Uploaded January 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The Hoodoo Gurus are an Australian rock band formed in Sydney in the early 1980s. As a Sydney local originally—although I’m a full-blown Queenslander now—and as a boy who grew up in the 80s, my older (and cooler) cousins would often listen to them. Naturally, I thought the Gurus were the height of cool.
I don’t ever remember the band being overly political back then. But fast-forward a few decades to 2020, and Australia’s largest independent music website, theMusic, reported: “Hoodoo Gurus Take On Trump: ‘He’s Offended Us For Years & Now We’re Giving Some Back.’”
They were talking about their song at the time, “Hung Out To Dry,” which was essentially a three-minute attack on President Trump. In a segment on Channel 10’s now-defunct The Project, lead singer Dave Faulkner said: “It’s the exact opposite of a love song. In fact, it’s an ‘I hate you’ song.” In a reply to a YouTube comment, the band was even more blunt: “We were just sick of thinking about that orange bastard.”
Okay, so they hate Trump—hardly a unique position. But as we’ve seen lately, their political sights aren’t just set on Washington.
In 2023, guess what they supported? The Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The headlines read: “Anthony Albanese’s rock star treatment alongside Hoodoo Gurus at Yes event.”
Despite these rockers telling Australians to vote “Yes” in the Voice referendum, for some reason, Australians didn’t listen and voted “No.” How could this be? How could we ignore the advice of these ‘rebellious’ anti-establishment rock icons? They were simply telling us how to vote and demanding that we fall in line with the government.
But the biggest Hoodoo Guru political news happened just recently. At an Australia Day event in Brisbane a few days ago, as the leader of One Nation, Senator Pauline Hanson, walked on stage, the Hoodoo Gurus’ 1987 hit ‘What’s My Scene?’ was played.
And how do you think the band reacted after learning the news? The ABC—always looking to attack the conservative side of politics whenever they get the chance—ran the headline: “Hoodoo Gurus’ Dave Faulkner lashes One Nation use of hit song.”
On their Instagram, instead of wishing everybody a happy Australia Day, they wrote: “We were disgusted to hear that one of our songs was played by a bunch of wannabe fascists yesterday (One Nation). Like most Australians, we have always been appalled by Pauline Hanson and the toxic nonsense she spouts. This is our message to her and her followers: don’t play our music, don’t listen to our band, do not pass go! We want nothing to do with you. In fact, we wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.”
I don’t know, that sounds a bit like hate speech to me. Admitting they’d rather let One Nation supporters—that is, their fellow Australians—burn, than offer them a drop of basic human decency.
It’s worth noting that according to The Conversation from today: “One Nation surges into second place in two polls.” The recent YouGov results show One Nation overtaking the Coalition. So when the Hoodoo Gurus openly attack One Nation supporters, they’re attacking a massive chunk of regular Australians.
The band claim to be all about inclusivity and unity, yet they openly label these people “wannabe fascists” and claim they’d rather watch them burn than even “piss” on them. And who are they to tell people what they can and can’t listen to? Since when is it a requirement that you must be in total political lockstep with a band just to enjoy their music?
It seems like they are a band full of hate—a band that can’t possibly bring Australians together. If I were them, I would have just kept my mouth shut. Or, if they insisted on speaking up, they could have said: “Although we don’t agree with One Nation’s policies, we believe Australians are free to play our music and are entitled to their own opinions. I’d rather live in a free country with people I disagree with than censor opposing views.”
But no. They chose the “all One Nation supporters are fascists” rhetoric instead.
I’ve got one piece of advice for the Hoodoo Gurus: Stick to music.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
The Hoodoo Gurus are an Australian rock band formed in Sydney in the early 1980s. As a Sydney local originally—although I’m a full-blown Queenslander now—and as a boy who grew up in the 80s, my older (and cooler) cousins would often listen to them. Naturally, I thought the Gurus were the height of cool.
I don’t ever remember the band being overly political back then. But fast-forward a few decades to 2020, and Australia’s largest independent music website, theMusic, reported: “Hoodoo Gurus Take On Trump: ‘He’s Offended Us For Years & Now We’re Giving Some Back.’”
They were talking about their song at the time, “Hung Out To Dry,” which was essentially a three-minute attack on President Trump. In a segment on Channel 10’s now-defunct The Project, lead singer Dave Faulkner said: “It’s the exact opposite of a love song. In fact, it’s an ‘I hate you’ song.” In a reply to a YouTube comment, the band was even more blunt: “We were just sick of thinking about that orange bastard.”
Okay, so they hate Trump—hardly a unique position. But as we’ve seen lately, their political sights aren’t just set on Washington.
In 2023, guess what they supported? The Indigenous Voice to Parliament. The headlines read: “Anthony Albanese’s rock star treatment alongside Hoodoo Gurus at Yes event.”
Despite these rockers telling Australians to vote “Yes” in the Voice referendum, for some reason, Australians didn’t listen and voted “No.” How could this be? How could we ignore the advice of these ‘rebellious’ anti-establishment rock icons? They were simply telling us how to vote and demanding that we fall in line with the government.
But the biggest Hoodoo Guru political news happened just recently. At an Australia Day event in Brisbane a few days ago, as the leader of One Nation, Senator Pauline Hanson, walked on stage, the Hoodoo Gurus’ 1987 hit ‘What’s My Scene?’ was played.
And how do you think the band reacted after learning the news? The ABC—always looking to attack the conservative side of politics whenever they get the chance—ran the headline: “Hoodoo Gurus’ Dave Faulkner lashes One Nation use of hit song.”
On their Instagram, instead of wishing everybody a happy Australia Day, they wrote: “We were disgusted to hear that one of our songs was played by a bunch of wannabe fascists yesterday (One Nation). Like most Australians, we have always been appalled by Pauline Hanson and the toxic nonsense she spouts. This is our message to her and her followers: don’t play our music, don’t listen to our band, do not pass go! We want nothing to do with you. In fact, we wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.”
I don’t know, that sounds a bit like hate speech to me. Admitting they’d rather let One Nation supporters—that is, their fellow Australians—burn, than offer them a drop of basic human decency.
It’s worth noting that according to The Conversation from today: “One Nation surges into second place in two polls.” The recent YouGov results show One Nation overtaking the Coalition. So when the Hoodoo Gurus openly attack One Nation supporters, they’re attacking a massive chunk of regular Australians.
The band claim to be all about inclusivity and unity, yet they openly label these people “wannabe fascists” and claim they’d rather watch them burn than even “piss” on them. And who are they to tell people what they can and can’t listen to? Since when is it a requirement that you must be in total political lockstep with a band just to enjoy their music?
It seems like they are a band full of hate—a band that can’t possibly bring Australians together. If I were them, I would have just kept my mouth shut. Or, if they insisted on speaking up, they could have said: “Although we don’t agree with One Nation’s policies, we believe Australians are free to play our music and are entitled to their own opinions. I’d rather live in a free country with people I disagree with than censor opposing views.”
But no. They chose the “all One Nation supporters are fascists” rhetoric instead.
I’ve got one piece of advice for the Hoodoo Gurus: Stick to music.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
![The ABC’s New Space “Race”: When Identity Trumps Engineering
I’m sure you saw or heard of the recent Artemis II mission. I found many people thought it was going to involve astronauts landing on the moon, but it turned out they just flew past it. Still, it was a great technological achievement—one that was first accomplished over 57 years ago—but a significant achievement nonetheless. However, the real story here isn’t the physics; it’s how the media attempted to transform a triumph of engineering into an exercise in identity politics.
Take, for instance, the ABC’s coverage titled “How NASA and the Artemis II crew completed the ‘perfect’ splashdown.” They show a picture of just two astronauts: Pilot Victor Glover and Mission Specialist Christina Koch. Apparently, the two white guys aren’t worthy to be at the top of the page, even though Reid Wiseman was the Mission Commander—a former Navy Captain and test pilot—and Jeremy Hansen is a Colonel in the Royal Canadian Air Force and a former fighter jet pilot. But apparently, their resumes aren’t “woke” enough to put their pictures at the top of the ABC article. One would think it was just Mr. Glover and Ms. Koch who single-handedly “completed the ‘perfect’ splashdown.”
In another massive article titled “The New Moonshot,” the ABC really goes to town. When they introduce the astronauts, they note: “Christina Koch and Victor Glover have the added weight of being the first woman and person of colour to visit our lunar neighbour.” The “weight” of being the first woman and person of colour? What weight are they talking about? Is the ABC suggesting that a pilot’s performance is hindered by the “weight” of their skin colour or gender? It’s a patronising sentiment that implies these professionals are symbols first and astronauts second, rather than focusing on the professional expertise that actually got them into the cockpit.
Obviously, we’ve come to expect this sort of nonsense from the likes of the ABC. Instead of focusing on people’s achievements and skills, or the content of their character, they focus on things like skin colour and gender instead.
And by the way: “Person of Colour”? Doesn’t that sound incredibly racist and regressive to you? It certainly does to me. I suspect that in a century’s time, people will look back at these articles and see that phrase as having the same offensive weight as the n-word. It’s a term defined entirely by what someone isn’t—namely, not Caucasian. They may as well have published an article titled “Victor Glover: The First [N-word] in Space,” because that’s exactly how it will be viewed by our future ancestors.
By obsessively highlighting race and gender in this clumsy, self-congratulatory attempt at inclusivity, outlets like the ABC aren’t fighting racism—they are entrenching it. They are so fixated on the “textbook” of modern progressivism that they’ve become blind to the fact that they are practising the very tribalism they claim to despise.
Obviously, I’m not attacking the astronauts in any way. In fact, they’ve handled the media’s obsession with identity politics with a great deal of class and perspective. Ms. Koch has previously said: “We work together as a team. And between us, and between the crew and our teams on the ground, we don’t look at gender; we don’t see it as a barrier.”
Actually, Mr. Glover was remarkably grounded regarding the narrative being built around him. While acknowledging the significance of being the first Black astronaut to journey to the Moon, he noted: “I hope we are pushing the other direction—that one day we don’t have to talk about these firsts. That one day this is just—and listen to this—that this is human history. It’s about human history. It’s the story of humanity; not black history, not women’s history… it becomes human history.”
Hear, hear. But unfortunately, according to the ABC, Pilot Victor Glover is just another “person of colour” to be used as a convenient symbol—a box for them to tick at the top of their articles to satisfy their own editorial agenda.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn The ABC’s New Space “Race”: When Identity Trumps Engineering](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uXZ-6OiXZPo/mqdefault.jpg)

![Dingoes, White Colonists, and Why We Can’t Say “Indian Myna” Anymore
As Australia becomes a more progressive country, where racism and sexism are to be vanquished at all costs, the very people who are leading the charge are also the very people who can’t help but bring race and gender into everything they touch. Take for instance, the humble dingo.
Just to be clear, the dingo isn’t a native Australian animal. According to the ABC’s Deep Time project—a 65,000-year scientific (allegedly) history of Aboriginal Australia—they note that “Scientists believe the dingo arrived on the mainland around this time [3,500 years ago], becoming the continent’s first introduced species. DNA evidence suggests they came here with seafarers from Asia.” So dingoes are essentially Asian dogs. It should be noted that “Some Aboriginal groups developed a special relationship with dingoes.”
In true ABC style, they somehow brought race into the dingo debate in this article from today: “Queensland considers allowing dingoes to be kept as pets.” They interviewed a dingo genetics researcher Kylie Cairns, where they write, “Dr Cairns pointed out that dingoes had been in Australia for thousands of years, while domestic dogs mainly arrived with white colonists.” Why did they have to say “white” colonists? Couldn’t they just have said “colonists?” What does it matter what the skin colour of the colonists was?
The scientific name for dingoes is “Canis familiaris,” which is exactly the same name as domesticated dogs. Scientifically, they’re one and the same, but there is some debate around whether they should be categorised as a different species or not.
For example, in the article, they interview Alix Livingstone, Founding Director of not-for-profit Defend the Wild. She said, “Dingoes are not dogs. They are a genetically, evolutionarily, and behaviourally distinct species that play an irreplaceable ecological role as Australia’s apex land predator.” Here she is with an Aboriginal lady with paint on her face (or is that bird poo?).
Ms. Livingstone is a self-proclaimed vegan soldier who sometimes gets in the news for raiding abattoirs and piggeries and the like.
On her Defend the Wild website, surprisingly, the leadership team consists entirely of women. Not a single pesky man to be seen. Director of Cultural Heritage, Sonya Takau, as seen here hugging a dingo, they note that “To Sonya, the dingo is kin, and she has a cultural obligation to protect them from harm.” Even though, remembering, they were only introduced to Australia a few thousand years ago, so are certainly not a native Australian animal. It’s interesting that they “need protecting.”
Simon Stretton from Durong Dingo Sanctuary in the South Burnett made his views very clear: “I just tell people, ‘you cant have a dingo’—they’re not a dog, not a pet.”
Either way, the Queensland Government are planning to allow them to be kept as pets. Ms. Takau commented, “From my cultural perspective and growing up with my old people, my father and my family, the dingo is very culturally significant… ”
So yes, this wild, once-Asian, introduced canine is caught up in some sort of cultural, racial, uniquely Australian war of words.
Of course, this is not the first animal to get involved in some kind of racialised debate. What about this little fella, a bird I know as the Indian Myna? But no! You can’t call it the Indian Myna anymore, because you know, you might upset Indian people. It’s now known as the Common Myna. In this article sent in by a viewer from a couple of months ago, they show a photo of a native Noisy Miner on the left and an invasive Common Myna on the right. So obviously, when using the word “invasive,” they don’t want to associate that with Indian people. They note, “It’s easy to tell the two species apart—the Noisy Miner is mostly grey, while the Common Myna, which was introduced from India, is brown.” So the bird that comes from India, the one that you’re not allowed to refer to as Indian, is brown. Oh it’s amazing how we tie ourselves up in knots trying to avoid offending people!
Interestingly, in 2016, the ABC tended to focus more on the facts, rather than worry about who they’re going to offend. They wrote: “Invasive Indian Myna birds displacing wildlife. The chocolate brown bird has a black head and distinctive yellow beak, eye patch and legs.” It sounds like some kind of Indian pirate!
Anyway, that’s modern day Australia for you: From the very first introduced species—the dingo that is somehow culturally significant to Aboriginal people, but domestic dogs are somehow not significant because they were brought in by white colonists, to birds of Indian origin that we’re not allowed to call Indian anymore, so instead we dance around the fact by using the word “common” instead. This is modern, woke Australia. Now if you excuse me, I’m off to eat an Indian curry… Sorry, I mean, “Common” curry.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn Dingoes, White Colonists, and Why We Can’t Say “Indian Myna” Anymore](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v1Iq29ILj4k/mqdefault.jpg)







