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. I have got a
2. International Women's Day
Europe Should Know about US Mass Surveillance
Do Companies Have a First Amendment Right to Track
Coming Minimum Wage Restoration
6. It’s Now Mainstream
Economics that Runaway
Inequality Hurts the Economy …
7. The Great "Crazy" Coverup:
Harm Results from
Rewriting the History of DSM
This is mostly a crisis item,
but not wholly so: the first two items are respectively about myself
and about women, and the last item is about the DSM-5. The others are
about the crisis, and there is also a fair bit by Snowden, in item 3.
1. I have got a bicycle again!
The big news for today
is personal news: I have got a bicycle again! I bought it yesterday,
second hand, and cycled today for an hour, and really liked
You may think that isn't much, and that the news also is neither great
nor special, but while this is true in a general sense, it is false in
a personal sense: I bought another bicyle late in August of 2013, and
started cycling then, and that was the first time I cycled this
century. Before that I simply did not have the health to do it. And I
had to give up cycling again after three months, because then my bike
The present one is equipped with two locks, to which must (still) be
added a third, but even so I will be amazed if I have the present bike
in a year's time, and it will not have been stolen: you can't
even list a stolen bike anymore
with the police, just as everything fails in Holland in case
you dare to protest with the police that you have been threatened with
murder and have been gassed by illegal drugsdealers who are protected
by the mayors and
All this protection - by the way - has a very sound financial
According to the
numbers of the parliamentary Van Traa report, the last
25 years some 250 billion euros worth
in soft drugs alone have been turned over in Holland,
and according to me some 5% of that has found its way into the pockets
of the Amsterdam mayors and/or their lawyers. (I must be guessing, for
everyone in Holland whose duty it is to investigate these things has
looked the other way the last - extremely profitable, and also
- 25 years.)
But the court system and the judiciary in Holland also is totally
sick and degenerate:
No Dutch judge has seen it as
his or her moral or legal duty to protest against the illegal
transactions - viz. that persons get personal permission
by the mayors to act as illegal softdrugs dealers from places
assigned to them by the mayors, often - or even has even questioned
these policies, that are very widespread and totally illegal. Not in 25 years.
But OK...Americans and other foreigners now should know that
the coffee-shops they visit to get stoned are in fact illegal,
and are only there because the Amsterdam mayors have worked out
a system of which everyone profits in Holland who is rich or powerful
already: the mayors, the dealers, the police, the district attorneys no
doubt all get their parts, and only a poor and ill idiot like I am, who
protests, and that only after he gets gassed by the dealers
that mayor Ed van Thijn had put in his house, gets removed from the
University as "a fascist terrorist" (with a better resistance-background than anybody
else in the university!) and merely for asking questions, while
I have now for 30 years been dealt as if I am a fraud
by the degenerates who run the Amsterdam dole, who still have
not admitted these 30 years that I have dole that I am ill.
Back to my topic: I still could afford to buy another bike, and I can
ride it again, for an hour a day, and that feels quite good to
2. International Women's Day
may or may not know that March 8 is the International Women's Day. I
still can recall March 8, 1980, when, in Amsterdam at least,
was a feminist, certainly at the University of Amsterdam, and
"everybody" took part in the festivities, and for all the daily papers
this was frontpage news: "It Is International Women's Day!"
That was 34 years ago. Three days ago,
I dealt with this topic:
Two days ago, I read in
the paper that in Holland things are going very well:
Violence against women is
"an extensive human rights
abuse" across Europe with
one in three women reporting some form of physical or sexual abuse
since the age of 15 and 8% suffering abuse in the last 12 months,
according to the largest survey of its kind on the issue, published on
The survey, based on
interviews with 42,000 women across 28 EU member states, found
extensive abuse across the continent, which typically goes unreported
and undetected by the authorities.
Women no longer earn 20% less than men, for the same work; they now
earn 18% less than men, still for the same work. Glory, glory
Two percent less, and still nearly 1/5th less than men. For the same
work. In only 34 years!
I did not find even a mention that it is the international woman's day
in the Dutch papers that I checked...
Besides, meanwhile Heleen Mees and
company have succeeded in making most
women fully working wage slaves "because that is good for them", and
besides, from one income one cannot raise a family
anymore: Thanks to feminism + corporatism, now both adults in a
family are wage slaves, also normally with little choice about
So no: I will never be a feminist, but I
like it if women were to earn the same as men and I dislike it that
physically abused, and the reason I will never be a feminist is that
being "a feminist" (especially since I am a man) seems to me the way
to support Germaine Greer and Heleen Mees to make their
careers, always in
the name of "feminism", but also always restricted to their own
careers (and a few women like them), as can also be
seen from the facts listed earlier.
3. What Europe Should Know about US Mass Surveillance
article is by Edward Snowden. I found it on Common Dreams:
Here are a number of
points I all agree with, that are all in Snowden's words, as a written
answer to an investigative panel of the European Parliament, or in
answer to specific questions Snowden was asked.
The only things that are not by Snowden are the "---"s that separate
the quoted bits. But then I have deleted a fair amount of text. On the
other hand, I think most of what follows is quite clear, and it all is
presented in the order in which it was published:
The first principle any
inquiry must take into account is that despite extraordinary political
pressure to do so, no western government has been able to present
evidence showing that such programs are necessary.
The most recent of these
investigations, performed by the White House's Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board, determined that the mass surveillance
program investigated was not only ineffective -- they found it had
never stopped even a single imminent terrorist attack -- but that it
had no basis in law. In less diplomatic language, they discovered the
United States was operating an unlawful mass surveillance program, and
the greatest success the program had ever produced was discovering a
taxi driver in the United States transferring $8,500 dollars to Somalia
I believe that
suspicionless surveillance not only fails to make us safe, but it
actually makes us less safe. By squandering precious, limited resources
on "collecting it all," we end up with more analysts trying to make
sense of harmless political dissent and fewer investigators running
down real leads.
This should not have
happened. I worked for the United States' Central Intelligence Agency.
The National Security Agency. The Defense Intelligence Agency. I love
my country, and I believe that spying serves a vital purpose and must
continue. And I have risked my life, my family, and my freedom to tell
you the truth.
These are not the
capabilities in which free societies invest. Mass surveillance violates
our rights, risks our safety, and threatens our way of life.
(...) if even the US is
willing to knowingly violate the rights of billions of innocents -- and
I say billions without exaggeration -- for nothing more substantial
than a "potential" intelligence advantage that has never materialized,
what are other governments going to do?
The right to be free of
unwarranted intrusion into our private effects -- our lives and
possessions, our thoughts and communications -- is a human right. It is
not granted by national governments and it cannot be revoked by them
out of convenience. Just as we do not allow police officers to enter
every home to fish around for evidence of undiscovered crimes, we must
not allow spies to rummage through our every communication for
indications of disfavored activities.
specific targets, for unquestionable reasons of national security while
respecting human rights, is above reproach. Unfortunately, we've seen a
growth in untargeted, extremely questionable surveillance for reasons
entirely unrelated to national security.
The good news is that there
are solutions. The weakness of mass surveillance is that it can very
easily be made much more expensive through changes in technical
standards: pervasive, end-to-end encryption can quickly make
indiscriminate surveillance impossible on a cost- effective basis.
That our governments are
even today unwilling to allow independent review of the secret policies
enabling mass surveillance of innocents underlines governments' lack of
faith that these programs are lawful, and this provides stronger
testimony in favor of the rightfulness of my actions than any words I
I leave the above
quotations for the moment uncommented, except that I would like to see
a fast introduction of pervasive end-to-end encryption.
Do Companies Have a First Amendment Right to Track You?
Next, an article by David Sirota on Truth Dig:
This starts as follows, and
the whole article is in fact dedicated to the specific questioned
Mr Carvin is, no doubt
intentionally, confusing several things. For one thing, what he is really
talking about is taking 50 million pictures each month, which no human
being will ever see; for another, that is not free speech; for a third,
even if relaying it to others were "speech", it is not stating anything
the laws for "free speech" are for.
Do corporations have a
legal right to track your car? If you think that is a purely academic
question, think again. Working with groups like the American Civil
Liberties Union, states are considering laws to prevent private
companies from continuing to mass photograph license plates.
This is one of the
backlashes to the news about mass surveillance. However, this backlash
is now facing legal pushback from the corporations that take the
photographs and then sell the data gleaned from the images.
In a lawsuit against the
state of Utah, Digital Recognition Network, Inc. and Vigilant Solutions
are attempting to appropriate the ACLU’s own pro-free speech arguments
for themselves. They argue that a recent Utah law banning them from
using automated cameras to collect images, locations and times of
license plates is a violation of their own free speech rights. Indeed,
in an interview, DRN’s counsel Michael Carvin defends this practice by
noting, “Everyone has a First Amendment right to take these photographs
and disseminate this information.”
There is more in the article, but all I wanted to register here is
another sick use of the Bill of Rights, that is intended to present the
liberties that are taken with the law by corporations for their own
profits, as if these things should be conceded because it is "free
It is not.
Coming Minimum Wage
Next, an article by Ralph
Nader on his site:
This starts as follows:
There is considerably more in
the article. I think I like both the ideas raised in the quotation: To
raise the minimum wage, and also that there are quite a few issues that
could profit quite a lot from some left-right coalition(s).
If you haven’t yet heard
of Ron Unz, you may soon. The conservative, successful software
developer, theoretical physicist from Harvard and former publisher of
the American Conservative magazine is launching a California
initiative that asks voters in November to raise the state minimum wage
to $12 per hour (it is now $8 an hour and is going to $9 an hour by
In commencing this
effort, Mr. Unz is uniting conservatives and liberals in supporting
this initiative and is hopeful that Silicon Valley billionaires or
megabillionaires will help fund this citizens’ campaign.
If this sounds quixotic,
put that reaction on hold. Mr. Unz’s mind seethes with logic. He
believes that a left-right coalition behind a higher minimum wage makes
perfect sense. Conservatives, he argues in many an article, would see a
decline in taxpayer assistance to low-income people – food stamps,
housing aid, Medicaid, etc. – if employers, not taxpayers, paid workers
about what labor was paid in 1968, adjusted for inflation. And liberals
have always believed in this social safety net on the grounds that
workers earned it and that nobody, with or without children, working
full time should be living in poverty.
Next month, my new book
elaborates on the power of emerging left-right coalitions on many
issues (Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle
the Corporate State).
Indeed, I also looked up Ron
Unz on Wikipedia, and my one skeptical reaction comes from its
noting his claim that he has an IQ of 214: I think that is rather
unlikely, though I do not doubt he is quite intelligent.
Mainstream Economics that Runaway Inequality Hurts the Economy …
Next, an article by Washington's Blog, of which I have
again skipped part of the very long title:
Basically, this is a
longish article that seeks to give considerable support to the thesis
that many economists share the thesis that runaway inequality hurts the
economy. (In fact, they ought to think so since Keynes, in the
It also lists some niceties like this:
That may seem radical,
but it conforms to the facts.
Randall Wray writes:
Thieves … took over the
whole economy and the political system lock, stock, and barrel.
No wonder the government
the big banks at taxpayer expense, chosen
the banks over the little guy, and said no to helping Main Street … while continuing to throw
trillions at the giant banks.
No wonder crony
capitalism has gotten even
worse under Obama than under Bush.
No wonder big Wall Street
players are continuing
to loot taxpayer moneypublic
No wonder the big banks
continue to manipulate
every market and commit crime
after crime and … and profit
handsomely from it, while law-abiding citizens slide further and
Yet Obama is prosecuting
fewer financial crimes than Bush, or his father,
or Ronald Reagan.
Great "Crazy" Coverup: Harm Results from Rewriting the History of DSM
Finally for today an article by Paula J. Caplan about the DSM-5:
She is quite critical of
Allen Frances, who merits this, and she starts with two quotations from
Greenberg's "The book of woe: The DSM and the unmaking of psychiatry"
(which I haven't read):
Both quotations are by
Greenberg. I agree especially with the first, and like to add the
explanation: Psychiatry is fiction sold to the public as fact,
simply because that is the way psychiatrists make the most money.
diagnosis is fiction sold to the public
has something rotten at its
foundation: its have-it-both-ways, real-until-it-isn't diagnostic
Also, I will not give more quotations today, because I have over 45 Kb
of file already, and because this probably will not be very interesting
to most of my readers, but I may return to it later, in a Nederlog that
is not dedicated to the crisis. (And you have the link, in case you are
interested. And it is not a difficult article, I should add.)
I did like the article - but I should also say that I am the only
psychologist who never earned a single cent with his
M.A. even though that only had straight A's.
Also, I know only one person for whom this also holds: Suzy Chapman, who knows a great
amount about the M.E., the DSM-5 and the ICD-10 and 11 (and certainly
considerably more than I do about the DSM-5 and the ICDs), but who was
removed from patient forums because ... "her writing was too
complicated", according to the sadistic "patients" who said so, who
were quite possibly for a good part psychiatrists posing as patients,
and were anyway no more than very average, though morally quite
degenerate, ill persons.
I must say that I find that all quite unfair: Suzy Chapman's treatment,
my treatment, and the fact that almost anybody who writes about
psychiatry does it to make a very good living from it, whether they
defend the current sick institutions, or whether they write against
them: they are doing it for money, though that may not be the only
 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.)
In contrast, I insist everybody is unequal, and some but not many are
exceptional, and most of the exceptional people are unknown in the
 Two things that also should be mentioned here are
these: First, the human average by and large is a rather bad, stupid,
and egoistic lot - if you disagree: it is what the main religions tell
you, as well - that also is much worse educated than it was
until 45 years ago, at least in the West. Second, most exceptional
people are not much better than the average, except for having
one or two talents most lack.
(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: