"Those who sacrifice liberty for
security deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin
| "All governments lie and nothing
say should be believed."
1. Chris Hedges: The
Liberal Elite has Betrayed the People
2. Warren Balks at Student Loan Deal
3. NSA's Keith Alexander Calls Emergency Private Briefing
4. I’m Three Hops from a Terrorist
5. Requiem for DSM
It still is the case
that sleeping remains quite
difficult for me. This also makes my life rather difficult, at
Anyway - and no, sleeping did not much improve, so far. (It's mostly
pains of various kinds that keep me awake or wake me up: eyes, arms,
Presently it is 26 degrees Celsius where I am, in my house in
which is too hot, for me. But OK... I am doing somewhat well, and will
write soon about the probable reason, viz. the mB12 protocol, that I
halved as regards mB12 and MF, with - so far! - decent results.
Also, I have added a quotation by I.F. Stone, that seems to me to be
quite correct, and especially so about the Obama government, though it
is true of all government and all governors: You cannot
trust people who have very much more power than you have, and who are
virtually beyond any attack - and this also is the case when they
(purport to) "mean well".
The main news today is that there is part 4 from 7 of the Real News
interview with Chris Hedges, that is quite good, in which he clearly
says what I have been saying for some 35 years now: "The liberal Úlite"
is dead, and killed itself by lying, posturing and corruption, and
besides by poisoning itself by post-modernism and identity-politics,
that I will come to when I deal with the essay.
The rest is a mixed bag: Elizabeth
Warren balks at the incredible raise in interest on student loans; Keith Alexander made an attempt to deal with
criticism; Yves Smith finds she is 2 or 3 hops away from
terrorists or "terrorists"; and there also is last bit on psychiatry
and the reasonably fair dr. Ghaemi.
Also, I have slept a bit better and am feeling a bit better, for the
moment, so I did write more in comments.
Hedges: The Liberal Elite has Betrayed the People
To start with, here is part four (from seven) of the interview Paul Jay
of the Real News - that I hope lasts: they're good - had with Chris
Hedges, and this time I have it from the site of the Real News, that
also has a text-version, which is quite helpful. I give - as is usual
for me - the actual title:
The real title and the content
give me some bitter joys, for I have been saying this for over 35 years
now, and the general response - screamed at me in 1988, by 16
academically employed "philosophers" of the UvA, all parasites, all
morally degenerate folks, without the least talents of any kind other
than parasiting, who indeed removed me, and denied me the M.A. and the
Ph.D. in philosophy - that I was "a fascist" and "a terrorist", and
indeed after the last (repeated) disqualification I stepped down as an
Again, my brother (who does not live in Holland) and I have the best
possible resistance background: Both parents communists; both members
of the resistance as was my father's father; both my father and his
father arrested and convicted to German concentration-camps as
"political terrorists" by corruptly collaborating Dutch judges ...
... I repeat this here because it is all so very plain and obvious that
very few people can be trusted; that most people, in nearly all
circumstances, are - socially safe! - collaborators, out of
personal weakness, stupidity, greed, corruption, ease or what not; and
also, as Hedges says, that "the Left" is dead, and has been dead
since the 1990ies, basically due to Clinton, Blair and Kok, three
personal careerists who destroyed the left, quite intentionally so, and
who replaced it by what is called "the Third Way" or "Blatcherism", that
was basically a sell out to the PR firms,
and nothing else.
Here is the beginning of the interview, that is quite fair and honest:
JAY: Millions of
people unemployed, millions of people have lost their houses, and for a
long time the left was saying the crash is coming, the crash is coming,
the people will rise up. Well, the crash came, and some people rose up,
but not in the kind of critical numbers that would have shaken or, as
in the previous episode you said, terrified the elites. Why?
Yes, quite so. A bit further on, there is a good part of the
explanation for the U.S. which happened in fact in the 1950ies:
HEDGES: Because the
traditional liberal elite divorced itself from the issue of justice to
embrace for the last few decades issues such as gender equality,
multiculturalism, identity politics, all of which I support. But while
they busied themselves with these activities, the working class was
being destroyed through NAFTA and the outsourcing of jobs, the
stagnation, in essence reduction of the minimum wage.The Democratic
Party used to watch out for the interests of labor and even for the
poor. But that all changed under Bill Clinton. Although Clinton, like
Obama, continues to speak in that feel-your-pain language of
traditional liberalism, they've completely betrayed the very people
that they purport to represent and defend.
[HEDGES] Now, the
problem is that the radical movements that were able to push the
liberal elites to respond have been destroyed. We don't have any
anymore. In the long war against our internal and external enemies in
the name of anti-communism, they've been utterly decimated, culminating
in the 1950s with these huge purges. Ellen Schrecker has written two
good books about this. You know, thousands, thousands of high school
teachers, social workers, artists, directors, journalists like I. F.
Stone were pushed out. I. F. Stone--.
Here is one of the main
JAY: And particularly trade
HEDGES: And trade unionists.
JAY: And it kind
of goes together. When the movement's so weak, a lot of the elite says,
well, we don't need to safety valve, 'cause the pressure's not building.
And there is this:
HEDGES: Well, that's
precisely the problem. There is no pressure from the other side. And
the liberal elites, you know, while they can speak in a rhetoric that
is reminiscent of that rhetoric--and Obama does it, certainly--serves
their paymasters, which are Wall Street and defense contractors and the
fossil fuel industry.
[HEDGES] We are
the most surveilled, monitored, eavesdropped, controlled, watched
population in human history, and I speak as somebody who covered the
Stasi state in East Germany. (..) We are seeing the corporate state
dismantle programs that once provided benefits like unemployment
payments or social programs to the poor, to the elderly, to students,
to make us even more frightened and more easily manipulated. I mean,
there's a kind of awful logic to what they're doing. And, you know, it
is--those forms of repression are quite effective. We have shifted, I
think, from a democratic state to a species of corporate
right-wing populism or fascism is a very real possibility. And I think
that we are particularly vulnerable to that because our progressive
populist and radical movements virtually don't exist, and because the
liberal center is so discredited.
There is rather a lot more in
the full interview, but I think you can understand why Chris Hedges is
frightened and unhappy.
Note that I have no cures: I have seen this happening over the
course of 35 or 40 years, and I saw nobody protest in a rational
fashion (other than myself), while I saw the whole "leftist" elite
behave as a corrupt mob, all eager for collaboration, higher
pay, better positions, while mounting their "progressive" lies - for
while I agree with Hedges on much, I disagree with him on "gender equality, multiculturalism, identity
politics": These were, at best,
the froth on a totally disappeared leftist cake and were
entirely meaningless without a truly leftist group to support them.
Also, these are "progressive signals" you just can't shovel down the
throats of the uneducated masses, and indeed are mere empty signals
signifying nothing without the power to upkeep them.
But OK - I don't really mind, for these "ideals" have been given up
essentially for what they were: meaningless show-cases of a meaningless
"good will", that does not and cannot work without real power to back
it up, which has not been there, since 1995 at the very latest.
2. Warren Balks at Student Loan Deal
Next, there is Elizabeth Warren, on Truth Dig:
In fact, she said:
I quite agree, though I
doubt she will win the vote, simply because most seem to be corrupted.
“If Republicans insist
that we continue to make the same $184 billion in profit off of the
student loan program, that just means that students in future years
will have to pay higher rates to make up the difference,” Warren wrote
in the email. “I don’t believe in pitting our kids against each other.
In fact, I think this whole system stinks.”
She continued: “We should
not go along with any plan that demands that our students continue to
produce huge profits for our government. Making billions and billions
in profits off the backs of students is obscene.”
Alexander Calls Emergency Private Briefing
Then there is this in the Huffington Post:
This starts as follows :
Security Agency called for a "top secret" meeting with members of the
House on Tuesday to lobby against the first House amendment to
challenge the agency's authority to cull broad swaths of communications
data, according to an invitation circulated in Congress.
and a little later says
warned members that they could not share what they learned with their
constituents or others. "The briefing will be held at the Top Secret/SCI level and will be strictly Members-Only,"
reads the invite.
Then again, I agree with Senator Wyden that
this is a lot more than could have been expected 8 weeks ago, and the
difference is mainly due to Snowden and Greenwald.
Three Hops from a Terrorist
Then there is this, by Yves
Smith, from Naked Capitalism:
Actually, my grandfather was
locked up as "a political terrorist" in 1941, as was my father (by the
Nazis: they were among the very few who really resisted), and I have
been removed by my generation of collaborating careerists who screamed
at me that I am "a fascist terrorist", namely for only asking questions,
so I would be rather amazed if (1) I am not one of the "terrorists",
which (2) I will never find out, because the materials about my father
and grandfather also were secret.
I don't really know,
and trust I will never find out, but I would not be amazed if I am
being checked, even though it also is true that I am one of the least
terroristic persons I know of, who did not even throw anything at a
Anyway... the article is worth reading, because it explains why many of
my readers may be three hops away from "a
terrorist" - which is, in my opinion, anyway a bullshit concept,
that nearly always is a pretext to mislead.
Requiem for DSM
Finally, I am a bit amazed to be able to list and quote a decent
article from the Psychiatric Times, even though it is by dr. Nassir
Ghaemi, whom I have quoted before, and who is one of the small minority
of mostly sane psychiatrists:
Yes indeed! It is true that
dr. Ghaemi and I don't agree on several things, but it is also true
that he is one of the few real psychiatrists I know of who more or less
consistently has been opposing the DSM for mostly sound reasons.
Indeed, dr. Ghaemi's convictions in this came about in a quite different
way than my own (who is a psychologist and a philosopher, not a
psychiatrist), as he describes himself in his second paragraph:
When I graduated a
generation ago, I accepted DSM-IV as if it were the truth. I trusted
that my elders would put the truth first, and then compromise for
practical purposes where they had no truths to follow. It took me 2
decades to realize a painful truth, spoken now frankly by those who
gave us DSM-III when Ronald Reagan was elected and DSM-IV when Bill
Clinton was president: the leaders of those DSMs don’t believe there
are scientific truths in psychiatric diagnosis—only mutually agreed upon falsehoods.1 They
call it reliability.
So I was there long
before Dr Ghaemi (and also I am considerably older), but that does not
matter - or at least not very much, though Dr Ghaemi also explains that
the rot really dates back to the DSM III, which was published in 1980:
The Board of
Trustees of the APA had to finalize and approve DSM-III. Somewhere
along the line, 2 dozen diagnoses became 265 disorders (not modifiers),
without a single piece of new scientific evidence for the other 241.
Indeed - and that is one of
the roots of the real problem: The insane proliferation of "diagnoses"
by which people can be declared insane, based essentially on absolutely
nothing - other than "the power of psychiatry", which in fact is
faith-based baloney and the need of most of its members to make
money, that corrupted the vast majority.
I suggest you read new
historical books that carefully study the minutes of DSM-III task forces and other
documentation.4,5 You’ll understand why about 90% (241 of
265) of DSM-III diagnoses are unscientific, and you’ll also understand
how even the poor 2 dozen that had decent scientific evidence were
distorted and deformed.
Then again, a little further on, dr. Ghaemi has a criticism which I
might take personally, although I don't:
One reason (there are more)
why I don't take this personally is that I agree - and have
indeed done so for something like 45 years now. (But then I was
never seriously interested in a mostly nonsensical subject like
psychiatry - "you do not have the beginning of the knowledge you need!"
- and indeed I also never worked as a psychologist - though I wrote
much more than most do, and also am much more
read, is also true.)
Yet strident critics of
DSM, often psychologists, are wrong: they want to claim that there is
no part of psychiatry, not a single shred, that is medically
legitimate: there are no diseases in psychiatry. But there are
psychiatric diseases (eg, schizophrenia, manic depression), just not
almost 200 of them.
Can anyone accept this
notion? That DSM is not 100% false (it is 91.9% false, based on the
original 2 dozen RDC criteria divided by 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), and not
100% true either. That there are diseases (in psychiatry as well as in
medicine), but most clinical pictures (in medicine as well as in
psychiatry) are not diseases.
Also, I do not agree with all
dr. Ghaemi claims, and notably not with this:
Our DSM leaders
did not lie; they deceived themselves, which is worse, because then
they could honestly mislead the rest of us. Our strident antipsychiatry
critics do not lie; they mistake half the truth for the whole, which is
worse, because irrationally held truths are more harmful than reasoned
No, that's simply
nonsense, for several reasons.
Firstly, leaders who introduce a diagnostic manual of which 92%
of the diagnoses are essentially based on nothing (other than made up
lists of criterions, that are based on nothing or on piffle and
bullshit), and who maintain this for something like 33 years now, must
have been lying, for a good part, unless their IQs were lower than 85,
which is certainly not the case.
There really is no rational way around this - and that is all
wholly apart from the many billions that psychiatrists were
expected to gain from this, collectively, and that they also did gain
Secondly, I am not an antipsychiatrist, and even though dr. Ghaemi
quotes T.H. Huxley as a source for his quaint opinion that "irrationally held truths are more harmful
than reasoned errors", that
is bound to be a mistake in most cases: You want people to believe the
truth - and you ought to know most cannot reason out most truths, even
if they tried and thought they could.
To take just one example:
I agree with dr. Ghaemi at least 9 out of 10 of the diagnoses in the
DSM-5 (and IV and III) should not have been there, for nearly
total lack of real support.
But millions upon millions have been diagnosed
in these essentially nonsensical terms, and have been medicated
because of these diagnoses, and very many - though not: all - have been
led into serious problems because of the lousy qualities of the
pills they took. (See dr. Healy,
to see what I have in mind: There is a great deal to complain about.)
If this had not happened, for some quite irrational
reason, such as God's decision to stay the hand of the APA leadership
to sign to these mock diagnoses, also in a manner that no rational man
can explain, then very many
people would have been saved from very many very serious difficulties.
Unfortunately God did not do so - but the example seems to me fair
enough to show one cannot rely on the glib apothegms of Darwin's
propagandist, as if these apothegms are reliable.
But OK... dr. Ghaemi meant and means well, but indeed it is too late
for a rational and scientific psychiatry, for there too the bastards
and the liars have triumphed, and the few intelligent decent people
have been abused and sidelined.
 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.)
 They might have had other ones,
I am willing to agree - but surely not as many as they got
being diagnosed in false ways, and getting ill researched
pills, with undisclosed dangers.
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: