Woohoo! X-Files Coming Back on Monday on Channel 5

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 03/02/2018 - 8:35pm in

After a hiatus of about a year, the new X-Files series on Channel 5, Monday, 4th February 2018, at 9.00 in the evening. This has the remaining regulars of the old series in it – Duchovny and Anderson, Mitch Pileggi and the Cigarette Smoking Man, as well as Annabeth Gish, playing Agent Monica Reyes, who appeared in the very last series of the old X-Files. The listing for it in the Radio Times runs

The drama returns as an unconscious Scully is rushed to hospital, where a neurosurgeon discovers she is suffering from a frenzy of neural activity. (p. 74).

And the blurb for it a few pages earlier on page 71 also runs

When we were last in the company of Mulder and Scully, he was succumbing to a virus that was stripping his immune system, awhile she was staring wide-eyed at a UFO descending from the heavens. It was a whopper of a cliffhanger, and one that, unfortunately, gets resolved using storytelling techniques frowned upon by primary-school teachers.

But that is the perennial problem when The X-Files does these government-conspiracy ‘mythology arc’ episodes: they initially seem tricksy and knotty, but tend to fall apart at the slightest unpicking. Thankfully, we have a standalone case to look forward to next week, so not all hope was lost.

And here’s the trailer for it I found on YouTube. Amongst the delights promised is a meeting between Mulder and Scully and the man, who set up the X-Files, Skinner doing dodgy things for the Cigarette Smoking Man, and a carnivorous monster created through the merging of human and alien DNA.

Yay! Paranoia, the paranormal, UFOs, urban legends, weird science and general high-strangeness is back!

Friendship in the Digital Age

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 29/01/2018 - 4:05pm in


Science, Web/Tech

by Jalees Rehman

6a017c344e8898970b01b7c94a29ba970b-500wiWhy is the number of friendships that we can actively maintain limited to 150? The evolutionary psychologist and anthropologist Robin Dunbar at the University of Oxford is a pioneer in the study of friendship. Over several decades, he and his colleagues have investigated the nature of friendship and social relationships in non-human primates and humans. His research papers and monographs on social networks, grooming, gossip and friendship have accumulated tens of thousands of academic citations but he may be best known in popular culture for "Dunbar's number", the limit to the number of people with whom an individual can maintain stable social relationships. For humans, this number is approximately 150 although there are of course variations between individuals and also across one's lifetime. The expression "stable social relationships" is what we would call friends and family members with whom we regularly interact. Most of us may know far more people but they likely fall into a category of "acquaintances" instead of "friends". Acquaintances, for example, are fellow students and colleagues who we occasionally meet at work, but we do not regularly invite them over to share meals or swap anecdotes as we would do with our friends.

Dunbar recently reviewed more than two decades of research on humans and non-human primates in the article "The Anatomy of Friendship" and outlines two fundamental constraints: Time and our brain. In order to maintain friendships, we have to invest time. As most of us intuitively know, friendship is subject to hierarchies. Dunbar and other researchers have been able to study these hierarchies scientifically and found remarkable consistency in the structure of the friendship hierarchy across networks and cultures. This hierarchy can be best visualized as concentric circles of friendship. The innermost core circle consists of 1-2 friends, often the romantic partner and/or the closest family member. The next circle contains approximately 5 very close friends, then progressively wider circles until we reach the maximum of about 150. The wider the circle becomes, the less time we invest in "grooming" or communicating with our friends. The social time we invest also mirrors the emotional closeness we feel. It appears that up to 40% of our social time is invested in the inner circle of our 5 closest friends, 20% to our circle of 15 friends, and progressively less. Our overall social time available to "invest' in friendships on any given day is limited by our need to sleep and work which then limits the number of friends in each circle as well as the total number of friendships.

Dunbar Number
The Circles of Friendship - modified from RIM Dunbar, The Anatomy of Friendship (2018)

The second constraint which limits the number of friendships we can maintain is our cognitive capacity. According to Dunbar, there are at least two fundamental cognitive processes at play in forming friendships. First, there needs to be some basis of trust in a friendship because it represents implicit social contracts, such as a promise of future support if needed and an underlying promise of reciprocity – "If you are here for me now, I will be there for you when you need me." For a stable friendship between two individuals, both need to be aware of how certain actions could undermine this implicit contract. For example, friends who continuously borrow my books and seem to think that they are allowed to keep them indefinitely will find that there are gradually nudged to the outer circles of friendship and eventually cross into the acquaintance territory. This is not only because I feel I am being taken advantage off and the implicit social contract is being violated but also because they do not appear to put in the mental effort to realize how much I value my books and how their unilateral "borrowing" may affect me. This brings us to "mentalizing", the second important cognitive component that is critical for stable friendships according to Dunbar. Mentalizing refers to the ability to read or understand someone else's state of mind. To engage in an active dialogue with friends not only requires being able to read their state of mind but also infer the state of mind of people that they are talking about. These levels of mentalizing (‘I think that you feel that she was correct in …..) appear to hit a limit around four or five. Dunbar cites the example of how at a gathering, up to four people can have an active conversation in which each person is closely following what everyone else is saying but once a fifth person joins (the fifth wheel!), the conversation is likely to split up into two conversations and that the same is true for many TV shows or plays in which scenes will rarely depict more than four characters actively participating in a conversation.

Has the digital age changed the number of friends we can have? The prior research by Dunbar and his colleagues relied on traditional means of communication between friends such as face-to-face interactions and phone calls but do these findings still apply today when social media such as Facebook and Twitter allow us to have several hundred or even thousands of "friends" and "followers"? The surprising finding is that online social networks are quite similar to traditional networks! In a study of Facebook and Twitter social media networks, Dunbar and his colleagues found that social media networks exhibit a hierarchy of friendship and numbers of friends that were extremely similar to "offline" networks. Even though it is possible to have more than a thousand "friends" on Facebook, it turns out that most of the bidirectional interactions with individuals are again concentrated in very narrow circles of approximately 5, 15 and 50 individuals. Social media make it much easier to broadcast information to a broad group of individuals but this sharing of information is very different from the "grooming" of friendships which appears to be based on reciprocity in terms of building trust and mentalizing.

There is a tendency to believe that the Internet has revolutionized all forms of human communication, a belief which falls under the rubric of "internet-centrism" (See the article "Is Internet-Centrism a Religion") according to the social researcher Evgeny Morozov. Dunbar's research is an important reminder that core biological and psychological principles such as the anatomy of friendship in humans have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and will not be fundamentally upstaged by technological improvements in communication. Friendship and its traditional limits are here to stay.


Dunbar R.I.M. (2018). "The Anatomy of FriendshipTrends in Cognitive Science 22(1), 32-51

Thanks to Trump, We’re Now Two Minutes From Midnight

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 28/01/2018 - 4:44am in

This is the Doomsday Clock set up by the Organisation of Atomic Scientists, to show graphically how close the world is to nuclear omnicide. It used to be five minutes to midnight, and I remember the New Cold War of the 1980s, when Thatcher and Reagan nearly started a nuclear conflict. As did a computer malfunction over on the Soviet side. The only way we served that is because of an heroic Red Army officer, who insisted on visual confirmation because he correctly didn’t trust machines. The man was reduced to a nervous wreck afterwards, but he’s a hero. He saved the world.

Now we’ve moved closer to full-scale nuclear war. The scientists blame Trump, his stupid remarks on Twitter, and his sparring and provocation of Kim Jong-Un.

The man’s a menace. For the safety of all humanity, and our beautiful planet, he has to go. Now.

Opening Scene of Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 23/01/2018 - 5:30am in

And now for something a bit positive and optimistic, before I start blogging about the grim, serious stuff later. I found the opening scene to last year’s Luc Besson SF film, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets over on YouTube. Besson was the director of the SF epic, The Fifth Element way back in the 1990s. This clip from Valerian shows the development of something, which looks remarkably like the International Space Station, into a massive, orbital space complex. I like it because it shows a succession of human nations coming through the airlocks, followed by a variety of alien races, to greet each other in peace and friendship. The musical backing is David Bowie’s ‘Space Oddity’, appropriately enough, though the scenes of people and aliens shaking hands in welcome reminds me more of the line from Louis Armstrong’s ‘Wonderful World’: ‘I see friends shakin’ hands, sayin’ ‘How do you do?” This was used at the end of the BBC TV version of the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy back in the 1980s.

As for people meeting and becoming friends with alien races, that was one of the elements that made Star Trek so popular. It showed that, despite our current problems, humanity would survive, flourish and go on to explore the universe. And that meant all humanity, with people of different races, Black, Asian, and Russians from the other side of the-then current ideological divide, and aliens, like Spock. Gene Roddenberry in his vision for the show stated that he didn’t want there to be an alien race we couldn’t possible deal with. And so in The Next Generation they created the Borg, which originally humanity couldn’t deal with. You either fought them, ran away, or were assimilated.

Alien invasion, or some other insidious threat from beyond the stars is a staple of SF, and has been ever since H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. But there’s another aspect to humanity’s fascination with aliens which counterbalances this. That apart from enemies, we will also make new friends. It’s the driving psychological motive behind the various UFO contactee encounters in the 1950s, when people claimed that they’d been taken aboard alien spacecraft by benevolent space brothers, to be given a message of peace and cosmic brotherhood. And it’s also why there have been any number of SF stories and paintings set in space bars, like the Cantina sequence in Star Wars.

And in this clip here, I particularly like the bit where the human shaking hands with one of the aliens is left with slime on his hand. It’s just a bit gross, but it is funny.

I wanted to see Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets when it came out last year, but unfortunately circumstances got in the way. I heard that it flopped. One reason for this, apparently, was because it came from a French comic strip, which no-one in America had ever heard of. I’m not sure if that’s the reason, and sometimes perfectly good films fall flat at the box office for no discernible reason at all, except that they didn’t appeal at that moment. Anyway, I want to get hold of it on DVD so that I can judge for myself whether it’s any good, rather than just take what the critics said.

The Painter of Cyberspace: The Art of Jurgen Ziewe

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 21/01/2018 - 7:18am in

Earlier this week there was a piece in the press announcing that the Turner Prize Committee had decided to go public early about which artworks and artist they were considering. I have strong feeling, like many people, about the Turner Prize. Many of the works seem simply designed to shock, with nothing more substantial underneath. Those that aren’t, are simply banal. It’s highbrow kitsch, which says nothing while claiming that it actually does. And I think modern fine art has reached a dead end. it’s anti-art, which constantly raves about Duchamps’ urinal nailed to a piece of canvas. Duchamps did it to make the point that whatever the artist claimed to be art, was art. It’s over a century old, and the joke’s well past it’s sell-by date. It was always an adolescent, childish prank anyway. To some of these art experts, it’s a hallowed artistic statement that must not be blasphemed in any way. You remember those Chinese guys, who were arrested when they jumped up and down on Tracey Emin’s ‘My Bed’? The same two were planning to urinate in Duchamps’ urinal. Which I feel is in keeping with the piece itself, but the mere thought horrified the keepers of official art.

The real artistic boundaries are being pushed, in my opinion, not by the fine artists, or at least, not by those fine artists currently pushed by the very small clique that defines what ‘official’ art is, like Nicholas Serota. Rather, they’re being pushed by commercial artists and film makers, often inspired by the worlds of Fantasy and SF, using computer graphics. One of the foremost of these, in my opinion, is the German artist Jurgen Ziewe. Ziewe lives over here, and has an English wife. And we are fortunate to have such a talented artist. I do wonder what will happen to other talented EU migrants like him after Brexit, who can’t stay in this country because they aren’t married. We’re going to lose a lot of very talented people.

Ziewe uses computer graphics, including Virtual models of humans and objects, and fractals, to create prismatic, Virtual, interior worlds full of robots, strange creatures, synthetic humans, fairies, wizards, witches, priestesses and temples. He started out making cards showing dolphins under cosmic skies. He’s a very spiritual guy, in a New Age-y sense, and his work is inspired by concepts from Theosophy and C.G. Jung. Here’s some of the picture from Nigel Suckling’s book about his art, New Territories: The Computer Visions of Jurgen Ziewe (Paper Tiger, 1997).

The Fairy Queen

Picnic In Cyberspace

Journey of a Virtual Traveller

Apart from Ziewe, other artists working in film and television have also been using the concepts of computer graphics. One of the features of the BBC TV version of the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy that most impressed me in the late ’70s or early 1980s were the, ahem, computer graphics for the pieces of information provided by the Book. In fact, they were hand drawn, because the computers at the time simply weren’t up to the task of creating pictures that detailed. But the art produced as ‘computer graphics’, was superb, and those, who watched the show were deeply impressed. As an example, here’s a piece from YouTube of the Book describing Vogon poetry.

Further examples can be seen in pop videos. Like this one from the American electro-pop band, Information Society, which uses scrolling alphanumerics to suggest passage through cyberspace in a computer game, made for their track, ‘The Prize’.

Other artistic explorations of medically or cybernetically enhanced vision can be seen in the films Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick and the last of trilogy, entitled simply Riddick. Richard Riddick, the anti-hero in these movies, is a violent criminal, a murderer, who somehow ends up doing the right thing. While in slam for his crimes, he paid the prison doctor 20 menthol cigarettes to have his eyes surgically altered, ‘polished’, so that he could see in the dark. In these flicks, we so bits of the action through his eyes. The scene in Pitch Black, where he sees the predatory aliens pouring out of their underground lairs after the marooned crew of a crashed colony spacecraft, is awesomely beautiful. This is the trailer for the movie.

And this is the trailer for The Chronicles of Riddick.

In this movie, the Necromongers use visioners, cybernetically adapted humans, to seek and visually examine areas that are difficult or impossible for normal human eyes to see clearly. And the brief scenes, in which the audience is shown what they see, are also stunning.

But this is low, commercial art, and so unlikely to find any praise by the High Art people, no matter how popular it is, or how technically sophisticated and visually inspired. The best comment on this kind of artistic snobbery comes from the American SF/Fantasy artist and book illustrator, Bob Eggleton.

Being a commercial artist is itself a kind of pigeonhole in the art world, but it is not a label that troubles him. ‘Commercialism for the sake of commercialism is not a sin. What I hate is commercialism packaged as fine art. That’s what Abstract Expressionism about, you’re buying into a trend much of the time. There’s nothing wrong with any kind of art, provided the artist believes in what they’re doing.’

From Nigel Suckling, with introduction by Gregory Benford, Alien Horizons: The Fantastic Art of Bob Eggleton (Paper Tiger, 1995) page 83.

And the YBAs, such as Damian Hirst, Tracey Emin and Chris Offili, were very commercial, as was Salvador Dali long before them. This was pointed out on a programme on the great surrealist on Radio 4 several years ago by Malcolm MacLaren, the genius – well, he obviously thought he was – behind the Sex Pistols.

And here’s Eggleton’s picture of Great Cthulhu, painted for Weird Tales magazine, for all the Lovecraft fans out there.

I realised I’ve digressed a little way from the central topic of this post, the fantastic computer art of Jurgen Ziewe. But these are related issues, showing the way computers, robots, space and high technology – the stuff of Science Fiction – is pushing artistic boundaries in ways that the official fine art of Conceptualism really isn’t doing. I’m also exploring a few ideas here for a much longer article, or series of articles, I intend to do on this sometime.

Flying Saucer Art from 60s and 70s Comics

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 20/01/2018 - 9:23pm in

More fun SF art. This selection of covers for UFO and Flying Saucer comics, most of which seem to have been published by Gold Key, comes from the book Saucer Attack by Eric and Leif Nesheim, published by General Publishing Press in 1997. Subtitle, ‘Popular Culture in the Age of flying Saucers’, the book looks at the books, films, toys, TV series, hymns, pulp magazine short stories, comics, and, of course, the Mars Attacks bubblegum cards, which appeared following Kenneth Arnold’s sighting in 1947 of the unknown aircraft, which flew ‘like saucers skipped across water’. The SF pulp published in the 1920s to early 40s also depict strange, saucer-like alien and human spaceships, showing the pop cultural influences on the UFO phenomenon and its imagery as it would develop later.

The text at the bottom of the page reads

Sci-Fi and UFO storylines struggled as the -60s wore on. Some managed to survive- like UFO Flying Saucers, which lasted into the mid-70s with several reprint issues that featured earlier stories.

The scanned image on this page is probably too small for most of our to read comfortably. To make it larger, click on the image.

