You may like this. “From a distance, Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which has just sold at Christie’s in New York for $432,000 (£337,000), looks almost plausible. Up close, however, the paintwork becomes a grid of mechanical-looking dots, the man’s face a golden blur with black holes for eyes. Look into those eyes. They show no sign of feeling or life. Did a computer make this? The answer is yes. The first artwork generated by AI to be sold at Christie’s, its impressive price would seem to suggest that in future we will get computers to make art for us. Robot van Gogh will harmlessly cut its ear off and robot Picasso will be a genius, minus the misogyny. Is this the future AI art visionaries such as the French collective Obvious, which programmed this “painter” by getting it to compare its own work with 15,000 pre-20th century portraits, have in mind? Or are they just, God forbid, making a fast buck from gullible art collectors? Because believing the algorithm that knocked this up to be in any meaningful way an “artist” is like thinking your voice-interaction programme is out to get you. Dream on. Computers would need to replicate human consciousness before they could replicate the funny thing humans do called “art”. Art is a way in which human consciousness expresses itself, and is equally true of the earliest cave art, Rembrandt’s portraits and Duchamp’s urinal. And that is what is missing from Portrait of Edmond Bellamy. Art is a way humans communicate ideas, perceptions and feelings to each other. It has no existence outside the human passion to communicate. So in what meaningful sense can an AI replica of certain physical traits of old master paintings be called art? For a robot to really make art, it would need an autonomous mind that was emotional as well as rational. No AI developer has yet claimed to be anywhere near achieving that and if they ever do, their creation will probably have better things to do than paint portraits – like destroy humanity. Maybe afterwards robots will invent their own kind of art, but it won’t be some poor pastiche of human genius. It will be beyond anything we organics could imagine." guardian ai generated portrait.docx

Hand written.

“In the decades since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the GOP perfected exploiting racial divisions. Few politicians have embraced this tactic as explicitly or ruthlessly as Donald Trump. By reviving deep-seated racial and cultural grievances, he forged what is now known as Southern Strategy 2.0. While his rise and first term were marked by inflammatory rhetoric and symbolic measures, his second term has taken a far darker turn. Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has waged a brutal, state-sanctioned war on immigrants combining overt racism with draconian policies that flagrantly disregard due process. In what follows, we trace the evolution of Trump’s strategy from subtle dog whistles to aggressive state violence. Trump has long been known for discarding subtlety in favour of explicit racism. From his 2015 campaign launch speech when he infamously described Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals to his repeated calls for a “Muslim ban,” his rhetoric was always designed to exploit the fears of a segment of white voters. Those early statements served not merely as inflammatory sound bites but as clear signals to voters drawn to a brand of nationalism rooted in racial resentment. Even as he built his image as a defender of traditional American values, his language was steeped in contempt for the nation’s increasing diversity. Claims that immigrants were an existential threat to American economic and social stability became the underpinning of his appeal to white, working-class, and rural communities. Over time, the dog whistles he once used in carefully coded language gave way to a more head-on assault one that leaves little doubt about his priorities. Today, as his second term unfolds, that overt racism is not just rhetoric but now underpins policies that curtail the rights of communities of color and immigrants. Whereas in previous years, his words served as markers of tribal identity, they have now evolved into a legal and institutional program of exclusion. The transformation from talk to action is as clear as it is damaging.cv Throughout his first presidency, Trump implemented policies that pushed the envelope of conservative immigration enforcement The “zero-tolerance” policy at the U.S.–Mexico border, with its deeply controversial family separations, became emblematic of his willingness to use state power to satisfy a racially charged agenda. However, these measures pale in comparison to the actions of his current administration. Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has escalated its assault on immigrants to levels never seen before. Nearly three months into his second term, his government has commandeered the full force of executive power to reshape immigration enforcement. The administration has now implemented a policy that systematically dispossesses potentially innocent immigrants of their legal rights. In an unprecedented move, individuals apprehended on U.S. soil are being removed without the due process guaranteed by the American legal system. Rather than relying on established deportation channels—processes designed to balance security concerns with fairness—Trump’s operatives send these immigrants directly to a notorious detention facility in El Salvador. Critics and human rights advocates have compared this facility to a modern-day gulag. The administration has not hidden behind red tape or excuses; President Trump himself has proudly taken credit for these measures, asserting that they serve the dual purpose of protecting national security and preserving an “authentic” American identity. This is not merely a tweak to existing policies. The new program has involved both the intensification of border enforcement and a broad campaign of interior raids targeting undocumented communities. Sanctuary cities have been red flagged by federal investigators, and large-scale operations have been launched to uproot immigrant populations with little or no connection to criminality. The consequences are severe. Families are being torn apart; vulnerable individuals are detained without a chance to challenge their fate in court. By linking immigrants to crime and portraying them as invaders who threaten public order, the administration has found fertile ground among its core supporters. Fear is being weaponized as a tool of mass mobilization. The narrative is not one of legal reform but of racial dominationa policy calculated to reinforce the notion that non-white immigrants are aliens to the American experiment. This strategy is a deliberate escalation over past measures, marking a profound, state-sanctioned breach of both legal and moral boundaries. Embracing White Nationalism A cornerstone of Trump’s Southern Strategy 2.0 has always been his tacit marriage to extremist elements. Early in his political trajectory, he demonstrated a willingness to embrace far-right nationalist rhetoric. For example, after the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville—where white supremacists clashed with counter-protesters, resulting in the death of activist Heather Heyer—Trump’s response claiming there were “very fine people on both sides” was widely interpreted as a vote of confidence in extremist ideologies. Such moments, once dismissed as political missteps or careless remarks, now resonate with renewed significance. The administration’s current policies are a natural evolution of that earlier radicalism. By bypassing due process and deploying aggressive tactics against immigrants, the government validates the extremist perspective that sees racial purity as essential to national identity."

Your country?

Someone asked, “Why do some British people not like Trump?” An articulate and witty writer wrote the following response: “A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Obama possessd. So, the stark contrast does throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty, or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I do not say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it is a fact. He does not even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he does not just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and automatic nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance, or depth. It is all surface. Some might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we do not. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He is not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He is more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully and racist. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down. So, the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a few of us– of look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that: You do not need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty hard to miss. After all, it is impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumps of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created? If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

Nate Whight

Agree. Someone asked, “Why do some British people not like Trump?” An articulate and witty writer wrote the following response: “A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Obama possessd. So, the stark contrast does throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty, or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I do not say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it is a fact. He does not even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he does not just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and automatic nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance, or depth. It is all surface. Some might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we do not. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He is not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He is more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully and racist. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down. So, the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a few of us– of look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that: You do not need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty hard to miss. After all, it is impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumps of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created? If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

Nate Whight

___

The average American Trump supporter is a gun toting, neoliberal, bear shooting, death penalty supporting, misogynist, who believe that LGBT people should be stoned to death Old Testament style, a white supremacist, anti-vaccine, climate change denying, anti-evolution, anti- science, flat earth believing, pro-life, anti- intellectual, sanctimonious evangelical Christian, Islamophobic bigot. Chem trail obsessive, xenophobic and a racist. Also ignorant, stupid, perverted and possibly demented.

‘The most uneducated buffoon in history stands at a podium, bloated with self-importance, lips pursed like a carnival barker ready to sell turd milk to the unsuspecting. He grins a grotesque smirk stretched across his face as he scrawls his name onto a hollow decree, a sham celebration of the dismantling of knowledge itself. The Department of Education falls, not with a bang, but with wheezing verbs, suffocated under the weight of his own staggering ignorance. Surrounding him are the usual suspects: cowards in expensive suits, servile sycophants clapping like trained seals, and racist opportunistic ghouls picking clean the bones of democracy. Liars, fools, and thieves all parasites fattening themselves on the hardships of the many. They stand in rigid formation, dead-eyed and soulless, their allegiance sworn not to country, not to principle, but to power, and the dark, festering rot that clings to it. And there he is the convicted wrong, the living embodiment of septic tank spew, his voice a noxious fog of grift and grievance. He lectures the world on right and wrong, irony clawing at the walls, desperate to escape the grotesque theatre of his moral void. The stomach turns, the air curdles, and for a moment, history itself recoils watching, in horror, as the great American experiment teeters on the precipice, led by a man who couldn’t spell “precipice” if his life depended on it.’

‘The most uneducated buffoon in history stands at a podium, bloated with self-importance, lips pursed like a carnival barker ready to sell turd milk to the unsuspecting. He grins a grotesque smirk stretched across his face as he scrawls his name onto a hollow decree, a sham celebration of the dismantling of knowledge itself. The Department of Education falls, not with a bang, but with wheezing verbs, suffocated under the weight of his own staggering ignorance. Surrounding him are the usual suspects: cowards in expensive suits, servile sycophants clapping like trained seals, and racist opportunistic ghouls picking clean the bones of democracy. Liars, fools, and thieves all parasites fattening themselves on the hardships of the many. They stand in rigid formation, dead-eyed and soulless, their allegiance sworn not to country, not to principle, but to power, and the dark, festering rot that clings to it. And there he is the convicted wrong, the living embodiment of septic tank spew, his voice a noxious fog of grift and grievance. He lectures the world on right and wrong, irony clawing at the walls, desperate to escape the grotesque theatre of his moral void. The stomach turns, the air curdles, and for a moment, history itself recoils watching, in horror, as the great American experiment teeters on the precipice, led by a man who couldn’t spell “precipice” if his life depended on it.’

Totally agree with you. The moderators are sanctimonious, cencorious, petty idiots who do not tolerate freedom of speech or thought. I was banned for pointing out that in the USA there is a thriving business that treats tropical fish unethically. This was the offending comment. ‘According to major veterinary organizations and animal welfare groups, intentionally breeding animals for physical extremes which inherently causes chronic suffering, reduces life spans, and passes on harmful mutations is considered highly unethical. Despite clear evidence that the breeding practices of certain fish breeds such as Goldfish lead to them to suffering from a range of different conformational malformations causing pain, discomfort and life limiting conditions, some breeding societies have followed societal fashion for ‘cute’ fish, prioritising the aesthetics, rather than the health of animals. The types of Goldfish most prone to illness are long-finned varieties and heavily inbred colour morphs. Their genetic history and physical traits frequently leave them dealing with chronic conditions including abnormal behaviours. The breeders produce fish with biological genetic inbuilt obsolescence.’

Do you mean the designer, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, creator, Jehovah, or the lord god that gave that gave us viruses, deadly bacteria, genetic diseases, parasites, , volcanos, earthquakes, blindness, cancers, floods, droughts, starvation, meteorites, death from lightning strikes, pestilence, holy wars, tidal waves, asbestos, infant mortality, trachoma, life threatening radioactive elements, solar flares, malaria, smallpox, despots, dictators, slavery, mass extinctions, ice ages, trachoma, hare lips, cleft palates, animal sacrifices, infant genital mutilation, mental illness depression, bilharzia and anxiety, autism, Parkinson’s disease, Hansons disease, hernias, the appendix, compacted wisdom teeth, acne, dementia and complete morons?

Do you mean the designer, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, creator, Jehovah, or the lord god that gave that gave us viruses, deadly bacteria, genetic diseases, parasites, , volcanos, earthquakes, blindness, cancers, floods, droughts, starvation, meteorites, death from lightning strikes, pestilence, holy wars, tidal waves, asbestos, infant mortality, trachoma, life threatening radioactive elements, solar flares, malaria, smallpox, despots, dictators, slavery, mass extinctions, ice ages, trachoma, hare lips, cleft palates, animal sacrifices, infant genital mutilation, mental illness depression, bilharzia and anxiety, autism, Parkinson’s disease, Hansons disease, hernias, the appendix, compacted wisdom teeth, acne, dementia and complete morons?

Verses in Exodus 21, particularly verses 2-11, regulate slavery among Israelites, allowing Hebrew men to serve for six years, but also permitting permanent servitude for foreign slaves and stipulating rules for selling daughters. If an Israelite buys a Hebrew slave, the servant serves six years and goes free in the seventh. However, if the servant loves his master and chooses to stay, his ear is pierced, and he serves for life. A man could sell his daughter as a servant. She was not freed like male servants. If she did not, please her master, he had to let her be redeemed (bought back by family) and could not sell her to foreigners; if he took another wife, her basic needs (food, clothing, marital rights) could not be reduced. If a master beats a slave (male or female) and they die under their hand, the master is punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, the master is not punished, as the slave is considered their property.

This.

Totally agree.

I am fearful about the extreme ignorance, simple mindedness and gullibility of some of the electorate. They are completely blind to the effects of neoliberalism, which is the main guiding force behind the bumptious, odious and fascist/racist Republican party who believe that competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised; public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance, and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

How sweet the moonlight sleeps upon this bank! Here will we sit, and let the sounds of music Creep in our ears: soft stillness and the night Become the touches of sweet harmony. Look, how the floor of heaven Is thick inlaid with patines of bright gold: There’s not the smallest orb that thou behold’st But in his motion like an angel sings Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins; Such harmony is in immortal souls; But, whilst this muddy vesture of decay Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it. Come, ho! and wake Diana with a hymn: With sweetest touches pierce your mistress’ ear, And draw her home with music. I am never merry when I hear sweet music. The reason is, your spirits are attentive: The man that hath no music in himself, Nor is not mov’d with concord of sweet sounds, Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; The motions of his spirit are dull as night, And his affections dark as Erebus: Let no such man be trusted… Music! hark! It is your music of the house. Methinks it sounds much sweeter than by day. Silence bestows that virtue on it. How many things by season season’d are. To their right praise and true perfection! Peace, ho! the moon sleeps with Endymion, And would not be awak’d. Soft stillness and the night Become the touches of sweet harmony.

What a surprise!

More fool me! Here I was thinking nothing that America’s Trump administration could do or say, no matter how politically and morally bankrupt, no matter how venal or violent, was capable of shocking me any longer. Then I woke to today’s news that one of the Trump cabinet’s bigger boofheads – the uber Christian nationalist, crusader-fantasist and “secretary of war” Pete Hegseth had announced that America would have a public firing squad execution of murderer Nidal Hasan. Reckless global militarisation including a threat at the UN to annihilate Iran, a litany of sexual misconduct allegations against the commander in chief, claims of blatant presidential corruption … they have all ceased to surprise and shock us, so inured has the world become to Donald Trump’s monstrous narcissism and maladministration. But now we have execution TV. Tune in to the livestream on Thursday 3 December to watch a military firing squad shoot the life out of Hasan, the former army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at a US army base in 2009.State-sanctioned killing as entertainment! Yes, the world’s supposedly greatest (or formerly greatest) democracy has arrived at an horrific new moral nadir. The fact that America remains Australia and the west’s most relied-upon and trusted ally despite the global wrecking ball the second Trump administration has proved to be, was already cause for deep concern. But being so closely allied to a country that now wants to turn the execution of a human being – no matter what their crimes – into a live entertainment event, promises to redefine depravity. Given that American states continue to execute so many convicted criminals, where might the United States ultimately draw the line? No doubt the ilk of Hegseth in American society – and elsewhere – will count down the days until they can tune in to the live coverage of Hasan’s execution in droves. Might the audience cry out for more – for livestream cameras in the death chambers across the land of the free? How would this populist administration respond? If you think it is a fanciful question, consider how far American governance and presidential values have slid in the moral murk in the past two years alone. Meanwhile, it is hard to contemplate a more audacious appeal to American society’s darker angels than this looming entertainment event. But there we are. We have arrived. Pass the popcorn, Don, and Pete! It would be heartening today to hear political leaders the world over condemn Hegseth and Trump’s planned introduction of Ghoul TV. But let us please start in Australia, where federal governments have for a long-time opposed capital punishment – let alone turning it into a public spectacle. Will the prime minister and his senior ministers stand up and condemn without qualification this depraved plan for America to livestream an execution? What about the leaders of other political parties here, some of whom have, after all, supported capital punishment? We are waiting. Meanwhile, how much further into the moral quagmire must America wallow before Australia rethinks its craven military dependence on Washington – not least via the reckless shackling of our strategic reliance to the US via the $368bn (and counting) Aukus submarine deal? Announcing America’s decision to turn killing into a form of entertainment, Hegseth said: “It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks, and so he’s going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be, and we’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” America’s defence department later confirmed the execution would be livestreamed. This represents a significant lurch in the US from civilisation towards savagery. You cannot choose your family. But you can choose your friends and allies. And you can also tell them firmly when they have careened off the ethical rails. Actions speak louder than words. And this planned livestreamed execution says it all about what is happening in America today, opening the window ever wider on the Trump administration’s moral vacuity and its paucity of human decency. • Paul Daley is a Guardian Australia columnist