About the opportunity

New Humanist is looking for a freelance designer to produce a suite of marketing materials for the magazine.

We're keen to hear from people who can bring some flair to traditional advertisements (both print and digital), inserts, banners and social media cards.

These will mostly be promoting our subscription packages, building on existing images such as magazine covers.

Requirements

We're looking for a professional with experience of designing ads for magazines or journalistic publications, combining design and marketing expertise.

Ideally, you'll have design experience across print, digital and social media.

Rate

£250 a day, for an estimated 3-4 days' work.

How to apply

Please apply with your CV and examples of relevant work, to editor@newhumanist.org.uk with the subject line DESIGNER in all caps.

Please apply as soon as possible or by 26th March at the latest.

No? The huge investment Facebook made in launching a virtual reality social media platform that Mark Zuckerberg predicted would take over the internet? It was so important that Zuck renamed his whole company to Meta! How could you forget?

Well, now it’s safe to purge your memory banks. The Metaverse is dead or dying.

Horizon Worlds launched in late 2021 and never found its footing. The platform never drew more than a few hundred thousand monthly active users, which isn’t enough for a project that consumed billions of dollars. Reality Labs, the Meta division responsible for VR and metaverse development, has accumulated nearly $80 billion in losses since 2020. In the fourth quarter alone it posted an operating loss of more than $6 billion.

The costs were always the argument for staying the course. Zuckerberg had promised the metaverse would reach a billion people and generate hundreds of billions in commerce. Pulling back meant admitting those projections were wrong.

I am impressed that Zuckerberg can throw away $80 billion on a bad gamble on a whim. Surely this means the stockholders will rise up and depose their incompetent leader…nah, no, you know that once you’re rich enough you are free from consequences.

You might hope that they’d learn something from this, but no — their future is instead going to be built on AI.

What changed the calculus was AI. When ChatGPT arrived in late 2022, Meta pivoted its public messaging fast. Its AI research division, long led by scientist Yann LeCun, gave the company a credible foundation to build on. Ad revenue improved. The stock recovered. By 2024, Meta had nearly tripled in value from its 2022 lows.

AI seems to have a niche in building stock market confidence and ad revenue, that’s nice. I think it’s going to face some consequences in the near future, as people realize they’ve been sold a shiny bill of goods, and maybe people will learn to tell Zuck to shut the fuck up.

Job title: Art Director, New Humanist

Hours: Up to 6 days for an initial redesign project, followed by 5 days each quarter on an ongoing basis

Location: Largely remote, with 2 days each quarter in our central London office

Rate: £250 per day

Contract: Freelance

Start date: ASAP but no later than 20th April

We're looking for an Art Director for the beautiful print edition of our magazine. The role involves creativity and a keen eye for magazine design, a good understanding of story presentation, knowledge of legal issues surrounding the use of images in an editorial context, and experience of collaborating with editors in a magazine or journalism environment.

The role will kick off with a partial redesign project, which is expected to take 4-6 days of design work. This will involve creating new InDesign templates and producing designs for new article formats, with lots of opportunity for creative input.

After this, you'll work five days per quarter (3 remote, 2 in the office) on each edition of the magazine, on an ongoing basis. The Art Director takes the lead on layout design, picture research and image permissions, commissioning the cover illustration, managing image library accounts and overseeing the picture budget. There is also a small amount of work each quarter creating social media and other digital assets.

About New Humanist

New Humanist is a quarterly non-profit magazine covering politics, human rights, science, technology, philosophy and culture, and has been published since 1885.

This is an exciting time to join an award-winning magazine, with an exceptional reputation for its design. Since January 2025, we have been published by the charity Humanists UK, and our readership is growing. Join our small, passionate team at New Humanist, producing ethical journalism to the highest standards.

To apply, please send your CV and portfolio to editor@newhumanist.org.uk, with the subject line Art Director. Applications must be received by midnight on 30th March 2026.

We look forward to receiving your application!

The world, and especially the United States right now, sucks. So I have little rituals to keep me somewhat balanced by, for instance, reading a set of webcomics every morning. Of course, I still have to complain about them, but the intent is there.

The Far Side frequently cheers me up with comics featuring spiders. There’s one today:

Has anyone else noticed a fondness for multi-limbed aliens in recent SF? It only makes sense, since humans are chronically under-supplied with limbs, and the ones we’ve got are over-specialized to specific functions. Or maybe it’s just my taste in SF.

Although…the newest Andy Weir book, Project Hail Mary, is being released as a movie, with a cute 5-armed alien, and I’m not going to watch it. I’ve detested all of Weir’s books since The Martian, which I wanted to throw at the wall and then set on fire. In general, I’ve grown to dislike novels about rescuing all of humanity with some guy in a spaceship, and I especially dislike Weir’s style of episodic cliffhangers resolved with epically unlikely instances of plot armor.

Wait, I’m supposed to cheer myself up with this stuff.

OK, come on xkcd.

Naturally, the first spot I looked at was my home on the map. I’m in the western part of Minnesota, in what is called the prairie pothole region, surrounded by shallow lakes scoured out by glaciers. So that part is kind of right, but incomplete. I’d say the dominant force on the landscape around me is agriculture. We’ve only got tiny patches of native prairie left. The boundary waters farther north are pristine, so far, but the Republicans are scheming to open that up for copper mining. I’m going to have to redo that map and replace most of it with the legend “PEOPLE”.

One last attempt to salvage some optimism. I bought myself a Kobo e-book reader, and another ritual I have is to read something non-political every night before bed. I got this Kobo with a special deal: it came pre-loaded with every book Terry Pratchett ever published. Can’t go wrong there!

I recently finished Men at Arms, which is pure escapist fantasy. It’s got dragons in it. It’s also about a policeman who takes his civic duties as a servant of the people seriously. I know, dragons? I can suspend disbelief for that, but Sam Vimes is stretching credibility. Also, this book is about the importance of diversity, and efforts to widen representation in the city watch, another ridiculous fantasy element.

I’ve just started on Jingo, a very timely choice, since it’s about the vaguely Western medieval city of Ankh-Morpork going to war with the vaguely Middle Eastern empire of Klatch over a small island in the ocean separating them. It’s disturbingly relevant. It was reassuring to see Sam Vines resist militarizing the City Watch (they’re not a military authority, he says, they’re fellow citizens), but Pratchett better salvage some hope from this situation. I need it.

So you might as well stop trying. In a study, some critics found that biologists are duds at getting a laugh.

Everyone knows that a good joke can liven up a talk. Sadly, however, good jokes are in
short supply — at least according to a survey of more than 500 presentations at biology meetings.

Two-thirds of the attempts at humour during these talks fell flat, drawing either polite chuckles or no laughter at all. Almost one-quarter of attempted jokes were judged as a “moderate success”, eliciting audible laughter from around half the audience. Only 9% prompted most or all of the attendees to laugh enthusiastically. In fairness, 42% of jests were spontaneous remarks relating to glitches in presentations, such as slide malfunctions, that were not intended to bring down the house. And audiences might not have expected jokes, making it harder to get them to laugh.

Roughly 40% of the talks monitored were humourless, eliminating the risk of failed jokes, but probably raising the risk of bored listeners. The work is published today in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Just biologists? OK, now I want to see some comparative studies. Who’s funnier, biologists, chemists, or physicists? What about mathematicians? Or, dare I say it, philosophers? I want to see some competition here, because my experience has been that biologists are much funnier than all those other disciplines…possibly because I don’t understand what they’re talking about. Possibly because we all know that bodily functions and sex are a much richer playground for jokes.

If you want a real snooze, listen to business people trying to make a speech. There’s usually some kind of tired old joke from a tired old joke book to break the ice, and then a lot of dreary numbers and ‘inspirational’ anecdotes.

They do provide some suggestions for adding humor.

Top tips for making jokes during a conference presentation, according to Victoria Stout, who
works in student support at Sacramento City College and is also a comedy performer.
• Authenticity is key. But if you’re super-sarcastic and mean, that’s not going to be appropriate.
• Use humour to connect with the audience, not to isolate them.
• Scientists respond well to puns. They also like analogies.
• People relax with a joke attempt. That primes the way for successful jokes later.
• Scientists have had incredibly interesting lives, and humour comes from the reality of our lived experience. Therefore, you are funny.

All that is mostly fair. “Scientists respond well to puns” sounds a little bit like an insult. “Scientists have had incredibly interesting lives” sounds like she doesn’t know very many scientists. I spend way too much time peering into dark corners looking for arthropods to be called “interesting,” and all you have to do is ask my wife or kids to learn that I am one of the most boring people on the planet.

This is somewhat old news: I’ve mentioned before this strange entitled woman who has been harassing tenants, specifically by throwing tarantulas at them, but now at last she has been found guilty in the courts of the crime.

A jury on Friday found Marisa Simonetti, 32, guilty of one count each of domestic assault, harassment and disorderly conduct, all misdemeanors.

According to the criminal complaint, an individual had been renting out the basement of Simonetti’s Edina, Minnesota, home through Airbnb in June 2024. They reported to police that “everything had been fine” until she requested that pest control be hired due to “a lot of large spiders in the basement.”

Simonetti started insulting and calling the individual names after they made the request, the complaint said.

OK, Ms Tenant, spiders are perfectly normal inhabitants of basement apartments, and this being Minnesota, there are few risks associated with our local species. Learn to appreciate them.

That said, there is no excuse for her landlady’s abusive behavior in response.

During the night of June 20, 2024, police responded to the home after Simonetti “intercepted” groceries ordered by the individual and refused to return them until officers told her to do so, court documents said.

The individual called 911 the next morning after Simonetti had been banging pots and pans, according to the complaint. The officer who spoke with them could hear loud banging and screaming for a “significant portion” of the roughly 28-minute call. They reported Simonetti had cut off Wi-Fi and had little ability to communicate with anyone to find a new place.
…
Officers at the scene heard loud music playing inside the home and loud metal clanking, the complaint said. When talking with police, Simonetti said she was “singing praise to the lord” and having devotional time. The officers said her behavior was erratic, per court documents.

Case closed. Crazy obnoxious landlady had her behavior recorded by the police, no wonder she was found guilty.

My major question remains unanswered, though.

Police later reviewed a video the individual recorded of Simonetti and the man, which showed the pair talking through a closed door while music was playing loudly, according to the complaint. The video later showed the door was breached, and Simonetti throwing a live tarantula onto stairs leading to the basement and spraying an “unknown substance” in the stairwell.

Where did she get the tarantula? What happened to the poor spider afterwards?

Simonetti is a Republican nutjob running for the US Senate. She doesn’t have a prayer, and she definitely won’t get my vote.

It never fails — a Republican leader always turns out to be an absolute idiot. Behold, Newt Gingrich’s plan for getting oil tankers past the Strait of Hormuz.

Easy! Just nuke UAE and Oman put a chain of craters across them. Can you see any problems with that? Here’s a short summary.

Realistically, it would take three to five years to survey and map the canal, identify where to place the nuclear devices, prepare the route, and drill explosion wells. Add another one to two years for the actual detonations, blasting out millions of tons of sand and rock, and creating a trench 400 meters wide and 60 meters deep. Then it would take another five to ten years to complete the canal, including dredging, smoothing, lock construction, and the necessary “cool-down” period.

So, not an instant solution to the current crisis.

But even if feasible, it’s not practical. The experiments conducted nearly 70 years ago by the Americans and Soviets found that the fallout and radiation released into the atmosphere by even a few nuclear devices negated the time benefits. Moreover, the immediate zone – the canal being built – would remain so radioactive that it would make the passageway too dangerous to transit for decades.

Would that still be friendly territory after that kind of treatment?

Frontline Poets (River Books) by Joe Freeman and Aung Naing Soe

Talk of male anatomy was the last thing I expected as I walked into a book launch at Bangkok’s foreign correspondents’ club. Yet there it was, beaming across the projector screen: a poem about a political penis tattoo. “On my manhood rests a tattooed / portrait of Mr. President / My beloved found that out after / we wed / She was utterly gutted / Inconsolable.”

This is the most reserved translation of a terse, subversive piece written by Maung Saungkha, a poet in Myanmar. When he posted his work to Facebook in October 2015, he “dropped the poetic equivalent of a bombshell,” according to a new book by journalists Joe Freeman and Aung Naing Soe – a bombshell that led to six months behind bars for online defamation of the president. It was while covering this bizarre court case that Freeman and Aung Naing Soe first met Maung Saungkha. A decade on, he is one of five poets they have profiled in a deeply moving, often humorous book that repeatedly defies expectations.

While it includes several works translated from Burmese to English for the first time, this is not a poetry anthology. Rather, it is a history of Myanmar told through the lives of poets who have not only chronicled but actively participated in decades of political upheaval, resistance and conflict since the end of colonial rule. Yet its main goal is not to explain Myanmar’s many deep divisions, or why the 2021 military coup and subsequent civil war unfolded. Instead, at its core, the book is an exploration of why poetry is still such a powerful force in Myanmar, where the literary form continues to be a vehicle for resistance and identity. Writers evade military censorship with obscure metaphors, short works become rebel anthems, and poignant poems allow people to reflect on all that they have lost.

“I abandoned everything after I had abandoned everything” is one especially gut-wrenching line, in a long, tumbling poem by Yoe Aunt Min that depicts the mind of a rebel fighter. After the coup in February 2021 and the junta’s violent crackdown on peaceful protesters, Yoe Aunt Min followed Maung Saungkha into war. Maung Saungkha had become the leader of an armed opposition group called the Bamar People’s Liberation Army, and Yoe Aunt Min was one of his first recruits. Their journey from poets and activists to armed fighters living in the jungle hits on another theme in the book. Yoe Aunt Min’s vivid, meandering poem points at this shift in her own life, before concluding: “What kind of wisdom is necessary for those who hold / lethal weapons? / I don’t know how to solve this. / Please answer.”

The book asks what it means to be a frontline poet – whether that frontline is Maung Saungkha and Yoe Aunt Min’s battlefield, the street protests that cost another poet, K Za Win, his life, or the displacement camps where two others, Lynn Khar and A Mon, fled to safety. Yet despite the palpable sense of loss, the narrative balances heartbreak and horror with humour, humanity and – much like the penis poem – the unexpected.

The book evokes a vivid picture of life in Myanmar, and of the poets who remain determined to better their country against extraordinary odds.

This article is from New Humanist's Spring 2026 edition. Subscribe now.

This post contains a video, which you can also view here. To support more videos like this, head to patreon.com/rebecca! Transcript: Last week I saw a news story going viral on social media: “U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus”! And I thought, yep. Obviously. I was an adult for …

Darya Afanasyeva remembers sitting at a sewing machine, in the factory of a penal colony in south-eastern Belarus. In front of her was a round cushion, which she had studded with three pins: two white and one red. The three dots of colour were tiny, but looking at them filled her with joy. “To me, it was a form of inner protest,” she says.

During the summer of 2020, Belarus was flooded with red-and-white flags, symbolising people’s opposition to President Alexander Lukashenko. Hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors took to the streets following a disputed election that brought the authoritarian strongman and close ally of Russia’s President Putin to office for the sixth time, making him the longest serving leader in Europe. Afanasyeva was jailed for two years for taking part.

Today, she lives in exile, and wants to tell her story, and the story of the many women imprisoned in Belarus for resisting the regime. Hundreds of dissidents were jailed after the mass protests – including politicians, journalists, activists and students. And while US-led negotiations secured the release of more than 100 political prisoners in December, people continue to be arrested for as little as liking social media posts critical of the president or supporting the opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. Of these, many are sent to penal colonies – a legacy of the Soviet-era gulags. But despite the government’s attempts to crush their spirits, the women who have emerged from these colonies tell stories of defiance and solidarity.

Afanasyeva told me about her life in the Gomel colony, one of two that hold women prisoners. She said they were put to work doing strenuous manual labour and only allowed to take a short shower once a week. One of the guards “enjoyed punishing” them by not even permitting this chance to clean themselves. “She was a young woman, about 25 years old,” Afanasyeva said. “I wanted to say to her, ‘Damn it, imagine doing this yourself: spend the whole day working at the sewing factory; then lift heavy sacks filled with metal off a truck; then sweep the [colony] streets; and then finally go to the cafeteria, where your clothes will soak up the smells – knowing you can’t change them. And after all that, you can’t take a shower!’”

But Afanasyeva also told me how she and other women were determined to resist, and to support each other wherever they could. They came up with handy inventions – for example, they would cut up a plastic bottle and use the bottom section to wash their body parts, one by one.

The women campaigning for president

Along with many of her fellow political prisoners, Afanasyeva wants Belarus to be rid of Lukashenko, so that the country can move on. He is the country’s first and only president, having held the office since 1994, following independence from the Soviet Union. In the 2020 election, he claimed to have secured over 80 per cent of the vote, but a lack of scrutiny, with no observers present, led to widespread allegations of vote-rigging.

Opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya claimed that she had actually won the election. Tsikhanouskaya had launched a presidential campaign alongside two other women – Maria Kolesnikova and Veronika Tsepkalo – after their husbands and partners were imprisoned or exiled due to their own intention to run. In a country where politics has tended to be male-dominated, thousands of women came out onto the streets, calling for change and opposing the authoritarian and patriarchal culture.

When the crackdown began, Tsikhanouskaya and Tsepkalo fled the country. Kolesnikova was jailed – and only released as part of the December 2025 deal, after more than five years in prison – while Tsikhanouskaya was sentenced to 15 years in prison in absentia. Many other women who participated in the protests and women’s marches are also now in exile. Even after the December release, 175 female political prisoners remain in jail, according to the Belarus Women’s Foundation.

Journalist Ksenia Lutskina was released in 2024, after more than three and a half years of imprisonment on charges of “destabilisation of the political, social, economic and informational situation” in Belarus. When I talked to her, she also recalled how united political detainees were. “We lived as a community. The conditions were very hard, but solidarity made up for that,” she said. “If food was sent to one of us [by family and friends], we shared it. And when a new political prisoner was brought in, we knew what we needed to do, right away: give her clothes, hygiene items and food; make her tea or coffee; and if she smokes, give her cigarettes.”

Acts of solidarity

Viktoria Zhukouskaya – a Belarusian researcher with a PhD in management and sociology, who lives in exile – has interviewed many former political prisoners. She confirms the stories of solidarity. Several women have told Zhukouskaya that prison authorities would throw homeless people into the cell with them, “using the bodies of other women” to increase their discomfort. They would have to endure “the smell, the lice, and so on, in a cell designated for four people – but where eight to 12 were held.” But the political prisoners said they rejected this tactic of division. From the moment a homeless woman entered their prison cell, they would start cleaning her up: “One of them took off her clothes, another washed her, while a third extracted the lice.”

However, there was a price to pay for these acts of solidarity. In the penal colonies, they could be harshly punished.

“The [prison] system is aimed at dividing people, and not only political prisoners,” said Alana Gebremariam, who spent two years behind bars for student activism. Sharing anything – even toilet paper – could lead to punishment, such as being held in an isolation cell with no access to letters from the outside world. “You’re kept in this small, damp, dark cell, where all you can do is keep walking around to avoid freezing [to death] if it’s winter and there is no heating,” said Gebremariam.

The women were also subjected to high levels of surveillance. Gebremariam told me that, in the Gomel penal colony, authorities set up a “network of informers” among inmates. As a result, she said, people were “very suspicious of one another” and “scared of telling each other things”. Afanasyeva added that political prisoners were under particularly high levels of scrutiny, and were more likely to be labelled as “maliciously breaking the rules” – an official term that could often lead to punishment. They were made to wear yellow tags on their uniforms, which set them apart from non-political prisoners, who had white tags. Afanasyeva was once denied a visit from a loved one because she had shared “a small piece of ice cream” with another inmate.

Yet these women still found ways to connect with each other. After work at the factory, many formed “interest clubs”, Afanasyeva said. “We would tell [other women inmates] about modern art, or about our hobbies, such as hiking in the mountains, and so on. As for me, I spoke about feminism and femicides.” For example, she explained to other prisoners what domestic violence is – and that being beaten by one’s husband or partner “is not the norm”. Some of the women had been jailed for murdering their husbands or partners, she pointed out, when many of them were acting in self-defence.

'Defiance drove the authorities mad'

Gebremariam added that political prisoners tend to have a higher level of formal education and can pass on their knowledge and skills. She said that they were able to help other inmates understand the political and social situation in Belarus, as well as supporting them practically with actions such as appealing their convictions. She said it was important to educate these women about the outside world. They might have spent 10 to 20 years behind bars. For some, “the last thing they saw was a push-button phone,” so they needed to catch up with developments in Belarus and internationally, including being told about the 2020 protests and the women’s marches.

Gebremariam said you could always spot a fellow political prisoner, because they refused to be victims. “They were recognisable by their smile, their straight posture and their appearance, including hair and makeup; and by the way they carried themselves as they walked through the [colony] streets, with their heads up high,” she said. Zhukouskaya, the researcher, noted the importance of maintaining this attitude. “In a situation of absolute control, domination and violence, where people are reduced to the status of animals, the very fact of preserving one’s dignity is an act of resistance,” she said.

Red lipstick became a symbol for supporters of Maria Kolesnikova, mimicking the opposition figure’s signature style. “This [kind of defiance] drove the authorities mad, because they wanted to see prisoners broken and humiliated. Instead, they saw beautiful women in front of them,” said Zhukouskaya. The prisoners were later forbidden from wearing red lipstick.

The political prisoners would also try to lift the morale of their fellow inmates by organising their morning routine with an emphasis on helping each other out – such as making coffee for everyone instead of just themselves – and finding opportunities for creativity and generosity. “We drew together, we made things with our hands; we gave gifts to each other for birthdays, and New Year’s Eve,” Gebremariam said. They hand-made gifts from materials that were permitted, such as paper for origami. “We gave one of the girls a heart made from old red fabric, which we filled with feathers from a pillow.”

Secret acts of protest

There was also something else that prison guards couldn’t prevent women from sharing with one another: laughter. Ksenia Lutskina recalled how they would find humour even in the barbaric prison conditions. One of the cells was comically small – maybe nine square metres for the beds, toilet and the table where they sat to eat their food. “And so, we used to joke that while sitting on the toilet, we could put our feet on the table!”

Gebremariam told me that some of the guards couldn’t help but feel moved by the dignity and integrity of the political prisoners. She remembers one who worked in the detention centre where they were sent before trial. He was “a very simple man, who spent 15 years working in the [prison] system”. At first, he looked at political prisoners “suspiciously”, she recalls, but “little by little”, he became “intrigued” by them. “He would come near our cell and ask us what we were doing and how we were feeling.”

During their trial in court, she and other defendants had to stand next to a wall with their hands tied behind their backs “for an hour and a half, or two hours”. But the guard must have decided that this was not right, because he let them have breaks – taking them to the restroom or to have a smoke.

“When the trial was over, he said he was very tired of working in the system,” Gebremariam said. “He said its cruelty and absence of humanity was killing him, and that he wanted to live a simple life and didn’t care what became of him – whether he worked as a taxi driver, or went back home to help his father in the countryside.” I asked her what became of the man. “As far as I know, he did quit.”

But that was more of an exception, rather than the rule, she emphasised. Some guards, on the contrary, “wanted to hurt people, mentally and physically, in very perverse and sadistic ways”. Afanasyeva agreed – many of them were “overly proactive” in punishing prisoners. That’s why she often chose secret, small acts of protest, like studding the sewing cushion with red and white pins. Of the guards she said, “there is no sense in trying to prove something to them.”

The female-led government-in-exile

But with fellow prisoners it was different. She told me about making bouquets of three autumn leaves, to resemble the red-and-white opposition flag. Another form of hidden protest was doing work poorly at the sewing factory, which for her wasn’t hard to achieve. “It happened naturally because I’m not very skilled at sewing!” she laughed.

She was skilled at decorating, though. She told me how, in the colony, they only had black clothes, but they were permitted to mark these items with their names, in bleach, so that they wouldn’t get stolen. Along with some other political detainees, Afanasyeva added glittery paint to the bleach and marked one of her T-shirts with a “GRL PWR” inscription. She hid the T-shirt under other clothes, but secretly wearing it made her feel powerful.

As we talked, she lifted up the black T-shirt and showed me the words “GRL PWR” written on the back. She was able to smuggle it out of the penal colony. Now it reminds her of the years spent in imprisonment, but also of the bonds she formed with the other women, some of whom she still sees now that they’ve been released. “Many of them have become my close friends,” she tells me. “Going to the cinema, sharing a pizza, or even having a chat with someone who has been through a similar experience is easier. That’s why we stick together.”

Today, Lukashenko has regained total political control of Belarus, having dismantled the opposition and clamped down on civil society. And although he has released dozens of political prisoners under US pressure, many women dissidents remain in captivity. Inside Belarus, no one talks in public about the political prisoners. But their cause is considered a top priority by Belarusian civil society, which continues to organise abroad.

The 2020 protests showed what civil society might be able to acheive, as well as women’s ability to take the lead. Within hours of her release in December, Maria Kolesnikova was filmed wearing her signature red lipstick and calling for the release of those who remain in prison. Tsikhanouskaya has formed a government-in-exile, which is preparing democratic reforms that, according to Zhukouskaya, will be implemented as soon as “a window of opportunity” opens for political changes.

When that happens, she hopes that civil society in Belarus will come together to build a new future. Perhaps it will be led by women – once they return from exile and are released from jail. Lukashenko has put much effort into cracking down on them. But listening to the women I spoke to gave me the feeling that the state hasn’t yet managed to crush this source of resilience and opposition.

This article is from New Humanist's Spring 2026 edition. Subscribe now.

With the great powers facing off and a global authoritarian slide, we are entering a new era of brazen propaganda.

Dissidents already living under totalitarian regimes are reaching out to those who feel their democracy is under threat. We hear from six of these champions of free thought on how to fight back and protect the truth.

I am one of the so called “remaining” – those who, continuing to fulfil their research and journalistic duties, risk staying in Russia, analysing what is happening to our country from the belly of the beast. There are few of us, but we do not feel isolated. We have spontaneously formed “clubs” where we discuss matters at private apartments or in cafés. One of the regular toasts at our table is: “May we all survive this.”

The sociologist Yuri Levada spent many years developing the concept of the “Soviet man”, the archetypical personality type shaped by the Soviet system. Adaptability is the main characteristic. Levada called this type of behaviour a “game”.

Consider, for example, the “work” game. In the Soviet version, it was described by a successful joke of those years, “We pretend to work, you pretend to pay.” Another is the game of “consent”: imitation of submission to the state and support for its actions in exchange for a quiet private existence.

When external circumstances in Russia once again became authoritarian and then hybrid totalitarian, both the former “Soviet man” and the new “Putin’s man” turned to all their adaptive capabilities to survive. Their reverse transformation into “normal” people – i.e. non-authoritarian personalities – is possible under very simple conditions: the authorities must change, the external conditions of existence must be altered, and propaganda slogans and ideological postulates must be modified. Then, quite unexpectedly – just as happened with “Soviet man” at the turn of the 1990s – the “neo-totalitarian man” will begin to evolve rapidly toward normalisation.

For this transition to occur and hold, institutions matter. During the transition period from the Stalinist state to a more or less normal, nearly democratic system, they did not have time to form. The post-Soviet person has become a consumer in the capitalist sense, but has not become a citizen who is a supporter of human rights, humanistic values and the rotation of power as something extremely important for everyday life. Without democracy there can be no modernisation, especially in an ideologised empire with messianic hallucinations.

Once, when my friends – all people with “dissenting” thoughts – and I made our regular toast, “May we all survive this,” one of the circle, in his 70s, who was born under Stalin, remarked gloomily: “No one has ever managed to do so.” He was referring to the endless return of Russian history to its despotic beginnings – several times in the course of his lifetime. My own mother was the daughter of an “enemy of the people”, and it’s a good thing she didn’t live to see me declared a “foreign agent”. Such are the Russian cycles from which one yearns to escape.

I am 60 years old. People of my age and circle are often asked why we are so attached to the 1990s, a time of transition from socialism to capitalism. For us, it was a time of hope and freedom. The freedom that the great Andrei Sakharov spoke of in his 1968 work, Thoughts on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom: “ ... intellectual freedom is essential to human society – freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate, and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices. Such a trinity of freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorship. Freedom of thought is the only guarantee of the feasibility of a scientific democratic approach to politics, economy and culture.”

You might say that all this is too simple and naïve. Perhaps, but it is precisely the absence of such a vision of the world that leads to the emergence of Putins, dictatorships and wars. In my opinion, nothing better than this triple freedom has been invented in my 60 years on Earth. I would not want my sons and daughter, who have become the children of a “foreign agent”, to be the parents of the next “enemy” of the next Russian dictator. Me, my family and my country, which should not be equated with Putin’s regime, need the kind of freedom of which Sakharov dreamed.

“Climate change – it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion.” That was Donald Trump, speaking to the United Nations in September. The US president went on to denounce what he called the “green energy scam” and praised “clean, beautiful coal”. Just months earlier, wildfires had devastated California. Trump and his allies around the world want people to believe this is normal. But everyone who can read knows that climate change is a clear and present danger.

Scientists say that 2025 was one of the three hottest years on record. The World Weather Attribution service identified 157 extreme weather events last year as “severe”, in that they killed at least 100 people, affected half an area’s population or led to a state of emergency being declared. Of these, it said the year’s deadly heatwaves were made 10 times more likely than a decade ago by climate change.

Meanwhile, oil and gas companies (which donated $25.8 million to Trump’s re-election campaign) have taken Trump’s return to power as a sign that they can stop pretending to curb their emissions. Companies like BP have scrapped their 2030 targets for switching from oil and gas to renewable energy production.

All this has encouraged climate deniers in Europe. In December 2024, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage spoke at the launch of the European branch of the Heartland Institute, a US think-tank that boasts of “supporting scepticism about man-made climate change” and has received funding from ExxonMobil. Spooked by Reform’s polling, Kemi Badenoch’s Conservative Party has declared net zero “impossible” and pledged to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act.

Meanwhile, green policies at the European Union level have been opposed by far-right parties across the continent, with similar arguments from Conservative Pierre Poilievre in Canada. In Europe and North America, the Venn diagram of far-right parties and climate deniers is a circle. And these nationalists are increasingly working together across borders.

Despite this, and despite the COP30 summit in Brazil in November failing to even mention fossil fuels in its final statement, some long-time climate-watchers remain optimistic. Former US vice president Al Gore and environmentalist Bill McKibben have recently pointed to the extraordinary growth of renewable energy (92 per cent of new electricity generation in 2024) as a trend that right-wing demagogues can’t stop.

The biggest challenge is to generate political will for effective climate action. Advocacy has had some recent wins. Guardian climate journalist Nina Lakhani noted that the first ever “just transition mechanism”, agreed at COP30 for an energy transition that respects human rights, was the result of “years of civil society organising” including large protests at the climate summit itself. She also highlighted plans by Colombia, the Netherlands and 22 other states to work on moving away from fossil fuels outside the sluggish COP process.

In another promising development, the International Court of Justice ruled in July that states have a legal duty to tackle climate change – the result of a case brought by law students in the Pacific Islands, which are on the frontline of rising sea levels. That ruling could now be used to oppose new fossil fuel projects. In recent years, France has passed a law against corporate greenwashing, while the Hague has banned fossil fuel advertising outright. The idea is to treat “Big Carbon” the same as tobacco companies.

As for the climate denial flooding our screens, the EU and the UK’s respective Digital Services Acts require tech companies to moderate the deluge on their platforms. At COP30, more than 20 countries signed a “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change”, calling on governments, the private sector and civil society to tackle climate denial and support accurate information.

But these efforts are under growing attack from the political right, as if “freedom of speech” includes the freedom of corporations (and their proxies) to lie about their planet-warming emissions. The rise of nationalist politics threatens to drown out climate as a priority, and to use “cost of living” worries to dismiss green policies as a left-wing “elitist” luxury.

The challenge is to build a democratic politics that connects the struggle against predatory corporations and authoritarian demagogues with the need for climate action – and, crucially, gives people something to vote for, instead of simply against. “Clean power, people power” would be a good slogan.

Anti-immigration propaganda saturates the UK. Well-funded far-right social media accounts proliferate, pumping misinformation onto our screens, often straight from the US where anti-migrant messages brought Trump to power. The mainstream media has joined in with obsessive coverage, framing immigration as a problem to be eradicated, rather than a human reality to be managed.

As Reform UK top the polls, Labour moves right and Tommy Robinson leads huge nationalist marches, it is easy to despair. But that is exactly what the people funding the far-right hope for: that decent people will stay quiet and let them pass.

While immigration is a huge issue of concern, we should remember the public remains relatively level-headed about the subject. There is significant opposition to small boats, but quite strong support for most other kinds of immigration, from carers to builders to students, and even for protecting refugees.

What is criminal is that so few voices speak for this silenced majority. Changing that starts with a more confident, proactive approach – less responding to negative framing and more telling the story of the alternative.

There are three lessons we can take into 2026:

Focus on who suffers from anti-migrant politics, and who gains

The government is making it harder for immigrants to get settled, permanent status. Care workers, for example, who came on the promise that after five years they could settle, must now wait a further 15. But when workers have temporary status, they are at risk of exploitation, as they rely on their employer for their right to remain in their home. This move creates a more exploitable second class of worker, which in turn impacts wages and conditions for all.

It is businesses seeking to underpay workers who benefit from them being more insecure, and loan sharks who celebrate more migrants being trapped in cycles of debt to pay visa renewal fees for longer. Meanwhile, private security firms and corporate landlords rake in lucrative government contracts to provide an ever-escalating but never effective pantomime of enforcement at the border and in asylum seeker accommodation.

On the other side, fewer workers means costs pushed up in hospitality, care and farming, resulting in higher prices for everyone. All the while, much lower immigration means a smaller economy with less money for public services and more tax rises.

Talk about real solutions

In the face of chaos, it’s tempting to say “but we must do SOMETHING” as if the only option were more restrictions on rights and movement. In fact, we have plenty of highly evidenced alternative approaches available to us. From the striking example of how a safe route for Ukrainians saved lives and bypassed smugglers, to the evidence that more stable, settled status correlates to higher salaries, or economic modelling that shows investment in integration and giving asylum seekers the right to work produces better outcomes and saves money for the state.

It is striking how utterly the anti-migrant politics of deterrence, pursued over years, has failed on its own terms. Yet we still accept a conversation where “more of the same, just a bit harder this time” is the answer. We must articulate how to run an immigration system to the benefit of the country, because we know how to do that. We don’t have to choose between the chaotic status quo and even more hostility.

Find our courage

For too long, progressive voices have been cowardly. Propaganda has convinced many that it is “out of touch” to support immigrants. Since the Brexit vote took much of the commentariat by surprise, they are desperate to prove they “get it” by giving up ground to an increasingly belligerent and extreme anti-migrant right. We find ourselves now facing potentially the most serious far-right threat in our history, dominated by figures like Farage, and even Robinson, who are miles away from representing the majority of ordinary Brits.

We ordinary people who reject a hyper-nationalist future for Britain, like that which has overtaken the US, need to find our courage. There can be no wishing this issue away. The right has successfully made the debate about immigration, and now we have got to win it.

As the great Mahatma Gandhi reportedly counselled, let us be the change we wish to see in the world. This also applies to us scientists. We can mount legal challenges to the promotion of lies and conspiracies. We can organise and pressure academic and scientific institutions to take a more proactive stance against anti-scientific disinformation, and to provide support and defence for scientists subject to concerted right-wing attacks.

If we don’t, these institutions will assuredly cave in to the bad-faith demands of polemicists, propagandists and pressure groups. Look no further than Stanford’s pitiful capitulation to right-wing critics in dissolving their Internet Observatory for the study of disinformation because it came under attack by disinformation promoters like the Putin-loving Ohio congressman Jim Jordan.

We’ve seen some progress over the past decade. Back in 2012, Andrew Weaver, a leading climate scientist from the University of Victoria in British Columbia ran for office. He was elected as the first Green Party member of British Columbia’s legislative assembly in 2013 and went on to become the leader of the Green Party of British Columbia in 2015. He used this platform to push for clean energy and oppose the expansion of liquefied natural gas. Climate policy scholar Claudia Sheinbaum took it to a new level in June 2024, running for and becoming president of Mexico. It remains to be seen just what she will do with this platform.

Of course, you hardly need to be an expert to play an important role. All of us can work towards increased support for science education and objective and comprehensive science standards in schools. Any lasting solution to the anti-science crisis will require limiting the ability of vested interests and plutocrats to seize control of our media environment, increasing support for public media, enforcing basic rules of journalistic integrity and getting special-interest money out of our politics. That relies on each of us taking action.

It often comes down to voting, and not just at the presidential level, but at the state and local levels. Even the 2024 US election, which handed full power of our federal government to a Republican Party opposed to science-based policies, offered at least one silver lining. Climate initiatives did well across the country. Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure that attempted to repeal the state’s cap-and-trade system for emissions reductions, while voters in California and Hawaii overwhelmingly passed measures to invest in climate resilience. We must – as youth climate activists have done – speak truth to power and put pressure on our elected representatives to work toward global climate agreements that truly meet the moment.

We face an anti-science threat of epic proportions, a battle for the Earth itself. In The Two Towers – the second book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy – the two hobbits Merry and Pippin face a similarly daunting task. They find themselves among Treebeard and his army of tree-like beings known as Ents, as they mobilise against Saruman, who is destroying the forests for his military operation (yes, Lord of the Rings is replete with environmental themes). The diminutive Pippin questions the purpose of such a small creature as he in this great war. He says to Merry that at least “we’ve got the Shire” and that “maybe we should go home”. Merry admonishes Pippin, explaining that the war will spread, “and all that was once green and good in this world will be gone”. He chillingly warns, “There won’t be a Shire, Pippin.”

It might be tempting to see the battle against anti-science as too removed from your everyday life. But if humanity fails to combat the great global crises we face today, there won’t be an Earth – at least not one that we’d recognise. We will lose the welcoming planetary home we know today, with its rich forests and oceans and ecosystems teeming with diverse, interconnected life forms. That’s stark. But the choice is ours. The obstacles are not physical or technological. They are political.

Today, harm is being done by the spread of despair and defeatism, some of it weaponised by bad actors like Russia to create division and disengagement. We are, in fact, far from defeat. The United States remains close, according to some estimates, to being on track to meet its commitment to cutting carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and reaching zero by 2050, despite the opposition by Trump, the Republicans, and polluters and petrostates.

A path to limiting warming below 1.5°C still exists, though it is becoming increasingly narrow. Yes, we may miss the 1.5°C target. But keeping warming below 2°C would still avoid much harm and suffering. It’s never too late to make a difference.

With the Tiananmen Massacre in Beijing in 1989, history began to run in the opposite direction. Just as exiles from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were returning home, our own time of exile began. Not long ago, the nightmare was reincarnated, as the war criminal Putin strode smugly across the red carpets of China, the US and India. To my eyes, it was as though each of his footprints was steeped in the blood and flesh of those crushed by the tank tracks on Tiananmen Square.

“The Great Leap Forward”, the Chinese political slogan of the 1950s, could be changed to “the Great Leap Backward” to perfectly describe the post-Cold War world. Today, the spiritual crisis of humanity is far graver than during the Cold War. Globalisation and the illusion of “the end of history” have concealed a frightening reality: autocratic totalitarianism and western big capital have been quietly converging. Big capitalists are scrambling to throw themselves into the arms of the Communist Party of China, enjoying the cheap labour made possible by autocratic repression and obtaining huge profits that are unimaginable under the rule of law, while the CCP has strengthened its power by hijacking western capital, technology and knowledge.

The “theory of evolution” has thus become a joke: getting rich means abandoning your moral principles. Since there is no idealistic vision, all that remains is to grab what you can, in line with immediate interests. Selfishness, cynicism and “profit first” have combined to paint an ugly portrait of the world.

My poem “1989” ends with the line, “This is no doubt a perfectly ordinary year”. This implies a self-questioning. If Tiananmen shocked us as though it were the first time we had ever heard of a massacre, then where were our memories of the countless dead in the Cultural Revolution? If they had simply been forgotten, then who can guarantee that the tears we shed after Tiananmen Square were not just washing away our memory in preparation for the next shock? Today, we stare open-mouthed in astonishment as the nations of Big Brother – including Xi’s China, Putin’s Russia, Trump’s US and Khamenei’s Iran – openly form agreements, and democratic systems degenerate into games of majorities.

In China, lies and suppression are the two magic weapons of the CCP’s rule. While state propaganda blames the west for blocking China’s access to YouTube, Google, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, Chinese people are locked in a high firewall by their own government, hopelessly becoming either prisoners or their own guards in the world’s largest prison.

In 2018, I spent more than 10 months translating George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm. Soon after, news came from Beijing: Orwell was officially banned in mainland China. My translations could only be published in Taiwan in the end. 1984 reveals the true face of totalitarianism, which the Big Brothers of today seek to conceal. In 1984’s final, most terrifying sentence, we learn of the protagonist Winston Smith: “He loved Big Brother”. In 2026, it is we who love Big Brother. Today’s world goes beyond Orwell’s darkest imaginings. Once Xi Jinping rebuilds a comprehensive autocracy, and lies and violence become pervasive, Mao Zedong’s system of surveillance will pale in comparison.

This brings us back to the essence of resistance. It should not only be directed towards an external power, but even more towards our own spiritual decay, because it is precisely the surrender of each individual that creates opportunities for totalitarian control. Today, a rebel must be an “active other, who takes the energy of self-questioning – I question therefore I am – and consciously resists self-inertia, regardless of what immediate benefits this attitude might bring them.

Where do we go from here? Firstly, there is no heaven, but we must resist every hell; and secondly, we must understand that we are starting from the impossible. Orwell’s works can still guide us. They shatter the utopian illusion, and at the same time affirm human dignity and the essence of civilisation.

This article is from New Humanist's Spring 2026 issue. Subscribe now.

I have a variety of techniques I use to deal with the ongoing collapse of everything, most of them different kinds of drugs. But I also have healthy habits, like reading, and when it comes to reading purely for pleasure, I find myself turning back again and again to Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. If you …

This post contains a video, which you can also view here. To support more videos like this, head to patreon.com/rebecca! Transcript: I’ve previously admitted my enjoyment of the true crime genre, so you may not be surprised by a recent news story I’ve been following: an Austrian man has been found guilty of gross negligent …

Here is a quick and easy way of boosting your motivation….

There was a long running rivalry between tennis stars Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic. In 2012, they faced one another in the final of the US Open. Murray took the first two sets but Djokovic battled back to win the next two sets. Murray took a toilet break and, according to several reports, looked in the bathroom mirror and shouted “You are not losing this match…you are not going to let this one slip’ Murray then walked back out and faced his opponent for the deciding set.

In 2014, psychologist Sanda Dolcos (University of Illinois) carried out some great experiments exploring how motivation is affected by whether we talk to ourselves in either the first or second person.

In one study, she had people try to complete some difficult anagrams. Some participants were asked to motivate themselves by using first-person sentences (“I can do it”) whilst others gave themselves a second-person pep talk (“You can do it”). Those using the ‘you’ word completed far more anagrams than those using the ‘I’ word. Dolcos then asked other people to motivate themselves to exercise more in either the first person (‘I should go for a run now’) or second person (’You must go to the gym’). Those using the ‘you’ word ended up feeling far more positive about going for a run or visiting a gym, and planned to take more exercise over the coming weeks.

Whatever the explanation, it is a simple but effective shortcut to motivation. And it worked for Andy Murray because he broke Djokovic’s serve, won the shortest set of the match, and emerged victorious.

When you are in need of some fast acting and powerful motivation, talk to yourself using the magic ‘you’ word. Tell yourself that ‘you can do it’, that ‘you’ love whatever it is that you have to do, and that ‘you’ will make a success of it. You may not end up winning the US Open, but you will discover how just one word has the power to motivate and energise.

Dolcos, S., & Albarracin, D. (2014). The inner speech of behavioral regulation: Intentions and task performance strengthen when you talk to yourself as a You. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 636–642.

This post contains a video, which you can also view here. To support more videos like this, head to patreon.com/rebecca! Transcript: I have to start this video with a content warning, because I’m going to be discussing some male-on-female violence and slavery, but I hope you are able to watch because I think it’s important. …

Everything is terrible, obviously, and I have been getting particularly fed up with the general state of literacy I’m seeing in the world. And considering that for some reason my video about the Foo Fighters history of AIDS denialism is currently making the rounds, I figured that today I should talk about Dolly Parton. Yeah …

I recently ran a session at the University of Hertfordshire on the 7 factors that I believe underpin an impactful presentation.

While preparing, I was reminded of a conversation I had with a hugely knowledgeable director who had worked with many magicians. He explained that magicians often weaken their performances by letting the audience experience the magic at different times.

Imagine that a magician drops an apple into a box and then tips it forward to show that the apple has vanished. The box must be turned from side to side so that everyone in the audience can see inside. As a result, each person experiences the disappearance at a slightly different moment and the impact is diluted.

Now imagine a different approach. The apple goes into the box. The lid is pulled off and all four sides drop down simultaneously. This time, everyone sees the disappearance at the same time and the reaction is far stronger.

The same principle applies to talks. Some years ago, I ran a year-long experiment with the British Science Association about investing on the FTSE 100. We gave a notional £5,000 to a regular investor, a financial astrologer (who invested based on company birth dates) and a four-year-old child who selected shares at random!

If I simply show the final graph, people in the audience interpret it at different speeds. Some spot the outcome instantly. Others take longer. The moment fragments.

Instead, I build it step by step. First, I show a blank graph and explain the two axes.

Then I reveal that both the professional investor and the financial astrologer lost money.

Finally, I reveal that the four-year-old random share picker outperformed them both!

Now the entire audience sees the result at the same moment — and reacts together. That shared moment creates energy.

It’s a simple idea:

Don’t just reveal information. Orchestrate the moment of discovery.

If you want bigger reactions, stronger engagement, and more memorable talks, make sure your audience experiences the key moments together.

This week we have a quick quiz to test your understanding of sleep and dreaming. Please decide whether each of the following 7 statements are TRUE or FALSE. Here we go….

1) When I am asleep, my brain switches off.

2) I can learn to function well on less sleep.

3) Napping is a sign of laziness.

4) Dreams consist of meaningless thoughts and images.

5) A small amount of alcohol before bedtime improves sleep quality.

6) I can catch up on my lost sleep at the weekend.

7) Eating cheese just before you go to bed gives you nightmares

OK, here are the answers…..

1) When I am asleep, my brain switches off: Nope. When you fall asleep, your sense of self-awareness shuts down, but your brain remains highly active and carries out tasks that are essential for your wellbeing.

2) I can learn to function well on less sleep: Nope. Sleep is a biological need. You can force yourself to sleep less, but you will not be fully rested, and your thoughts, feelings and behaviour will be impaired.

3) Napping is a sign of laziness: Nope. Your circadian rhythm make you sleepy towards the middle of the afternoon, and so napping is natural and makes you more alert, creative, and productive.

4) Dreams consist of meaningless thoughts and images: Nope. During dreaming your brain is often working through your concerns, and so dreams can provide an insight into your worries and help come up with innovative solutions.

5) A small amount of alcohol before bedtime improves sleep quality: Nope. A nightcap can help you to fall asleep, but also causes you to spend less time in restorative deep sleep and having fewer dreams.

6) I can catch up on my lost sleep at the weekend: Nope. When you fail to get enough sleep you develop a sleep debt. Spending more time in bed for a day will help but won’t fully restore you for the coming week.

7) Eating cheese just before you go to bed gives you nightmares: Nope. The British Cheese Board asked 200 volunteers to spend a week eating some cheese before going to sleep and to report their dreams in the morning. None of them had nightmares.

So there we go. They are all myths! How did you score?

A few years ago I wrote Night School – one of the first modern-day books to examined the science behind sleep and dreaming. In a forthcoming blog post I will review some tips and tricks for making the most of the night. Meanwhile, what are your top hints and tips for improving your sleep and learning from your dreams?

I am a huge fan of Dale Carnegie and mention him in pretty much every interview I give. Carnegie was American, born in 1888, raised on a farm, and wrote one of the greatest self-help books of all time, How to Win Friends and Influence People. The book has now sold over 30 million copies worldwide.

I first came across his work when I was about 10 years old and read this book on showmanship and presentation….

According to Edward Maurice, it’s helpful if magicians are likeable (who knew!), so he recommended that they read Carnegie’s book. I still have my original copy, and it’s covered in my notes and highlights.

One of my favourite — and wonderfully simple — pieces of advice is to smile more. Since the book was written, psychologists have discovered lots about the power of smiling. There is evidence that forcing your face into a smile makes you feel better (known as the facial feedback hypothesis). In addition, it often elicits a smile in return and, in doing so, makes others feel good too. As a result, people enjoy being around you. But, as Carnegie says, it must be a genuine smile, as fake grins look odd and are ineffective. Try it the next time you meet someone, answer the telephone, or open your front door. It makes a real difference.

In another section of the book, Carnegie tells an anecdote about a parent whose son went to university but never replied to their letters. To illustrate the importance of seeing a situation from another person’s point of view, Carnegie advised the parent to write a letter saying that they had enclosed a cheque — but to leave out the cheque. The son replied instantly.

Then there is the power of reminding yourself how much the people in your life mean to you. Carnegie once asked the great stage illusionist Howard Thurston about the secret of his success. Thurston explained that before he walked on stage, he always reminded himself that the audience had been kind enough to come and see him. Standing in the wings, he would repeat the phrase, “I love my audience. I love my audience.” He then walked out into the spotlight with a smile on his face and a spring in his step.

This is not the only link between Carnegie and magic. Dai Vernon was a hugely influential exponent of close-up magic and, in his early days, billed himself as Dale Vernon because of the success of Dale Carnegie (The Vernon Touch, Genii, April 1973). In addition, in 1947 Carnegie was a VIP guest at the Magicians’ Guild Banquet Show in New York. Here is a rare photo of the great author standing with several famous magicians of the day (from Conjurers Magazine, Vol. 3, No. 4; courtesy of the brilliant Lybrary.com).

Front row (left to right): Elsie Hardeen, Dell O’Dell, Gladys Hardeen, J. J. Proskauer
Back row: E. W. Dart, Terry Lynn, Al Flosso, Mickey MacDougall, Al Baker, Warren Simms, Dale Carnegie, Max Holden, Jacob Daley

If you don’t have a copy, go and get How to Win Friends and Influence People. Some of the language is dated now, but the thinking is still excellent. Oh, and there is an excellent biography of Carnegie by Steven Watts here.

It’s time for some obscure magic and music hall history.

I’m a fan of a remarkable Scottish conjurer called Harry Marvello. He was performing during the early 1900s and built a theatre in Edinburgh that is now an amusement arcade. I have a previous post on Marvello here and have just written a long article about him for a magic history magazine called Gibecière (the issue is out soon).

check, 1, 2…is this thing on? hi everyone! it’s been a while.

Someone contacted me hoping to find young atheists who might be interested in being part of a new series. I’m not particularly interested in having my mug on TV, but I would love to have some great personalities represent atheism on the show, so I offered to repost his email on my blog: My name […]

All throughout my youth, I dreamed of becoming a writer. I wrote all the time, about everything. I watched TV shows and ranted along with the curmudgeons on Television Without Pity about what each show did wrong, convincing myself that I could do a better job. I flew to America with a dream in my […]

A friend linked me to this. I was a sobbing mess within the first minute. I sometimes wonder why I feel such a strong kinship to the LGBT community, and I think it’s because I’ve been through the same thing that many of them have. So I watched this video and I cried, because, as […]

UPDATE #1: I got my domain back! Many thanks to Kurtis for the pleasant surprise: So I stumbled upon your blog, really liked what I saw, read that you had drama with the domain name owner, bought it, and forwarded it here. It should work again in a matter of seconds. I am an atheist […]