Intellect: Missing In Action

+John Rentoul of the Independent is no great fan of the Labour Party, so his little piece here, reproduced from yesterday’s clickbait begins with a certain degree of sarcasm. But it’s worth reading.
 
‘Labour has reversed the exodus of rich people by changing the law on political donations. Ben Delo, an expat billionaire, is moving back to Britain from Hong Kong so that he can continue to donate millions to Nigel Farage’s Reform party. Delo gave £4m to Reform earlier this year before the government changed the law to put a £100,000 cap on donations from Britons living abroad. Accusing Keir Starmer of a “tinpot” attempt to create a “rigged game”, Delo says he wants to help Farage “build a war chest” to fight the next general election. Delo made his fortune as the co-founder of BitMEX, a cryptocurrency trading platform.’
 
Does one need any greater confirmation that ‘crypto’ is nothing but a malign invention? I am sure it can be argued that any form of money beyond a simple means of exchange has a corrupting influence (OH Yes!) but crypto currency as the name suggests has a negative import from the off and as we know it is the ‘currency of choice’ for the globe’s bad actors. Perhaps now we need to consider not just banning crypto donations to political parties but also any donor who made their money in any way from crypto. If a political party had any serious intent to improve the lot of ordinary people, it wouldn’t touch crypto in whatever shape it manifests itself. Crypto has absolutely nothing to do with making society better. Neither it has to be said has Nigel Farage. Or Trump of curse (Freudian slip there) who has also embraced crypto. Damn them all!
 
+Crypto is about preserving your anonymity. Perhaps in a bid to avoid the taxperson. But it’s not the only sphere where anonymity is preserved. The internet is awash with anonymity. I think there should be a campaign to prevent it. It could start with comments left on websites where typically people (if they are real and they aren’t always) hide behind pseudonyms. One site where the campaign against anonymity could start is Craig Murray’s. I commented yesterday on a Murray blog, using my own name. It looked like most of the other comments were by people who were afraid to use their own name. Craig should not allow (as best he can) that to happen. He of all people I imagine would support the principle of transparency. In the wider context of the internet and increasingly the awful shite swirling around it, one should know who is saying what. It is akin to the supposed right that you should know who your accusers are. In the old days of course (speaking as an ex-MP) real people either wrote letters or used emails, mostly identifying themselves. Now it takes forensic analysis to figure out who the knobheads are who routinely issue death threats from their ‘social’ media drugged brains as they sink further into their ejaculation stained sofas. Sorry about that. I know it’s probably not entirely a male thing.
 
+A quote from Guillaume Appollinaire (1880-1918) caught my attention: ‘It is perhaps more dangerous for a nation to allow itself to be conquered intellectually than by arms.’ Has the United States been captured intellectually? It’s hard to imagine, but imagine one must. Let’s see how it goes. In the meantime here’s a few words from our sponsor: