrawal of socialism, there would be renewed civilisational conflict, rival power blocs vying for international supremacy.

I will not go into a critique of the clash of civilisations claim here, because many other writers have already done so. However, there is a connection with Iran here, which I think is a productive line of enquiry.

In 1997, Tehran provided a response to the clash of civilisations thesis. Then president Mohammad Khatami advocated a dialogue among civilisations, an international instrument to promote cross-cultural cooperation and understanding. Actually this was not a new idea. In 1972, Austrian philosopher Hans Köchler, in a letter to UNESCO, advocated a dialogue among different civilisations as a method of conflict resolution, promoting international cooperation and mutual respect.

Is it not productive to take up this effort, not for the purpose of promoting the transnational cultural supremacy of one civilisation over another,but to arrive at a mutual understanding, if not complete agreement, between different nations? In fact, the clash of civilisations thesis, if widely accepted, would result in an international military conflict of rival civilisational blocs we are all working to prevent.

Whether intended by Huntington or not, the clash of civilisations thesis has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you view the world as divided between competing Orwellian transnational entities, then surely your policies and actions will bring about such a world?

The Tehran declaration, while finding supporters around the world, has failed to gain any adherence in the capitals of the major imperial powers. Perhaps it is because the financial oligarchies located in the Global North benefit from keeping the world in a state of confrontation.

Be that as it may, these are the topics that I find productive. Not in the narrow sales and marketing sense of increased web traffic, but in the issues raised. There is nothing wrong with increasing the number of views of your webpage. If you have a million followers, good luck to you. I admire your outreach.

Let us find the time to take cognisance of the issues that impact humanity’s future and ethical wellbeing. There is nothing more productive than helping to preserve life on earth.

How have you adapted to the changes brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic?

Adapting to the public-wide medical measures imposed to control, or at least limit, the spread of Covid-19, has been challenging. However, it is definitely a goal within the capabilities of people. Humanity has been through epidemics and pandemics before, and we will continue to demonstrate resilience in difficult times.

The lockdown measures were definitely strict, and required a degree of social adjustment. I am already an over thinker, and being restricted to within a radius of only 5 kilometres travel from my home was catnip for overthinkers.

Going over various scenarios in my head, with only limited human contact, only increased my rumination. Businesses were shut, transport emptied of people, and so introspective mental activity was an obvious substitute for social life.

There are only so many podcasts you can listen to, so many YouTube videos to watch, only so many hobbies you can enjoy indoors. The wider society realised that the capitalist economy needs cleaners, baristas, retail staff, train drivers, and health care workers more than Hollywood celebrities, social media influenzers, Kardashian-type parasites and YouTubers boasting how they turned their ‘passion’ for growing zucchinis into a multimillion dollar business venture.

Managing the overthinking with some meditation, long walks in the park, and reading light-hearted topics, has been most useful. And honestly, the things I think about – do they even matter anymore?

Yes, I know, Isaac Newton went through a similar lockdown in his time, which he used to invent calculus. Putting aside the ongoing, simmering debate about whom exactly invented calculus (Gottfried Leibniz being the chief contender), not everyone is bored enough to invent a brand new mathematical method.

I think it is important, at this stage, to highlight an observation about Covid-19 – it is still with us. The pandemic is not over and done with, as the authorities would have us believe. I understand the importance of returning to a degree of normality, if you consider the capitalist socioeconomic system and its accompanying culture of individualist consumerism normal.

Diseases do not stop just because we have declared them to be over. In Australia, I can rely on the drinking water to be hygienic, because the relevant authorities continue testing the water for water-borne viruses and bacteria.

Cholera, a water-borne disease, has been largely eliminated in Australia. Should we stop testing for this disease? Should we declare that we ‘no longer live in fear’ of cholera? Of course not. This condition is still there, despite its relatively rare occurrence in Australia. Halting the testing of potable water would constitute an abdication of responsibility for public health and safety. The harmful impact of rampant cholera would not be restricted to individuals, but affect the wider community and health services.

I am surprised that nations are still underprepared for the next pandemic. Zoonotic transmission of viruses and diseases still occurs, and the danger of the next pandemic has not diminished. As we increasingly drive our way into the ecological environments of animals previously untouched by human contact, we increase our risk of zoonotic transmission.

Our agricultural production model, favouring big farms and mass produced quantities of poultry, only increases the probability of humans acquiring zoonotic diseases. Have we all forgotten the lessons of the bird flu epidemic, when different strains of the virus jumped from animals to humans? Factory farming has produced a model of production that may be efficient for the corporation’s bottom line, but which are perfect incubators for animal to human disease transmission.

The ease with which misinformation, particularly about the origins of Covid-19, has been surprising if not entirely unexpected. Various conspiracy theories about the lab-manufactured and lab-leaked synthetic origins of the disease have abounded, amplified by social media and the Trump-MAGA cult of organised ignorance.

I think the MAGA cult, in line with its ramping up of tensions with China, has politicised the lab-leak fiction, deploying it as another piece of ‘evidence’ of Beijing’s nefarious and sinister plotting. It is important to protect yourself against this virus of misinformation, which is just as deadly as the virus itself.

Lab-leak has been promoted by the ultrarightist cult, seeking to exploit vulnerable and marginalised communities, channeling their disaffection into a generalised ‘anti-establishment’ movement. Distrust in science has increased in the Anglophone nations. Though it is worth noting that distrust in ‘big science’ does not extend to oil mining, nuclear power, or weapons testing.

Promoting the public understanding of and engagement with science is an all-important way to combat the misinformed skepticism of the Covid-19 cooker mindset. No, we must never be obnoxious or talk down to anyone. But we must be free to ruthlessly criticise their views if they recycle misinformation. Global warming denialism was, and is, being confronted by science education. Covid-19 denialism must be attacked in the same way.

The lockdown was lifted years ago, and we have all gotten on with our lives. But pandemic responses provide us with a unique opportunity to learn and be better prepared next time.

Which aspects do you think makes a person unique?

Rather than make a list of all the features of a person which makes then unique – personality, values, beliefs, cultural background, family upbringing and so on – let’s approach this question with a basic observation. One way we can see what makes an individual unique is their interactions with other individuals. Our uniqueness is manifested when we interact with our fellow individuals.

We each have a brain, but possessing a brain is not enough to make a mind. Minds emerge as we learn how to interact with others around us.

The question above takes on renewed importance in this day and age of artificial intelligence. Does ChatGPT truly reflect human intelligence or sentience? Can we reproduce what makes us human in the form of computer intelligence? Is there a ghost in the machine? I deliberately use the phrase ‘ghost in the machine’, because that harks back to similar debates in the 19th century about what makes us human.

Machines, along with widespread industrialisation, were a growing feature of capitalist society. The new technologies – the steam engine, the electrical cable, the railway – were revolutionising society. How did humans adapt to this changing socioeconomic structure? Along came telephones, tape recorders and Morse code. Electric communication was impacting our worlds; now we could communicate with geographically distant communities. Was this fundamentally changing our humanity?

In the 19th century, similarly to today, scientific discoveries are making us more aware of humanity’s interconnection with and dependence upon the natural world. No longer were humans the pinnacle on a ladder of creation, according to biblical cosmology. Humans were a product of natural forces, one twig on an ever-growing branching network of hominin species. Most scientists in the 1800s, such as Swiss American scientist Louis Agassiz, were staunch creationists and sought to preserve the theologically based uniqueness of humankind.

Agassiz was also a notorious racist, which besmirched his legacy.

If humans are connected with the natural ecology, does that diminish or emphasise our uniqueness? The environmental movement, which started in the 19th century, pointed out that our wellbeing is dependent on a healthy natural environment. Animals are sentient beings, capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. So perhaps human sentience is not so unique after all, just a more developed feature that we possess on a human-animal continuum.

I understand the importance of upbringing and cultural background when evaluating a person’s uniqueness. Being from an ethnic minority inevitably impacts your personality and life experiences. Years ago, when I was about 16, I was walking around Cronulla, a beachside southern suburb of Sydney. It is easy to get there by train.

A complete stranger, passing by, yelled at me ‘piss off to Brighton’. I smiled my best fake smile, and kept walking, I had absolutely no idea why this stranger yelled at me to get out of Cronulla. Brighton is a bit further north of Cronulla, another beachside suburb. Why would I go there?

Half an hour later, a possible explanation dawned on me. Cronulla is the beach for the white Australians, whereas Brighton is the place for wogs like me – any Greek, Maltese, Hungarian, Lebanese, or Armenian like myself – should immediately relocate.

It was a valuable lesson. Not only about racism, however important that is. There was another lesson here. It is crucial to I observe the way individuals interact with each other. Their personal uniqueness, whether good or obnoxious, comes out when they socially interact with each other.

I am always exceedingly polite to waiters, baristas, cooks, cleaners, retail staff – they are not my servants, they are people doing a job. They have bills to pay, worry about their kids, all the while dealing with the public. If I see that you are courteous to me, but rude to the waiter, it makes me think, what if I was in the same position as the waiter?

No, I do not immediately break off the friendship, but it is an observation I keep with me. It indicates to me the kind of person you are, and the level of emotional intelligence you have, or do not have. It is in our interactions with others that our uniqueness shines through.

I do not want to turn this article into a thoroughgoing sociopolitical analysis of the current US-Iran conflict. This article would then become unwieldy and divert from the purpose of the original question. However, I would like to make one comparison here, which will help us answer the above question.

US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth (who likes to call himself the secretary of war) has made numerous blood-curdling statements about eliminating Iranians, showing no mercy, annihilating his Iranian enemies, and so on. Perhaps this overzealous bravado can be excused as just macho posturing in a time of war.

Consider the following: Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has repeatedly stated that Tehran does not wish to harm American civilians, who have expressed their overwhelming opposition to the war instigated by the Trump administration. He specified that his nation’s quarrel is with the US military complex, and its political leadership. Hardly the statement of a sadistic, psychopathic killer.

In 2011, when Araghchi was Iran’s ambassador to Japan, he demonstrated his uniqueness by rolling up his sleeves and distributed aid to those affected by that nation’s earthquake. He could have simply ignored that event, or chosen to leave Japan in its hour of need. Yet he chose to stay and help those who suffered. He noted that Japan stepped up and helped Iran in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Bam earthquake.

Our uniqueness emerges by interacting with others. It is by mixing with people that we realise our true selves.

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.