“Here, courtesy of my Byron Bay friend Jan, what the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (in my youth called the Australian Broadcasting Commission) has to say about Hugo Lennon.”
Postscript on the idea that “far left” and “far right” are “all the same”
The story of Queensland medical doctor the late John McCarthy refutes this idea.
It is true that John’s political views – which were more or less shared in the 1970s, albeit off the record, even by such people as former governor-general Bill Hayden, have not stood the test of time. The collapse of the Soviet Union could not be intellectually integrated by the then probably most influential Trotskyist theoretician, the Belgian economist Ernest Mandel. Specifically Mandel’s belief that the Soviet nuclear arsenal provided “a measure of protection” to the Soviet state as such appears illusory. But John McCarthy’s devotion to justice and in particular to what are now known as “first nation Australians” was unquestionable. His companion of that time, the later well-known Marcia Langton, would not dispute that, in my opinion. If she and John had remained together she herself might not have become a celebrity but on the other hand John also may not have departed this world at the relatively young age of sixty.
I write to you in English, Kanelle, so that Phillip Adams and everyone else can be part of the conversation. Phillip is not the relatively well-known veteran Australian journalist of the same name. He is a Greek-Australian who played a sterling role in the defence of Julian Assange. He participated in an online tribute to Julian that was held on Australia Day in Athens in 2019. I can put it online for you if you want it, but for the moment I will just post this extract where Phillip is speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vtxjw675yc
Phillip knows more about the post-imprisonment situation with Assange than I do, but Assange is in danger of being forgotten, along with Reiner Fuellmich and others who have taken more risks than the mainstream wants citizens to remember.
There were numerous reactions to it. I cite only those that strengthen what I myself want to say:
Tim Robinson We don’t deny the past or the deep Indigenous histories that long predate 1788. Those stories deserve respect and truth. But I also believe Australians today can hold these realities together — honouring First Nations sovereignty and suffering, while still building a shared nation through hard work, reconciliation, and common purpose. Our future depends on coexistence, improvement, and unity, not erasure or division.
Trevor Cripps Indigenous Sovereignty is a recognised legal concept in Canada and the United States, allowing their First Nations to operate governments and courts, have a distinct citizenship, collect taxes, hold lands that have been ‘reserved’ from the Constitution, and operate as sovereign entities within the framework of a larger Federation. Indigenous sovereignty is not an issue elsewhere, so it shouldn’t be in Australia.
Brett Slater(addressing Phillip) It sounds like you’re pushing toward a divided country, and that never works. You’re a smart person, which is why I’m confused about why division seems to be the direction. If we don’t recognise that elites benefit when ordinary people fight each other, then we’re missing the bigger picture.
From WH: What I want to say has to do with Phillip’s custom of framing his orientation on atrocities against Australian aboriginals in an anti-Zionist perspective. This is how he responds to Brett Slater:
Phillip Adams: Yes I get where you are coming from, I just don’t think you understand where I am coming from. It is a historical fact. There was an extermination to settle land that was already inhabited (Australia). A supremacist ideology that is reinforced via a lack of real conciliation for Britain’s instilled genocides, It is the same concept that Britain instilled in Palestine via the affirmation of the Zionist’s Balfour declaration. See we can not “reconcile” when conciliation never happened in the first place ( I was told this by a Tasmanian First Nations person in 2001). He went on to tell us that you can’t reconcile, if conciliation never happened , because what are you reconciling to, if you never conciled in the first place. The country (Australia) is already divided. Australia needs a conciliation process that leads to a treaty of sorts. I expose uncomfortable truths that need to be addressed in my opinion. It is not intended for you to feel comfortable with. It is something to reflect on and understand how what happened in Australia, is happening in Palestine now, instigated by the same house and now in partnership with Zionist’s. Cheers
This is my response:
Wayne Hall: Brett Slater is right, and not only that. An anti-Zionist who says the things Phillip Adams says about the movement that professes to be prioritizing the rights of aborigines in Australia seems oblivious to the actual role the Zionist lobby is playing, not in the Middle East but in Australia. However badly some Jews behave in Israel, they have more grounds for claims on that country than they have grounds for claims on Australia.
Here is a young man who organized a defence of Australia Day, 2026. His organization is called AUSPILL and his name is Hugo Lennon.
From minute 7.50 They are regearing for these sort of attacks on our national day and our identity. We can’t play this game of compromising. We have to go further and actually advance now. It’s not going to be “Oh, let’s come together and have unity” because it’s not going to happen. The other side is burning our flags, singing “abolish Australia” calling for monuments of our people to be taken down at their rally. Chanting that. There’s no good-faith discussion or coming to the table to be had with them. We simply have to get our own side and advance them to a true position whereby the attacks from the other side are left to mean nothing. We fundamentally have to accept that conquest was natural and a good thing that has happened in our history. You can’t make excuses or apologies for it rather than accept it that that was the reality then, as it is now, because we can also be conquered, as many would argue we currently are. We obviously had a hugely successful Australia Day across the county. I’m extremely proud of all the patriots. You not only celebrated at home, which is its own very important thing that you do, but also those who came out and marched, because we weren’t shown up. We showed that that private majority can be public, and years of this professional activism from the Left gets them nowhere actually. In fact it has probably caused more resentment for their side of politics. Our position in the south is guaranteed. We are proud to be here in the south of this world. What we are building here is legitimate. We are not sorry. We are aware that it can be taken away from us too as it was taken away from the aboriginals. And to avoid that we must celebrate Australia Day. We must celebrate who we are, totally unforgiving. And we are winning. That is exactly what is happening. I am just asking that people continue on the trajectory, that we push and we advance forward because – again – complacency. They will take it back off us. We must advance further in the direction of patriotism so that we are invulnerable to these attacks of burning our flag and trying to guilt-trip us. We must move beyond that and outmanoeuvre them completely. They can be doing their own thing, screaming and yelling. Australians have shown the strength to move against the combination of politicians, the media, the academia. We’ve shown our strength here. Now we must advance. This huge exercise of even having the Australia Day this year, defending it, surging in the polls. That will all be for nothing if we go back to the status quo. We must move beyond it. Get over the guilt and the sorrow and advance to a position of unrelenting pride.
Note that the Jewish Council of Australia has said: ‘This is not a moment to host the head of a state which has been found to have committed a genocide in Gaza.’
Let us move on to another distressing subject, the experiences of the citizens not only of Australia but of most countries, in the period starting around 2020. Let it be expressed in the words of the dismissed psychologist Ros Nealon-Cook, speaking to John Campbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r-YEv3917c
Ros Nealon-Cook covers most of her basic points in the first seven minutes of the interview. At minute 14.45 she says: “I don’t have a lot of faith in any of the governments any more, whatsoever after what I’ve seen in the last few years. I hate to say that. It makes me sad to say that. I wish we could, but that’s not the case. I believe that governments, the systems that currently run us, need to change fundamentally. I don’t have the answers to how that might come about.”
Does this text offer the beginnings of an answer to the question that Ros raises?
Bicameral legislatures are nothing new or unusual even if they have been rejected in Greece, but legislatures that compete rather than complementing each other are not something that has been tried out as far as I know. In Australia the oldest example of a parliamentary upper house is the New South Wales Legislative Council, which dates from the same post-Napoleonic period as the Greek Revolution and Phillip Adams’ ancestor Anagnostaras https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagnostaras
It just so happens that the president of this Legislative Council in 2026 bears the remarkable name of Benjamin Franklin.
Mr Franklin is from a party, the National Party, that historically would tend to be on the same wavelength as Hugo Lennon. But in today’s conjuncture AUSPILL’s politics are seen by televiewers and mainstream society not as patriotic but as extremist.
Could Hugo Lennon talk to Mr. Benjamin Franklin about this and see what he says?
By the way, in the current international political climate, in democratic or “democratic” countries with bicameral legislatures, it is the lower houses of parliament that most need to change. In the New South Wales case, where the Legislative Council now operates under universal suffrage, this means the Legislative Assembly not the Legislative Council. Universal suffrage must be maintained somewhere in the system.
Comment from Kanellos Patsios? Comment from Hugo Lennon? Comment from Phillip Adams?
AFTERWORD
What political disagreements are there between Benjamin Franklin and Chris Minns?
AI response:
Despite a close personal friendship and a long history in politics, Benjamin Franklin (a NSW National Party Member of the Legislative Council) and Chris Minns (Labor Premier of New South Wales) have significant political disagreements centered on party affiliation, legislative control, and the role of the upper house.
The most prominent disagreements and political tensions include:
Parliamentary Control and “Traitor” Accusations: The primary conflict arose in May 2023 when Minns backed his friend, Ben Franklin, to become the President of the NSW Legislative Council, despite Franklin being a member of the opposing Nationals party. Nationals party leadership viewed this as a betrayal, as it gave Labor an easier path to pass legislation by reducing the Opposition’s voting power in the upper house.
“Jobs for the Boys” vs. Independent Umpire: Nationals MPs accused Franklin of taking a “plum job” offer from Labor, labeling it “complete bastardry” and “treachery”. Franklin defended his move, stating his intention to be an “independent and impartial umpire”.
Approach to Parliamentary Inquiries: In 2025 and 2026, a major conflict arose regarding the power of the upper house to compel testimony from Labor staffers. Minns called the committee a “star chamber” and “Kangaroo court” when it sought to question his staff. Conversely, Franklin, as President of the Council, obtained legal advice confirming the committee was empowered to demand attendance, placing him at odds with the Labor government’s position.
Aboriginal Affairs and Treaties: Prior to 2023, as a Coalition minister, Franklin held different views to Labor on the timing and approach to Treaty and Voice processes in NSW, focusing on state-based approaches rather than immediate statewide treaties.
Despite these issues, the friendship between the two has survived the public disputes, with Franklin often maintaining a neutral role as President of the Legislative Council while facing pressure from within his own party for accepting the role with Minns’ support.
The Greek historian Herodotus, who grew up a subject of the Persian Empire, attributes the following to the young Darius as the latter engaged in comradely debate with fellow-conspirators: “In a democracy malpractices are bound to occur. Corrupt dealings in government services lead not to private feuds, however, as in oligarchies, but to close personal associations,(to collusion), with people putting their heads together and mutually supporting one another. This continues until somebody comes forward as the people’s champion and breaks up the cliques which are out for their own interests. This wins him (her?) the admiration of the mob and this person finds himself (herself?) entrusted with absolute power.” The implication is that the cycle will then start again from the beginning.
When Darius became emperor of Persia, his remedy for corruption was execution of those deemed to be corrupt. In more recent times such as following the failed English revolution of the 17th century, reforms were carried out in Britain and the United States to counter corruption through “separation of powers”, including bicameral legislatures, with elected parliaments monitored and supervised by “their betters”. .
Bicameral parliaments are supposed to make possible some kind of check or limitation on corruption. They have been experimented with in modern Greece (from 1844 to 1864 and again from 1927 to 1935) but Greece ultimately opted for a unicameral universal suffrage parliament , supposedly for reasons of efficiency and economy and to promote equality. Athens also chose to dispense with a constitutional court, though even e.g. Romania has judged that it needs such an institution.
In Greece voting is compulsory, formally speaking, though in practice many Greeks don’t vote, whether because they can’t be bothered or because they actively choose not to. We (“we?”) take the position that mandatory voting should be abolished, and so should universal suffrage. But it is the obligation that should be abolished, not the right. Anyone wanting “universal suffrage” should be able to have it and anyone wanting something more to their liking should exercise their imagination and create it. Some people see themselves, or are seen by others, as potential politicians or, more politely, “representatives”. Let them declare this explicitly and let it be recorded. Those who don’t aspire to being “representatives” but simply want a society that is more just, more human, less environmentally destructive, let them make this explicit too. Then there will be two clearly separate categories of non-voters with different degrees of politicization and ambition or vanity.
It will then be up to the constitutional court to decide which citizens do not qualify to be what they aspire to be. This would limit their rights to the rights currently enjoyed by all citizens, namely the right to vote in universal suffrage elections and the right be a candidate in universal suffrage elections. It goes without saying that all citizens should have the right, permanently, to be in, or to revert to, the category of today’s regular citizen, enjoying all the corresponding rights.
As for the candidates for membership in an alternative legislature, those who survive the scrutiny of the constitutional court (bring to mind the disgraceful precedent of former favoured Romanian presidential candidate Calin Georgescu), will have won the right to participate in a sortition process. An alternative legislature will be assembled and given the name of Senate, Legislative Council, or something like that and proceed to compete for a mandate with the legislature of elected representatives.
The experience of the “COVID 19” lockdowns confirmed that most citizens are much quicker to join in denouncing to the authorities people who do what the authorities forbid, or fail to do what the authorities require, than they are to succeed in elaborating ideas for positive reform. This human weakness could be turned into an advantage if the habit of condemnation could be harnessed to provide backing for the deliberations of the constitutional court (on the proviso that this institution can be kept trustworthy). If the constitutional court forfeits its trustworthiness the ball will be back in the court of universal suffrage.
The members of the alternative legislature will speak in the first person singular, as individuals, and will communicate with the public and with their colleagues directly through channels over which they themselves exert control, not permitting any mediated communication in their name. Resort to a journalist will be ipso facto grounds for expulsion from the alternative assembly, which would mean that any subsequent attempt to stay in public life would necessitate securing election as a conventional politician. The income of members of the alternative assembly would be pegged to the amount they obtained prior to their political appointment.
To recapitulate, tomorrows bicameral parliament would not be like its Hellenic predecessors of the 19th and 20th century (or the parliament of the Australian state of Queensland prior to abolition of its upper house) where the parliamentary chambers were complementary. They would compete, as parties do now, and would continue to do in the conventional chamber. And the chambers too would compete with each other for the popular mandate.
As indicated, every member of the alternative chamber would speak as an individual.
Does anything need to be added to this formula?
An attempt was made to answer this question (in English) in the discussions held in Romania in October 2024.
January is the month of celebrations in Aegina in honor of Ioannis Capodistrias.
Since the early years of the 21st century, the Aegina Association of Active Citizens has been campaigning for greater recognition of Capodistrias as a pioneer of European integration.
In 2013, we secured the support of former Italian MEP Giulietto Chiesa for our effort to gain wide recognition of this historical reality.
On January 26, 2019, the anniversary of the founding of the modern Greek state in Aegina in 1828, a function was held very close to the Acropolis in Athens in honor of the courageous and long-suffering Australian journalist Julian Assange, in the hope that he would not suffer the same fate as Capodistrias.
This was done even though Capodistrias had no connection with Athens but rather with Aegina, Athens’ historical rival, as well as with Corfu (where he was born) and Nafplio (where he was assassinated).
Giulietto Chiesa had been removed from the European Parliament in response to his film on the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. Since Chiesa’s visit to Aegina in 2013 and his death in 2020, the European Union’s prestige has declined significantly. Among other things, Chiesa’s warnings about the dangers of European policy towards Israel, and even more so Ukraine, have been ignored. Now the European Union seems to be on the path to war with Russia, a war that America no longer wishes to lead, having found more promising ideas for its own future (and only its own) than continuing the Cold War in Europe.
In response to Europe’s decline, some states have begun a planned shift towards the “global south.” Greece does not belong there spontaneously. It is not easy for Greece to disconnect from Europe, even from a Europe that seems to be heading, like Napoleon’s France or Hitler’s Germany, towards self-destruction. Can our country’s traditional friendly ties with Australia and New Zealand contribute to a geopolitical reorientation of Greece? Can such a reorientation be kept in reserve for implementation in case of failure to achieve the “Europe we want”?
On January 26, 2028, Greeks will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the founding of the modern Greek state in Aegina. On the same day, Australians will celebrate the 240th anniversary of the dawn of Western civilization in Australia, in an unfortunate form, admittedly, but what beginning is not difficult? The British brought civilization to Australia. Some would dispute this, but we do not. It is a biased assessment that overlooks many things. However, in the broader sense, it is true. If the British brought Western civilization to Australia, Greece brought it to the world, with similar periods of bloodshed.
In the 21st century, Western civilization is important as a fundamental element of civilization in general.
Do you support the idea of a joint Greek-Australian celebration of 26th January in 2028?
