who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty
-- Benjamin Franklin
"All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
"Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men
almost always bad men."
1. The Internet of Things:
it's a really big deal
2. Why Boarding Schools
Produce Bad Leaders
3. Tony Blair: west must
intervene in Iraq
4. Hillary Clinton Sides
with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
5. David Cameron joins calls for
push of 'British values' in
This is the Nederlog of June
15. It is an ordinary crisis log.
Well...it is so mostly: it is a Sunday, and I also earlier uploaded another part of my
autobiography. There isn't really much, and the last three pieces are
also about some of Our Revered Democratic Leaders, that I might have
skipped on weekdays, and indeed probably would have, but given that I
do not revere them, and also given the second item, I thought OK: Let's
treat them, albeit briefly.
You can skip it, but these are some of the most important of
Our Modern Democratic Leaders, who also are all financially extremely
The Internet of Things: it's a really
item is an article John Naughton on The Guardian:
This starts as follows -
and it may be a bit difficult to gauge how serious John Naughton is
(not very, and rightly so, even though it is quite scarey):
In other words: The
Silicon Valley gurus hope to invest everybody with as many and as
diverse spying gadgets as they can possibly introduce, perhaps not to
help the NSA, although they will gladly help it as long as that exists,
but in order to spy on you and to sell the data they gather to other
rich people who then can offer you deals on brand products that you
will think are good.
Good morning! Or evening,
if you happen to be reading this on the other side of the world. Our
topic for today is the internet. What? You
already know about the internet? No, no, I don't mean that
internet, the boring old one you use to access YouTube and send
Facebook updates, email and tweets and stuff. That's the internet of
people and it's so, well, yesterday. I'm talking about the
new internet, which is going to be the latest thing Real Soon Now.
It's called the Internet of Things or IoT and it's got everybody very
excited over in Silicon Valley, where they hyperventilate a lot about
technology. When you ask them what it is they say things such as "a global, immersive, invisible,
ambient networked computing environment built through the continued
proliferation of smart sensors, cameras, software, databases and
massive data centres in a world-spanning information fabric".
Translated into English,
that means billions of gadgets, each one of them connected to the
internet and communicating madly with one another without much in the
way of human intervention. So your fridge can talk to your smartphone
to tell it that you're running out of milk, while your bathroom scales
messages your GP's computer to let it know that you're not sticking to
your diet plan, and the webcam in your living room sends you a text to
tell you that the cat has been sick on the sofa, and cool stuff like
It may happen if the NSA can have its way, or most of it, and it is
currently supposed to be able to deliver $ 7.1 trillion (yes:
trillion, that is a thousand billion, which is a thousand million).
I am certainly going not to have any of it, and indeed
I missed out so far on a cell phone and a web cam, and feel quite happy
about that. Whether younger people than I am can avoid being spied upon
in their own houses from 8 different directions wherever they are, in
full color also, I don't know. For me it really is scarey,
but then I do not have a high opinion of politicians or business
leaders, and happily I also do not have children, and am 64. But it may
happen, with the politicians and business leaders we have.
There is considerably more under the last dotted link.
Why Boarding Schools Produce Bad Leaders
item is an article by Nick Duffell on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
In Britain, the link
between private boarding education and leadership is gold-plated. If
their parents can afford it, children are sent away from home to walk a
well-trodden path that leads straight from boarding school through
Oxbridge to high office in institutions such as the judiciary, the
army, the City and, especially, government. Our prime minister was only
seven when he was sent away to board at Heatherdown preparatory school
in Berkshire. Like so many of the men who hold leadership roles in
Britain, he learned to adapt his young character to survive both the
loss of his family and the demands of boarding school culture. The
psychological impact of these formative experiences on Cameron and
other boys who grow up to occupy positions of great power and
responsibility cannot be overstated. It leaves them ill-prepared for
relationships in the adult world and the nation with a cadre of leaders
who perpetuate a culture of elitism, bullying and misogyny affecting
the whole of society.
Nevertheless, this golden
path is as sure today as it was 100 years ago, when men from such
backgrounds led us into a disastrous war; it is familiar, sometimes
mocked, but taken for granted. But it is less well known that costly,
elite boarding consistently turns out people who appear much more
competent than they actually are. They are particularly deficient in
non-rational skills, such as those needed to sustain relationships, and
are not, in fact, well-equipped to be leaders in today's world
I have been doing
psychotherapy with ex-boarders for 25 years and I am a former
boarding-school teacher and boarder.
I say. I mean: I
believe Nick Duffell, at least for the most part, and there is a lot
more under the last dotted link, all of which implies that former
boarders - like: David Cameron, Boris Johnson, and Tony Blair - almost
certainly cannot be good leaders, although they have been successfully
bullied (when young) to seem so.
Anyway, this is quite interesting, and Duffell certainly is right that
(1) boarding school is an antiquated and cruel system
to grow what are in fact emotionally warped imposturers, who look
strong but are weak inside, and who love to bully, for that is
what they learned best from their peers, basically because (2) it is very
unwise - except if one has really bad parents - to separate children
younger than 16 for long times from their parents, and also because (3)
the whole boarding school atmosphere is very unnatural, and makes
unavoidably for an enormous amount of bullying and cruelty.
There is quite a lot
more under the last dotted link.
3. Tony Blair: west must intervene in Iraq
item is an article by Patrick Wintour, Tracy McVeigh and Mark Townsend,
that starts with a picture in which Tony Blair faces the public with a
serious face and utterly mad eyes:
It starts like this:
Tony Blair has urged
western governments to recognise that they need to take an active role
in the Middle East, saying the west should consider military options
short of sending ground troops.
The former prime minister
said there was a huge range of options available, including air strikes
and drones as used in Libya.
Blair was speaking on UK
morning TV shows after writing a lengthy essay setting out how to respond to the Iraq crisis, including his
belief that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not the cause of the country's
He said: "It is in our
interests for this jihadist extremist group to be stopped in its
tracks. I understand entirely why people say 'it is nothing to do with
us and I don't want to hear about it'."
But he said the jihadis
"are not simply fighting Iraqis and they are also willing to fight us
and they will if we don't stop them".
O sure, and he would
have said they have "weapons of mass destruction" if this excuse would
have the least plausibility, after having failed so miserably about
according to Wikipedia, the democratic socialist Blair has a mere
eight residences, a personal fortune of 60 million pounds (about $180
million: how he ever could have gotten this totally escapes me, except
that it cannot possibly have happened in an honest way), and he also
has 200 people working for him.
I also learned from
the Wikipedia that he is where he is basically because his Catholic God
helped him with two flukes: the Black Wednesday of 1992, and the sudden
death of Labour leader John
Smith, and that he was an indifferent student, who also failed as a
would take this liar and mass murderer serious, I really do not know:
it seems to me that - and quite regardless of my personal antipathy to
this political crook - he has been utterly tainted by incompetence,
gross lying and personal greed.
There is quite a lot
more under the last dotted link.
Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
item is an article by Sarah Lazare on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
Likely 2016 presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton has taken a firm stance against the actions
of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, denying his revelations have
brought any positive impacts and slamming him for accepting asylum in
with NPR's Terry Gross on Thursday, Clinton claimed
Snowden could have "expressed his concerns" in other ways "by reaching
out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists
in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws
surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls
Her comments sparked
criticism from progressives, journalists and civil liberties advocates.
"[Clinton] is just piling
on with others who criticized Snowden, not recognizing that if it were
not for him and his courageous disclosures, we wouldn't even know our
government is routinely violating our 4th amendment rights," Matt
Rothschild, senior editor of The ProgressiveCommon Dreams. magazine, told
The former U.S. Secretary of
State defended U.S. mass surveillance, stating, "collecting information
about what’s going around the world is essential to our security."
I say, but not
really: Snowden should have gone to her, so that she could deliver him
to the CIA, and he also should be blamed for not profiting at
all but giving his stuff to legitimate journalists. That is
what she is implying or saying.
Anyway - another
millionaire-cum-democratic-political-leader I neither trust nor like.
One of the awful things about her is that she may run for president,
against an even worse Republican - but then that is modern "democratic"
politics, run by and for the very rich servants of the very rich.
And there is more under the last dotted
Cameron joins calls for push of 'British values' in schools
item is an article by Patrick Wintour on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:
He has also said that
Great Britain is "a Christian" country; his GCHQ is consistently and
massively breaking the Magna Carta; and I really do not know
either what are "British
values" - what is British about: "accepting personal and social responsibility, and respecting
and upholding the rule of law" ?!
- nor why not pursueing these "in
a muscular way" (?!) "is allowing extremism to grow in the UK".
A failure to promote
"British values" in a muscular way is allowing extremism to grow in the
UK, David Cameron has
The prime minister
revealed plans to teach all school pupils about the Magna Carta in
response to allegations of extremism at schools in Birmingham. Last
week he backed education secretary Michael Gove's
plans to put British values at the heart of the national curriculum.
In a Mail on Sunday article he said that values including
freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social
responsibility, and respecting and upholding the rule of law were not
"We need to be far more
muscular in promoting British values and the institutions that uphold
them," Cameron wrote.
In fact, I think the dear democratic leader - net worth: 3.2 million
pounds, but that is disregarding 2 million pounds he will get from his
family - is simply blathering, and is confusing a whole lot of things
systematically, and probably in part on purpose: "Britishness",
"Christianity", the Magna Carta, "values", "liberty", "tolerance", and
"responsibility" and more are thrown together in a murky hodgepodge of
vague ideas and plans.
But there is again considerably more under the last dotted link.
is merely to say that I will fairly soon update the news about my mB12
protocol, and that I am a little late with it because I forgot to order
my supplements early.
(But it is still going OK, if also not very well.)
 Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, that the governors do not
rule, or at least, should not rule: The laws rule, and the
if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my
More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn
It is more proper
that law should govern than any one of the
citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the
supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to
be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
(And I note the whole file I
from is quite pertinent.)
(that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search machines) which
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: