1. Why there was no Dutch Nationality stuff
2. More about the DSM-5
Why I am lucky, in some ways
I am still paying back my walk of over a week ago, so I am still not
feeling very well.
Why there was no
Dutch Nationality stuff
Yesterday it was
May 4, which is The
National Dutch Day Of Commemoration.
Commemoration of what? This year, it was - I think - of all the Dutch
deaths that fell in wars, especially World War II. The year before
that, it was - I think - of all the deaths in all the wars. 
Or something similar.
Meanwhile, history no longer is being taught in Holland, except for
those who chose to, and so it is not so very strange that an event that
terminated 68 years ago, this year, has lost much of its appeal.
Clearly, if everyone is being taught in schools that between 1939 and
1945 circa six millions of Jews were murdered, and likewise many others
also were murdered, you have some sort of foundation for a National
Commemoration, but when being taught history is a matter of choice,
recalling things that have gone older than most who are alive is ... vain,
had it, before that too was
something else, nine years ago. (Yes, it was.)
Again, today it is May 5, which is the Dutch National Day of
I made a walk of half an hour, which is the most I can do, and counted
twelve (12) flags.
However, mere flag counting is not quite fair: There are at
least two large pop-festivals in Holland, nominally - since 25 years,
at least - dedicated to The Liberation Of Holland,
68 years ago, but again it is mostly about modern music.
I don't mind, especially, but again I see no special reason for me to
be glad and joyful, apart from the fact that, for nearly the first - I
think in fact: the third - time this year the weather was fairly nice.
It was the same, or
indeed more so, on February 25,
to be the day the February Strike
commemorated, in Amsterdam at least. These days, whatever has been left
of that has been appropriated by the Dutch Labour Party.
In any case: I saw no reason
to do anything about it this year. Except for the present piece. (And
it may be different next year.)
2. More about the
Let me also explain
something about the DSM-5, since
that only really got clarified
for me yesterday:
The only reason for me to write about it is that I was (and am)
worried by its application to patients, and then again
especially to patients with ME/CFS - of which there are
literally millions - and patients with other real diseases that
from May 18 onwards may risk being told that they are not ill, and
should work. 
And this is especially important to me because I can write; I have
ME/CFS; and I have academic degrees in psychology and philosophy.
Otherwise, I have no interest in psychiatry,
and indeed also not a negative one: If I had been healthy, it is most
improbable that I would ever have written about it, simply because it
does not interest me.
And let me also make that as clear as I can:
It is not that I am not interested in consciousness, in meanings, in
selfs, in ideas, and in feelings, since I clearly am; it is that I am
not interested in what psychiatry has to tell me about these
subjects, because I regard psychiatry as almost completely mistaken,
and always did so, from age 17 onwards, when I read Mullahy's (good)
introduction to psychiatry, and decided that, whatever it really was,
clearly was really not science.
Again, this does not mean I am against it, or want to forbid it, or am
convinced it always must be harmful. It is probably - purely
abstractly, at least, which is not quite how it really
is - mostly like some sport that doesn't interest me: It's not science;
it's not founded on science; and it's mostly simply a waste of time for
whoever does not care for the sport.
But then some of the leading sportsmen have convinced a sizeable part
of the population that in fact their sport is not a sport but is "a
real science"; that the "real science" is of importance to all, as it teaches 78% of the people are mad;
and that everybody should in fact pay at least 5 to 10% of his or her
income to "scientific" drugs that the sport has developed, or else risk
being publicly depicted as a spoilsport aka an insane person.
And that's when and why I do get interested, especially if I have a
real disease I cannot get any help with, because the sportsmen have
decided that the disease I have is not real.
For I do have such a real disease, and it is especially the
psychiatrists that have made living with that disease far more
difficult than it otherwise would have been, the last 25 years at least.
Also, what only yesterday got really clear for me is how
different my real position is from almost everyone:
Almost all patients with my disease differ from me in not having any
special competence to judge psychiatry, and almost all psychiatrists
believe far more about their own trade than I consider justified - so
that when somebody with a truly great amount of institutional power in
psychiatry says "No" to the antics of the APA, the psychiatrists -
notably, the few who are mostly "on my side" - are hardly interested,
fundamentally because he did not say "Yes" to their own preferred games
But I am not interested in their preferred games: I think they are all
mostly mistaken - all I can say is that some psychiatrists are (even)
more mistaken than others, and that in fact, I am lucky in not being a
And besides that, I am lucky to have seen the beginning of the end of
psychiatry as it has been since 1980 or 1970.
Why I am lucky, in some ways
The last conclusion does not mean that I am lucky about what psychiatry
is now, nor does it mean that I think it will be easy to prevent its
abuse the coming 5 or 10 years, and especially so to people with ME/CFS
and some other medically unexplained diseases.
But in fact I am fairly lucky in some other respects:
In fact, although ill since I was 28, and now nearly 63, with a father
who died at 68, who also was far more healthy most of his life than I
have been, I did have the quite unforeseeable good luck of
having been read at least 10 million times since I got a
website in 1996, and of having on that website over 20 books of
philosophy that I wrote.
I listed them on April 15, and while they
are definitely not the most well read on my site, I think they are the
most important, especially
those with stars:
* Aristotle: Ethics
Those are 21 volumes,
nearly all as long as the books they comment on, and all written since
1995, i.e. in the last 18 years.
- Epicurus: Principal Doctrines
- Machiavelli: The
- Rochefoucauld: Maximes et
- Descartes: Meditations
* Leibniz: Nouveaux
Essays and Monadology
* Hume: Enquiries on Understanding
* Mill: On Liberty
- Multatuli: 7 delen Ideen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
* Clifford: The Ethics of
* Russell: The
problems of philosophy
- Wittgenstein: Tractatus
It's extremely difficult to paraphrase or summarize them, because they
are nearly all in a format I have seen no one else write in: As
explicit commentaries to explicit full texts (the one exception is
probably the best of all: Leibniz, but even there I quote everything I
To my way of thinking that is the best way to criticize any
important text of any great philosopher, and if others did not do so,
as they did not, too bad for them: I did.
In any case... although I
failed in a lot, I did not fail in everything, and this is one of the
things I have not failed in.
More about this later.
 I am not quite sure,
since I switched off the radio yesterday, when this was being
explained. But it is a fact that since some years the subject of the
commemoration changes yearly, although indeed the second world war and
Holland are normally mentioned. (This year, accordingly, Anne Frank, who was stateless, could not be
remembered. Formally speaking, as someone else pointed out, I think in de
 Which mostly they can't do, which means
that they will not get any money, which means that they will die, if
they cannot find someone who will care for them: It's as real as that,
and - still - may cost many lives, especially if the crisis deepens.
ME/CFS (that I prefer
to call M.E.: The "/CFS" is added to facilitate search
is a disease I have since 1.1.1979: