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."
Obama Administration View Journalists as
Snowden's "Accomplices"? It
Clapper calls for Snowden and
3. Edward Snowden nominated
for Nobel peace prize
4. Angela Merkel warns US over
surveillance in first speech
of third term
Democratic Leadership Yesterday Effectively Killed
Obama’s International Trade
a Rock and a Hard Place: ICD-11 Beta draft:
Definition added for “Bodily
This is another crisis file, and earlier today there was a Dutch
autobiographical file, that is probably the last but one of the first
volume (which will be rewritten from what there is now).
Does Obama Administration
View Journalists as Snowden's "Accomplices"? It Seems So.
To start with,
an article by Glenn Greenwald on Common Dreams:
This is a brief article,
and starts as follows:
James Clapper, the
Director of National Intelligence, appeared today before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, his first appearance since outright
lying to that Committee last March about NSA bulk collection. In his
prepared opening remarks, Clapper said this:
Greenwald also asks
whether it is the view of the Obama administation that the journalists
and meda outlets that published the documents are "accomplices".
that he's won and that his mission is accomplished. If that is so, I
call on him and his accomplices to facilitate the return of the
remaining stolen documents that have not yet been exposed to prevent
even more damage to U.S. security.
Who, in the view of the
Obama administration, are Snowden's "accomplices"[? - MM] The FBI and
other official investigators have
been very clear with the media that there is no
evidence whatsoever that Snowden had any help in copying and
removing documents from the NSA.
Well... James Clapper must be - like I am, since 26 years now,
according to 16 Amsterdam philosophers and the Board of Directors of
the University of Amsterdam - a "fascist terrorist" 
who may lay the foundations of fascist
terrorism in the U.S., who may steal everybody's private
doings of any kind on the internet or on a phone, which is illegal, who
may lie to Congress, and who may say whatever he pleases, regardless of
facts, of moral norms, or of decency.
So yes: If you are a journalist who dares to publish anything the NSA
does not like to see published, because it shows how extremely
dishonest they are, and because it shows they steal any and all private
details of anyone, that are to be used for their secret ends, then you
must be "a terrorist" and an accomplice of "terrorists" like Edward
This stands to reason, at least if the reason is that of James Clapper.
James Clapper calls for Snowden and 'accomplices' to return NSA
Next, an article by
Spencer Ackerman in the Guardian on the same theme as the previous item:
This starts as
James Clapper, the
director of national intelligence, has issued a blistering condemnation
Snowden, calling the surveillance disclosures published by the
Guardian and other news outlets a “perfect storm” that would endanger
Testifying before a rare
and unusually raucous public session of the Senate intelligence
committee that saw yet another evolution in the Obama administration’s
defense of bulk domestic phone records collection, Clapper called on
“Snowden and his accomplices” to return the documents the former
National Security Agency contractor took, in order to minimize what he
called the “profound damage that his disclosures have caused and
continued to cause”.
Clearly, the lying Clapper
is lying more, now that he may do so, supported by Obama: "profound
damage"? "continued"? Then again, Spencer Ackerman also has something
to worry about:
This makes "anyone" "an
accomplice" who published (or helped to publish) anything Snowden
revealed, and this includes Ackerman and quite a few other journalists
of the Guardian, and its editor, and indeed maybe also its owner.
Asked if the journalists
who possess leaked surveillance information counted in Clapper's
definition of an "accomplice", Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner
clarified: "Director Clapper was referring to anyone who is assisting
Edward Snowden to further threaten our national security through the
unauthorized disclosure of stolen documents related to lawful foreign
intelligence collection programs."
Turner declined to be
Also note these lies: "threaten
our national security", "unauthorized", and "lawful".
There is a lot more in the article.
3. Edward Snowden nominated for Nobel peace
Next, an article by
the Associated Press (in Stavanger) in the Guardian:
This starts as
I say. It is only a
nomination, and it is quite possible he will not get it, but it seems a
good idea to me - and if Obama could get the same price, I do not see
why the much more worthy Snowden wouldn't deserve it as well.
Two Norwegian politicians
say they have jointly nominated the former National Security Agency
contractor Edward Snowden
for the 2014 Nobel peace prize.
The Socialist Left party
politicians Baard Vegar Solhjell, a former environment minister, and
Snorre Valen said the public debate and policy changes in the wake of
Snowden's whistleblowing had "contributed to a more stable and peaceful
4. Angela Merkel warns US over surveillance
in first speech of third term
Next, an article by
Philip Oltermann in the Guardian:
This starts as
Angela Merkel has
used the first, agenda-setting speech of her third term in office to
criticise America's uncompromising defence of its surveillance activities.
In a speech otherwise
typically short of strong emotion or rhetorical flourishes, the German
chancellor found relatively strong words on NSA surveillance, two days before the US secretary of
state, John Kerry, is due to visit Berlin.
"A programme in which the
end justifies all means, in which everything that is technically
possible is then acted out, violates trust and spreads mistrust," she
said. "In the end, it produces not more but less security."
She is right, and
this is what is happening.
Democratic Leadership Yesterday Effectively Killed Obama’s
International Trade Deals
Next an article by Eric
Zuesse on Washington's Blog:
This starts as follows:
One of President Barack
Obama’s top priorities ever since he entered the White House has been
to achieve two international trade deals, one with Europe, and the
other with Asia, that will enable international corporations to
override the laws in participating nations and thus to provide ultimate
corporate control over regulations concerning pesticide-use,
food-safety, global-warming abatement, collective bargaining, and other
Yesterday, Wednesday 29
January 2014, the leader of congressional Democrats, Harry Reid — the
U.S. Senate Majority Leader — came out publicly saying, “I’m against fast track.” This means that
unlike the international-trade treaties that were rammed through
Congress under George W. Bush, Obama’s trade deals won’t be — and that
they are thus now practically dead.
I think this is very
good news. Then again, I am not so certain as Zuesse is: What if Harry
Reid dies tomorrow, for example? But apart from that, and some hidden
deals, it seems quite probable there will be no TPP unitl, at least,
the next president, which is a very good thing.
There is considerably more in the article.
Between a Rock
and a Hard Place: ICD-11 Beta draft: Definition added for “Bodily
Next and last, apart from
my personal bit, an article by Suzy Chapman on dxrevisionwatch, that is about
health and illness rather than the crisis:
At long last, the shrinks have given "a
definition" of what they choose to call "Bodily distress disorder".
Here it is:
I submit, as a psychologist
and a philosopher, that this is a totally insane "definition", that is
intended to undo the difference between diseases and "disorders", and
that would totally stop all research in any disease that is not already
in the medical handbooks, and thus kill the progress of medical science.
First, about "bodily distress": This covers every experience that is
unpleasant, of whatever kind, however caused. This also means that in
nearly all cases of illness, you will feel it through some form of
Second, about "high levels of preoccupation": This is a totally vague
permission for your doctor or psychiatrists to say that you complain
too much. Note the sick occurrence of "preoccupation": If you
are in pain, and the doctor does not know what you have, you are not
"occupied" or "concerned" or "interested" anymore: No, no: you are preoccupied.
That is, your complaints are trivialized as a matter of course, and you
pay to much attention to them, as a matter of course.
Third, about "unusually or persistent medical help-seeking": Precisely
the same applies as I just said: it is completely vague - and I do not
deny that there are irrational demands on doctors, but you cannot
judge these rationally by "unusually
or persistent" help-seeking or totally unspecified "high levels", if
you do not have objective criterions to use these terms - and any
objective criterions are totally absent. Indeed:
Fourth, "avoidance of normal activities": The psychiatrists want
to declare everybody who does not have a well-known admitted disease as
a neurotic or a liar (or both), but they have learned meanwhile that
these terms are impopular, so now they call it "bodily distress
disorder". Also, they have "a cure": Graduated Exercise Therapuy (GET)
plus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which both are excellent
means to give shrinks even higher incomes than they already have, and
hardly without doing anything, except by denying (while showing their
medical diploma or stethoscope) that you cannot be ill, except
if you have the luck of having a recognized familiar known
illness (if you are not faking that).
Fifth, note the "features" (not: pains, aches, vomits, misery) and the
"impairment": What they mean is again that if you feel ill but your
illness is not in an existing medical handbook, then
"therefore" you are not ill, but you are a neurotic or
a liar (or both) - except that they now call it "bodily
distress disorder", because they are thoroughly dishonest, and they
much rather serve the very well-paying health-insurances than their
patients, who have much less money.
Sixth, note the symptoms with which you can not be ill, unless
these are symptoms of a well-known medical disease: pains, aches,
tiredness, belly aches, lack of breath, and indeed "any bodily
symptoms" (with which you also are automatically preoccupied,
all because your doctor doesn't know, but doesn't want to admit
Seventh, you are, in case you have a disease that is not yet fully
known and present in prominent medical handbooks, f*cked whatever your
complaints are, if the psychiatrists have any say in it: whether you
complain of many, several or one thing(s), even if that is very painful
(restyled as "bothersome"), you are a neurotic or a liar (or
both) except that they now call it "bodilly distress disorder", and
frown upon the earlier terms, not because these are inept, in their
opinion, but because a term like "bodilly
distress disorder" deceives many more people, and is so completely
vague as to apply to anything and anyone: if you complain about
something, and the doctor doesn't know it, you'll have BDD. (No
research is necessary, and no help - and if by chance you die of
whatever you have, that's too bad: the doctor is never to blame - he or
she merely thought you had BDD.)
In case you doubt the medical sadists who compiled the above
"definition" did know what they were doing, I quote Suzy Chapman:
In mid 2012, the Goldberg
led PCCG primary care group was proposing a new term called “Bodily
stress [sic] syndrome (BSS),” to replace ICD’s primary care category,
“F45 Unexplained somatic symptoms.” This single BSS category would also
absorb F48 Neurasthenia, which is proposed to be eliminated for
In late 2012, the S3DWG
group was proposing to subsume the six ICD-10 categories F45.0 – F45.9,
plus F48.0 Neurasthenia, under a single disorder category, but under
the disorder name, “Bodily distress disorder” (BDD).
That is: These folks now
claim to be able to "explain" what was hitherto correctly
called "Unexplained somatic
symptoms" - though they explain
it by "Neurasthenia", except that they do not want to use the term,
because it doesn't sound well. So they invented "BDD".
Not only that: Those with
ME/CFS or FM (Fibromyalgia) or Irritable Bowel Syndrome now also are
declared to be mere
neurasthenics - sorry: - BDD'ers:
Do these "evidence based"
medical sadists have any evidence? Of course not: They work for
the insurance companies anyway, for that is where the big money comes
from, and they don't care how many lives they destroy, as long as they
are paid well. (Indeed, if I had been a sadist, I would have studied
What wasn’t explicitly
set out in the PCCG’s 2012 paper was whether the group intended to
mirror the Fink
et al BDS construct to the extent of extending the diagnosis to be
inclusive of the so-called “functional somatic syndromes,” FM, CFS and
IBS (which are currently discretely coded or indexed within ICD-10
in chapters outside the mental and behavioural disorders chapter).
This 2013 paper, below,
interprets that it is indeed the intention of the Primary
Care Consultation Group to capture FM, CFS and IBS (...)
There was today no further
updating of my sites, so far at least, but there was earlier today the latest part of my autobiography (in
Here it is necessary to insist, with
Aristotle, thay the governors do not rule, or at least, should
not rule: The laws rule, and the government, if good, is part
of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and
It is more proper
that law should govern than any of the citizens: upon the same
principle, if it is advantageous to place supreme power in some
particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and
the servant of laws.
note the whole file I
quote from is quite pertinent.)
 I am a "fascist terrorist" since May 1988, when I
was invited to read 39
Questions about the declines of education and government in the
in the faculty of philosophy of the University of Amsterdam. Many of
the fascist terrorists who called me a fascist terrorist, including the
fascist terrorists who then were the Board of Directors, knew
that my father had spend 3 years 9
months and 15 days as a political prisoner in German concentration camps,
that my grandfather was murdered as a political prisoner in a German concentration camp, and
that my mother had been in the Dutch Resistance.
But 16 Amsterdam fascist terrorists insisted, screamingly,
that I am "a fascist terrorist", because of my questions, and
because they lost discussions. I have asked many times to
withdraw this. I was never even answered. I now repay the compliment
that was made me - after having waited more than 25 years, and never
having received any reply.
(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: