June 6, 2013
me+ME: FAQs (1999)
About ME/CFS


Well... I believe I am still somewhat paying back my walk of six weeks ago, but I also seem to be getting out of it.

This is a special, that I probably also will give it a key to in the opening page:
FAQs about me and my site - written in 1999.
Actually, they still were on the xs4all-site, and now they are here. I have not changed anything about them, except for the following:
  • The size has been adjusted to fit with the present file and site.
  • I removed one sentence from the introduction (that stated I wrote the small introductory Faqs part in August 2001).
  • I adjusted the links (some to English versions).
  • I removed a few spelling mistakes.
  • I removed the "Eagle-eye" section, that is only about the logo of the site that I only used in 1999.
Otherwise, it is all as was, as are my opinions: FAQs.

Note though there are some differences between now and 1999:
  • The site grew 20 times as large (from slightly over 20 MB to 410 MB, in 14 years). Note that is mostly in philosophy and in Nederlogs and a bit in ME (notably in ME-Resources). Unfortunately, little in logic, though there is some, including a long review of "The Logic of Moral Discourse", and not much in computing, the last two because I remained always tired.
  • But I did write a fair amount of philosophy: I give the links to my comments rather than the originals they comment on:
    - Aristotle: Ethics
    - Epicurus: Principal Doctrines
    - Machiavelli: The Prince
    - Rochefoucauld: Maximes et Pensées
    - Descartes: Meditations
    - Leibniz: Nouveaux Essays, Monadology
    - Hume: Enquiries on Understanding and Morals
    - Mill: On Liberty, Utilitarianism
    - Multatuli: 7 delen Ideen: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
    - Clifford: The Ethics of Belief
    - Russell: The problems of philosophy
    - Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
    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. The comments on Machiavelli, Rochefoucald, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Mill, Multatuli, Clifford and Russell are all really good and totally original, besides being well written, if also not easy.
  • The site has been reformatted quite a few times, until it got its present form ca. 2004, since when it remained mostly the same, except for the adding of a lot more material.
  • I had illusions then that people would help me, or read me and respond. Well, I have had some responses, all kind, but nobody who helped me with any of the materials on the site, except for a few external things, such as with Multatuli. (See: Robert Conquest, "The Great Terror" for how average men and women may act.)
  • My health is a bit better, on average: I have less pain and possibly a little more energy - but now have two medically admitted auto-immune diseases: keratoconjunctivitis sicca (quite seriously, though improving) and Dupuytren's Contracture (so far not very problematic).
Anyway...this is mostly for lovers of my site. And most links - except for "part of the explanation" - work.
[1] Well... except for a few details about StarOffice and such. (But these should be mostly obvious.)

About ME/CFS (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:
1. Anthony Komaroff

Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS(pdf)

3. Hillary Johnson

The Why  (currently not available)

4. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2003)
5. Consensus (many M.D.s) Canadian Consensus Government Report on ME (pdf - version 2011)
6. Eleanor Stein

Clinical Guidelines for Psychiatrists (pdf)

7. William Clifford The Ethics of Belief
8. Malcolm Hooper Magical Medicine (pdf)
Maarten Maartensz
Resources about ME/CFS
(more resources, by many)

       home - index - summaries - mail



Here I shall briefly answer questions that have been asked me many times over the years, either personally or by mail. The main reason for this file is to provide brief general answers to common questions in one convenient place. The reasons for my answers and the answers themselves are generally spelled out in more detail in various places on this site, quite possibly only in Dutch or only in English.
If you read Dutch, you may take a look at "Achtergronden".

These Faqs date from October 1999.






How does it feel?

Pretty awful, sometimes, and not well always.

For English readers, here are links.
For Dutch readers, here is more on how it feels.

How do you survive?

With very great difficulty. Indeed, I nearly died and nearly was killed - and that is in part what this section of my site - ME in Amsterdam - is all about.

Why are you so angry?

For two very simple reasons - of which this is the first:

I am now since 10 years in nearly constant pain because the mayor and aldermen of the City of Amsterdam protected drugsdealers they had settled in the house where I lived as an invalid and who threatened to kill me and made a lot of noise and other trouble.

The then mayor of Amsterdam, Ed van Thijn, for more than 3 years refused to answer my complaints, apparently because he, his friends and the top of the Amsterdam police are corrupt.

I have tried to reach this man via his servants, via his party, via his friends, via lawyers: nothing works, nothing is answered, "nobody is responsible", "nobodys is accountable".

Meanwhile, this despicable heroine-swine Van Thijn, mayor of Amsterdam's many heroine-dealers he has protected 12 years, has been parasiting on the taxes for 30 years or so and is a ("socialistist") millionaire on tax-money and whatever he was paid for his services by the Amsterdam drugs-mafia.

I want my pain restituted; I want my damages restituted; and I want responsible and accountable government. Since the Dutch don't have it, thanks to 30 years of efforts of Van Thijn and his Labour Party, absolutely anything is permitted - for me, against him.

If your human rights have been systematically destroyed, and you are for 10 years in constant pain because of it, how would you feel?


How old are you?

I am 49 - but I look much younger.

Yes, really. Here is a link to part of the explanation.

No mug-shots?

If you really want to know, I am tall and handsome - and the reason I don't please you with my picture is explained in Notes.

Where is your CV?

You must be joking.

Anyway, if you are really serious, you can infer one from this site - and apart from what's on this site, it may interest you I've lived in England and Norway, and would go there again if only I were healthy or had the money, for I don't like Holland. (A little more on Holland is below.)


How about drugs in Amsterdam?

Here is a succinct statement on what is and has been really happening the last 10 to 30 years:

In the name of "tolerance" the authorities have decriminalized the drugs-criminals while keeping drugs illegal.

The consequence is that any Dutch drugsdealer has a semi-legal status and illegal very high profits.

This serves the interests of the Dutch drugsdealers; the Dutch police (who import drugs for the dealers; as two parliamentary investigatory commitees have established); the Dutch local politicans, who thus get rich "business" friends; and the Dutch politicans, who can pretend to have solved the drugs problem in Holland through "tolerance".

It serves the interests of no one else:

Prices remain high for users; people living around "tolerated" coffeeshops may get terrorized; and in fact the abuse of drugs and the profits of dealers have been legalized.

The solution is very simple:


Incidentally, roughly the same applies to OTHER countries: In ANY case, the fundamental drugsproblem has been created by the local politicians, who decided to keep drugs illegal and thus maintained the enormous profits of the dealers. This they did and do knowing that the police everywhere, when not corrupt, is incapable of solving the drugsproblem, and when corrupt helps maintain it.

So in effect, if perhaps not in intention, politicians and policemen everywhere are and have been for decades safe-guarding the profits and interests of the drugsmafia, precisely as it happened in the 1930ies in the US with alcohol (incidentally more dangerous than marijuana, if also less dangerous than heroine).

But what can be the political point of keeping something illegal if it is a well-known fact the relevant laws simply cannot be maintained?

Well, billions ARE earned with drugs, and keeping drugs illegal is THE guaranteed way of keeping illegal profits HIGH. (Yes, it is that simple! Money makes the world go round.)

Finally, for those readers who are not Dutch:

Everything I have said in this section was and is obvious since 30 years to anyone with the least brains, and has been for many years the majority opinion in Holland.

The reasons drugs have not been legalized in Holland is very simple, very economical, very political, and very obvious: it is very profitable for some.

Isn't Holland free, democratic, liberal and rich?

Holland is pure Heaven - if you deal in drugs, if you are a "democratic politician", or if you are in good bodily health and without any intellectual interest or talents whatsoever.


Why didn't you make an academic career if you're so smart?

In 1981 the Board of Directors of the UvA (University of Amsterdam) started a court-case against me, because I was their main political opponent (in University-politics, which like all politics is about power and income).

After four years I won this (myself, without benefit of a lawyer) but meanwhile had had to give up my studies. I started again in 1987 and was removed by the Board of Directors briefly before taking my M.A. in philosophy in 1988.

The reason they gave were "your outspoken opinions", "in spite of your ill health, which we take quite serious".

This was plainly against my human rights - and was meant to be: The Board of Directors of the UvA really hated my guts.

I started once again in 1991 in psychology, in which I had a B.A. and took the M.A. in 1993 with the very best possible marks, in fact mostly on mathematics and physics.

Apart from that, if you are out of the ordinary and ill, Holland is not the place to be: Possibly apart from China, no country consists of more dedicated conformist levellers.

And if you've missed the point I just made implicitly:

Here is the second reason for being angry:

The Board of Directors of the UvA knowingly destroyed my human rights, and no other Dutchman since 1945 has been removed from a Dutch university "because of your outspoken opinions" - as if Holland is Communist China.

What about these leftist radicals you grew up with?

They have ALL made careers, and as far as I know they are all either quite rich or alcoholics.

But now that nearly everybody in the UvA agrees with you?

Agreement in Holland rarely is a matter of individual conviction, and nearly always a matter of social conformism.

The very same people who maintained for 25 years that "all people are equal" now maintain that "we are excellent academics". They lied then and they lie now, and the only things they excel in are hypocrisy, conformism and greed.


What's so bad about Holland?

Hypocrisy, conformism, and monetary greed: I know no people that is more hypocritical, more conformistic or less greedy. (And I lived for years in England and in Norway, hence know how it is to live in other countries much better than most Dutchmen.)

Besides, most Dutch have no interests other than football and TV, hence "Dutch civilization" is a contradiction in terms.

The only things the Dutch excel in are football (soccer) and saving money. (As I said,  unlike most chauvinistic Dutchmen I have lived for years outside Holland).

Aren't there ANY intelligent Dutch politicians?


Cunning is not at all the same as intelligence, and a very firm intellectual mediocrity and moral backwardness are essential to surviving in Dutch politics for more than a few years: it is all so very boring and morally phoney!

If you want to loose all faith in Dutch parliamentary democracy, by all means read the parliamentary records ("Handelingen van de 2e kamer der Staten Generaal"). It is very hard to find an equally moronic and ill-written collection of platitudes, lies, irrelevancies and utter nonsense.

Why don't you vote?

What's the point voting for immoral morons - and thereby sanctioning the idea that voting for egoistic morons is what democracy is or should be about?

As soon as I find any one rational and reasonable politician - by my standards, reader - I'll vote for him or her.


Why don't you like being regarded an academic or intellectual?

First, in Holland the average IQ of the average academic is 115. Precisely what that says I don't know, but since I myself score at least 50 points higher, and indeed am "a titled academic" myself, many Dutch academics strike me as mental (and moral) pygmies.

Second, the only diploma I take pride in is one that qualified me to run a cattle-farm in Norway, from 1977.

Third, few people I regard as decent are academics or intellectuals and Dutch.

Fourth, most Dutch academics and intellectuals I've met are just boring fools.

What's so bad about a Ph.D. with an IQ of 115?

Well, what's so desirable about a mentally sub-normal repairman of cars? Would you trust him to repair the car you drive your children to school with?

If you're Dutch, perhaps you ought to read "Mandarijntjes met een IQ van 115" and else you might try "Yahooisme en Democratie" (mostly English).

My homepage

How did you make it?

It took a lot of trouble, and was written over quite a few years, though much of the text on this site was written before there were any sites.

Since I have a computer since 1986, I have seen a lot of programs and written my texts in very many editors.

This site has been most recently made with StarOffice 5.1, which is an excellent program, and herewith much recommended: It is far better than MicroSoft's Office - and it is freely available from Sun.

Since when does it exist?

I put up my first homepage in December 1996. This was very simple and basic html and soon replaced in January 1997 by pages that were formatted a little better.

Nothing was done about that site until October 1999, when the present site was uploaded, that looks a lot better than the previous site, and contains much more.

What about new things on it?

If there are any, they'll be listed under "New" in the opening page.

Apart from that, you ought to realize my site is quite extensive, and you may easily not have seen all of it. (Try "SiteMap for a survey of everything.)


What's so "philosophical" about you?

If you're Dutch, the only Dutch "philosophers" you've ever met in your life (apart from me) are solidly boring, stupid, pedantic academic phoneys, who do not know how to write or speak, and who are, after 30 years of academic "life", totally unknown. In that sense, I am indeed NO philosopher.

Apart from that, I suggest you inspect my site, and ask yourself about famous philosophers from long ago: How succesful, adjusted, respected and ordinary were they, in their days?

In any case, I've shown that at least I dared to take risks and speak up, when everybody else shut up out of fear, conformism, or careerism.

And I have philosophical - ethical, logical, metaphysical - ideas other men don't have, which I can state clearly and readably. See: Philosophy