Three new books on the future of work

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 20/01/2018 - 3:34pm in

David Fagan, Wake Up: The Nine Hashtags of Digital Disruption

UQP; $24.95; 224pp

Jim Chalmers and Mike Quigley, Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age

Redback; $22.99; 199pp

Richard Denniss, Curing Affluenza: How to Buy Less Stuff and Save the World

Black Inc.; $27.99; 275pp

The times they are a-changin’ – fast. So fast, indeed, that it sometimes seems that change has taken on a life of its own. It used to be that humankind felt steadily pushed forward by a past it had had some hand in creating. Now it’s as if the future has reached in to the present and is dragging us along, whether we like it or not. New technologies offer hope of progress, but they also threaten to sharpen divisions and social problems already in the mix. In one sense Malcolm Turnbull is right: there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, or citizen of any developed country. But the excitement is as likely to be experienced as precariousness and anxiety as it is as wonder and optimism.

In his amiable survey of matters digital, Wake Up, David Fagan muses on this ubiquitous ‘disruption’ and attempts to weigh the pros and cons of new, and still-to-emerge, technologies. He begins with the story of Jesus Aparicio, a Spanish teenager who spent ten years in a coma and awoke to find a world radically changed by smart phones, social media, online retail and all the other goodies (or baddies) we associate with digital technology. The story, it turns out, is ‘fake news’ – a hoax – a fact that for Fagan carries its own moral, namely ‘don’t believe everything you read’. But even treated as a thought experiment, this modern version of Rip Van Winkle serves as a useful point of departure, not least because the changes that took place in that missing decade can all be traced to innovations that occurred before it. It carries an injunction to speculate, and to plan.

Fagan is an engaging guide to the material. As a former editor of the Courier-Mail and an academic teaching ‘change readiness’, he has both experience and expertise to draw upon, and a journalist’s eye for the telling detail. His potted histories of key digital players such as Alibaba and Airbnb are pithy and informative, while his expositions of emerging technologies are invariably enlightening. I particularly enjoyed his chapter on education, in which he describes the disruptive effect of Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, which many institutions now offer for free. Given that education is reflexively put forward as the solution to the downsides of digital disruption – by both politicians and commentators, and indeed by the sector itself – it’s salutary to read something that demonstrates how it, too, is being shaken up by the fourth industrial revolution. How could it be otherwise, given that the education sector deals principally in information?

Though Fagan’s book appears to be conceived as a survey of emerging trends (he describes it as a ‘curation’ of material, and each of his chapters is given its own Twitter hashtag, on which the reader is invited to drop in for updates on new developments) it does suffer from the lack of a driving thesis. Fagan’s stance is one of cautious optimism; he comes to us as neither Pollyanna nor Cassandra. But while this has advantages, it also leads him to miss some glaring points. His first chapter is on disruption itself, and what happens to companies that fail to embrace it, while his final one is on automation and the effect it is likely to have on jobs. But if the pessimists are right and the effect of automation on jobs turns out to be catastrophic, the question of how companies respond to it is moot. ‘This is scary stuff for any professional or knowledge worker’ writes Fagan, referring to a number of careers deemed to be in danger from artificial intelligence. ‘But it is good news for consumers of their services.’ Well, it is, until you reflect that the worker and the consumer are the same person and that mass unemployment and underemployment will translate quickly into a crisis of under-consumption. It is for this reason, as much as any other, that the black-skivvied things of Silicon Valley are spruiking for a guaranteed income.

Such a provision is one of the options rejected in the sober and sobering book Changing Jobs, though its authors, Jim Chalmers and Mike Quigley – a Labor MP and shadow minister and former NBN CEO, respectively – have plenty of other recommendations on how to deal with this potential crisis, and how to ensure a ‘fair go’ for workers (and non-workers) at the pointy end of it. Where Fagan is cautiously optimistic, they are pragmatically pessimistic, adopting a ‘no regrets’ approach to questions of social policy. Put simply, they urge us to prepare for the worst in a way that will do no harm to the prospects of Australians should the worst not transpire.

Like Fagan, Chalmers and Quigley are excellent on the character of the emerging technology, referring not just to the tech itself but to the underlying nature of it – asking what it can and cannot do and what it is likely to be able to do in the future. Broadly speaking they accept the emerging consensus that artificial intelligence is more likely to affect repetitive clerical work than low-skilled manual work – a fact that will have a profound effect on the shape of post-industrial economies. Central to their argument is what they call the emerging ‘polarisation’ of the workforce. According to this model, the future economy will be divided even more than today between manual and menial workers at one end and higher white-collar professionals at the other. This, of course, will increase inequality, which will in turn impede mobility (such as it is) between the classes.

Changing Jobs concludes with a long list of recommendations, which include lifelong educational programs, better income-contingent loans to help displaced workers retrain, and a focus on ‘caring services’ skills. But while many of these recommendations sound sane, I can’t help feeling that the authors’ pragmatic pessimism isn’t pessimistic enough. In Wake Up Fagan compares the number of workers employed by the retail giant Walmart to the number of workers employed by Amazon, and concludes that while the former’s workers have a market worth of around $120,000, the latter’s have a market worth of around $1.1 million! Such a rate of productivity growth is bound to have a massive effect on employment, and my sense is that, for all their touted realism, Chalmers and Quigley are far too sanguine. Their chapter on the jobs of the future devolves quickly into a discussion of which jobs might persist, while their chapter on education can only offer the suggestion that, if technology is set to shape our future, we all need to know a bit more about it in order to make informed democratic decisions. The authors deserve a lot of credit for treating the usual STEM-centric pabulum with caution, but this is unconvincing nonetheless.

Still, the MP and the CEO are asking some fundamental questions. Alas the same cannot be said for Richard Denniss in Curing Affluenza. Denniss is an economist at the Australia Institute and has taken a run at this topic before, in a book co-authored with Clive Hamilton, his predecessor at the AI. That book, Affluenza (2005), identified consumerism as the cause of environmental degradation, unhappiness and other social ills, and recommended that we all amend our habits in order to effect a change. I wasn’t a fan of the concept then, not because I disagreed that consumerism was a blight, but because it seemed to me to treat an economic symptom as a cause, and suggest into the bargain that the symptom (consumerism) could be reengineered into a cure. This struck me as naive, and it still does.

Curing Affluenza, which is written in short sections and contains a number of short guest essays from prominent progressive commentators, serves only to confirm my scepticism. Full of straw-man arguments and breezy, simplistic analogies, it promises to defeat current economic dogma using the principles of economics itself, but ends up simply reproducing it. I’ve got nothing at all against ethical spending, where and when it’s possible. But to pretend that such a strategy could be politically decisive is absurd.

Moreover the book rests on a dubious distinction between ‘markets’ and ‘culture’. Denniss’s point is that the latter drives the former, not the other way around. But this line, which is conceived as a blow against economic rationalism, is no less simplistic than the neoliberal blether pumped out by the IPA. Clearly, no such division exists: our culture is inseparable from the combination of Enlightenment liberalism, markets and technology in which our current economy evolved. Denniss writes that the term ‘capitalism’ is no longer ‘very helpful’. Well it’s a lot more helpful than his idea of ‘culture’.

Capitalism is a system based on private property, profit/growth and waged labour; and the current crisis, or set of crises – inequality, environmental collapse, the potential for widespread unemployment – can be easily mapped on to that definition. It’s been around for a long time, but not forever, and it’s showing some clear signs of strain. Any book that proposes to ‘save the world’ and then neglects, not only to take this particular Wall Street Bull by the horns, but even to acknowledge its presence, is bound to look a little thin.

Save your money, I say. Put it towards that composting bin.


First published in The Australian.




Automatica 4K: Nigel Stanford Rocks Out with Robots

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 20/01/2018 - 5:00am in

This is awesome. It’s another video of robots playing rock music. I’ve put up a number of videos of the German robot band, Compressorhead, and Kraftwerk, when they decided that they were going to have android versions of themselves stand in for them in a concert during their track, ‘The Model’. In this video, musician Nigel Stanford plays bass guitar while a group of robot arms around him play piano, guitar and drums. One of them is also equipped with a cutting torch, which cuts out the band’s logo, before finally going into full, guitar-smashing, piano-wrecking, room-trashing destructive mode at the end. Thus proving that robot rockers can turn it all the way up to 11.

More Eugenics from the Tories: Voice of Conservative Youth Wanted Young Unemployed Sterilised

I just read this little bit by Mike over at his Vox Political blog. It seems that Ben Bradley, who was appointed by Tweezer as the vice-chair of Young People, put up a blog post in 2012 declaring that unless something was done, Britain would drown in a sea of ‘unemployed wasters’ due to unemployed people on benefits having too many children. He then argued that they should be forced to have vasectomies. The story was, apparently, uncovered by Buzzfeed, and when they came to Bradley for comment, he simply deleted the article.

Bradley’s a nasty piece of work anyway. He was four-square behind the benefit cap, and voted against scrapping tuition fees, against university maintenance grants, against nurses’ bursaries, against Education Maintenance Allowance, ending the public sector pay cap and increases to the minimum wage.

In other words, he’s a typical Tory, who thinks only of enriching himself and his class, and exploiting working people, who no doubt after Ayn Rand he also regards as ‘moochers’ and ‘looters’. His comments about sterilising the young unemployed are pure eugenics. In the early part of the 20th century, the chattering classes all over Europe and America were worried by the possibility that the ‘dysgenic’ poor would outbreed all the responsible, biologically superior middle and upper classes, and so demanded legislation to stop them breeding. This programme was then taken up by the Nazis, who sterilised the congenitally disabled and recidivist criminals, before launching the infamous Aktion T4, which saw the mentally retarded murdered by Nazi doctors in clinics, in an operation run by the SS.

One of those, who was impressed by the eugenics argument was Lord Beveridge, before he issued his report that laid the foundations for the NHS. Beveridge argued that the long-term unemployed should be granted state support, but in return they would have to be sterilised to prevent them producing more children like them, who would be a drain on the state’s resources.

It’s recently been revealed that amongst his other activities, Toby Young attended a eugenics conference at University College London, as well as writing an article supporting it. And way back in the 1970s, Thatcher’s mentor Sir Keith Joseph expressed similar sentiments when he claimed that unmarried mothers were a threat to ‘our stock’.

The Tory party, it seems, is full of borderline Nazis, who hate the poor and the disabled, and wish them nothing but harm. Because they consider them a positive threat, not just to their position in society, but also to their biological superiority and purity.

Here’s Chunky Mark’s perspective on Bradley’s comments, in which he states that Bradley’s comments about it aren’t really an apology. He merely says that ‘the language was wrong’. Chunky Mark states that we are just experiments to the Tories, with people dying in corridors, and hormones injected into our food animals, which contaminate the meat. The Tories really believe in eugenics, and we’re their dinner.

Tory Chairman Lies about Abuse from Labour Party

Another day, another lie from the Tories. The Tory chairman, Brandon Lewis, was in the papers yesterday because of comments he made on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday. Lewis claimed that Tories were afraid to go on the internet because of abuse from the Labour party and Momentum members. Apparently, he mentioned Esther McVile as a victim of this abuse, claiming that John McConnell had made a speech demanding that she be lynched. He then claimed that he was making all the Tories sign a document pledging them not abuse their political opponents, and challenged Jeremy Corbyn to do the same.

This story was then taken up by a number of right-wing papers and magazines, including the Tory rag, the Spectator, and here in the West Country, the Western Daily Press. But the truth wasn’t quite like Lewis claimed. Mike’s written a long piece tearing apart Lewis’ comments to show how false and nasty they are. First of all, the comments made by McConnell were made three years ago, so they’re hardly contemporary. Secondly, he was quoting other people. Ah, replied the Speccie, but he was doing so approvingly. Whether he was or wasn’t clearly depends on a matter of perception, I feel. As for making Tories sign a pledge of good conduct, you can ask a number of questions about this. Like it clearly didn’t apply to Toby Young, when he wrote pieces advocating eugenics, commenting on women’s breasts, saying he had his d*ck up the a**e of one woman, and talking about masturbating over pictures of starving Africans. All of which qualify Young as a truly loathsome human being. But nevertheless, Tweezer wanted him as part of the universities regulatory board. Possibly because he is vociferously against everything modern educationalists stand for, like diversity, anti-racism and anti-sexism. They’re the values most student union bodies very strongly support, and which hardline Tories sneer at as ‘political correctness’ and moan that they are stifling free speech. And Young was almost certainly put in because he’s another Tory who wants to privatise education. Witness his leadership of the ‘free school’ movement.

And most odiously, as Mike points out, Lewis tried to portray McVile as a victim.

McVile isn’t, not by any stretch of the imagination. She’s a very rich woman, who has made a very good living by killing the disabled. She and her husband run a production company, which I believe may have been responsible for the Benefit Street series of programmes on Channel 4. Under her aegis, tens of thousands of disabled people have been unfairly declared ‘fit for work’, and been left to starve to death after having their benefits cut off. Mike has covered these deaths, as have Stilloaks, DPAC, Johnny Void and many, many others. Some of those, who have taken their lives left suicide notes behind stating that it was the removal of their benefits that were driving them to this extremity.

But still the Tories deny it.

McVile presided over this system, for which, as a government minister, she was very handsomely paid compared to the rest of us, and definitely far more than the poor souls, who are forced to rely on state benefits. She carried on with her task of murdering the poor gleefully and without remorse. She’s an evil woman.

Now I don’t believe that there is any abuse from Labour or Momentum. I’ve heard that song before, when the Blairite women were all complaining that they were suffering misogynist abuse from Corbyn’s supporters. They weren’t, and an extensive checking of various posts showed it. But it has set the narrative for the Thatcherite right to tell lies about Corbyn and the Labour left. Whether it is true or not is immaterial. The Tories lie like Goebbels, and Lewis’ comments are yet another smear campaign.

There’s also more than a touch of hypocrisy about the claims, too. Quite apart from the vile comments and writing of Toby Young, you only have to look at Twitter to see frothingly abusive comments from outraged Tories, or look at the comments they leave on left-wing vlogs and videos on YouTube.

If the Tories are scared to go on social media, I can think of a couple of reasons why, which have nothing to do with abuse. Firstly, the Tory front bench are solidly public school boys and girls, who all went to Oxbridge. The ancient Romans didn’t have information technology. The closest they got was the Antikythera Mechanism, a kind of geared computer, which showed the position of the planets. It’s a masterpiece of ancient engineering. However, public school classics are all about generals, emperors and Roman politicians, not the work of the rude mechanics and craftsmen. Aristotle in his politics firmly demanded that these should not be allowed a voice in the political life of his perfect state. That was to be reserved for leisured gentlemen, who should have a forum of their own so that they didn’t mix with the trades- and craftspeople, who actually made things and supplied services.

And one of the complaints I’ve seen of the Oxbridge educated upper classes is that they still have this snobbery towards science. Boris Johnson is possibly the most notable of those public schoolboys and girls advocating the classics, which were used in previous centuries as part of the education system to show the young of the upper classes how to govern. Despite Harold Wilson’s comments in the 1960s about Britain embracing the ‘white heat’ of technology, science and engineering were very much the province of the oiks in secondary moderns, and definitely looked down upon.

And I also think that the real some Tories may be avoiding going on social media, is that they’re all too aware that people know they’re lying, and will correct them. Go see some of Mike’s articles for comments left on social media by very well informed commenters, tearing into Tweezer’s and Jeremy Hunt’s lies over housing and the state of the NHS, for example.

And I also think that if people are making extreme remarks about how vile Esther McVey is on social media, some of them at least have a right. Lewis can afford to act shocked. He’s another, very middle class professional on a very tidy income. He is not poor and desperate, as McVey’s victims are. He can therefore afford to be complacent about their very real fear and despair. He is part of the Tory machine working towards their impoverishment and starvation, and so he has a vested interest in playing down the horrific reality behind their comments. If you go in for an interview at the Job Centre, you will be humiliated by clerks trying to get you off their books as quickly as possible. This will leave you fuming with rage, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Especially as they will sanction you without a moment’s hesitation for the most trivial of reasons. This system has been created and is overseen by the Tories, including Esther McVile. She therefore deserves to be an object of anger, hate and loathing by people, who are genuine victims. What Lewis hates and fears is the amount of hatred there is for her, and the fact that it’s expressed, as the Tories demand absolute deference from the rest of us. Remember how the Daily Mail went berserk with rage when Thatcher died, because people in the north had the audacity to celebrate and burn her in effigy?

There must be no clue how much the Tories and the leaders are hated, in any media, ever. And so he demands that people, who have every right to loath McVile, stop talking about how repulsive and murderous the Wicked Witch of the Wirral, responsible for the genocide of the disabled, really is.

And so he falsely accuses Labour of abuse, while defending a woman who is directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of disabled people.

She’s a disgrace. So is he. Get them out.