13, 2014
Crisis: EU, Nature, Hillary Clinton, Internet, Snowden, Binney
  "They who can give up essential 
   liberty to obtain a little temporary
   safety, deserve neither liberty
   nor safety."
   -- Benjamin Franklin [1]
   "All governments lie and nothing
   they say should be believed.
   -- I.F. Stone
   "Power tends to corrupt, and   
   absolute power corrupts
   absolutely. Great men are        
   almost always bad men."
   -- Lord Acton

Prev- crisis -Next

 The EU needs to crack down on the real scroungers – tax

More than a third of natural world heritage sites face
     'significant threats'

3. Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
4. Hightower: Why Corporations Are Doing Everything They
     Can to Destroy Net Neutrality

5. Snowden: "I Did What I Did Because I Believe It Is the
     Right Thing to Do"

6. Plumbing the Depths of NSA’s Spying

About ME/CFS


This is a Nederlog of Thursday, November 13. It is a
crisis log.

Well, to start with I should say the present text arose after the first text I had was totally disappeared by KompoZer, which is the only thing I can use to write tolerable html on Linux/Ubuntu. It is more or less OK, but it is also quite bugged and quirky, and yes... I know the rule "save often" from the late eighties when I first got a computer - but I sometimes forget this in 2014, and one should not, not with KompoZer, and I did. O well...

Anyway. This is a crisis item with 6 items and 6 dotted links, and you really should read the two last items, in full also, simply because they are quite long, quite good interviews with interesting men (Edward Snowden and William Binney):
Item 1 is on tax avoiders, who indeed are the real scroungers, much rather than poor people in the dole; item 2 is on what's left from the natural world heritage (not much, and a third is disappearing); item 3 is on why Wall Street loves Hillary Clinton; item 4 is a piece on net neutrality, that I found a bit too conventional leftish; item 5 is a fine long interview with Edward Snowden; and item 6 is the same with William Binney.

Also, this is uploaded a bit later than is normal for me, given that I had to write it 1 1/2 times.

And here goes:

1. The EU needs to crack down on the real scroungers – tax avoiders

The first item is an article by Owen Jones on The Guardian:
This starts as follows:

Tax avoidance is robbery, regardless of what any silver-tongued outrider of the corporate world tells you. Companies depend on the labour of their wealth-creating workers: a workforce expensively trained up by a state education system, kept healthy by state healthcare, and whose low pay is subsidised by the state.

The private sector depends on a bailed-out financial system, state-funded infrastructure, state support for research and development, and a law and order system to protect them and their property.

Companies that depend on state largesse and yet refuse to contribute are, well, scroungers. They deprive the state of revenue as politicians justify the biggest cuts for generations on the basis that there isn’t enough money. They gain a competitive disadvantage over mainly smaller businesses who cannot afford armies of accountants to exploit loopholes. They ensure the rest of us pay more taxes. As I say: robbery.

That’s why the allegations against Jean-Claude Juncker are so serious. He stands accused of being up to his neck in one of the great scandals of our time
Yes, indeed - though I should stress here that "legal" is a very, very vague term (there are all sorts of - so-called - laws in all sorts of countries) and that Juncker may be right (I do not know) in saying that he did not do anything that is not "legal", in Luxembourg.

The problem is that Luxembourg has for many decades now surrected a tax haven for very many large corporations that usually are not at all active in Luxembourg, except that their main owners' main office is located there (and that "office" may be very small or even a mere postbox), and some taxes are paid to the state of Luxembourg, that are not paid at all or at least not as much in the countries in which the corporations are active.

And that is the game Juncker has been playing for a long time: It is tax evasion, in a very major way also, whether it is "legal" in Luxembourg or not.

Owen Jones also says:
This whole episode underlines why any criticism of the EU cannot be surrendered to the xenophobic, isolationist right. In its current form, the EU is too rigged in favour of wealthy corporate interests, as the menace of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership underlines. Its treaties help to promote policies of privatisation and laissez-faire dogma.
Yes indeed, though I will have a remark on "the right". But Owen Jones is quite correct that "privatisation" and "laissez-faire" are mere pretexts to promote the policies and the riches of corporations.

As to "the political right" and "the political left" - and I do distinguish between political parties and their leaders, and the much more ordinary rightness or leftness of ordinary people: It seems to me that as far as politics is concerned,
the real left has been mostly murdered by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, on the pretext of the Third Way, and because no real left party would have accepted such people as their leaders.

And indeed Owen Jones has this:
Today, the Guardian reveals that Labour has received more than £600,000 of research help from PricewaterhouseCoopers to draw up tax policy. But PwC and the other big four accountancy firms not only facilitate legal tax avoidance – they help advise politicians on tax legislation, potentially assisting the firms to then advise their clients on how to exploit those laws.
While PricewaterhouseCoopers is precisely the party that is up to its neck in the Luxembourg tax evasions, as outlined on November 6...

2. More than a third of natural world heritage sites face 'significant threats' 

The next item is an article by Oliver Milman on The Guardian:

This starts as follows:

More than a third of the planet’s natural world heritage sites face significant threats such as invasive species, logging and poaching, and climate change is a looming menace to prized ecosystems, according to a major new assessment.

The first ever analysis of all 228 natural world heritage sites found that 21% have a good conservation outlook, with 42% deemed to be “good with some concerns”.

However, 29% have “significant concerns” and a further 8% are listed as “critical”, which means they are deemed to be “severely threatened” and require urgent attention to avoid their natural value being lost.

The IUCN World Heritage Outlook, released at the World Parks Congress in Sydney, found that 54% of world heritage sites are well managed, but 13% are seriously deficient in protecting species and landscapes.

There is a considerable amount more under the last dotted link, but this is the essence, as indeed the title says: More than a third of the - rather small - natural world heritage that is left is threatened. (And no, it is unlikely this will grow less. than a third.)

3. Why Wall Street Loves Hillary

The next item is an article by William D. Cohan on Politico:
This starts as follows:
An odd thing happened last month when, stumping just before the midterms, Hillary Clinton came in close proximity to the woman who has sometimes been described as the conscience of the Democratic Party. Speaking at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston as she did her part to try to rescue the failing gubernatorial campaign of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, Clinton paid deference to Senator Elizabeth Warren, the anti-Wall Street firebrand who has accused Clinton of pandering to the big banks, and who was sitting right there listening. “I love watching Elizabeth give it to those who deserve it,” Clinton said to cheers. But then, awkwardly, she appeared to try to out-Warren Warren—and perhaps build a bridge too far to the left—by uttering words she clearly did not believe: “Don’t let anyone tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Clinton said, erroneously echoing a meme Warren made famous during an August 2011 speech at a home in Andover, Massachusetts. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics? That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

Actually, as William Cowan explains, Hillary Clinton is well loved by the bank managers:

While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive.

This gets explained in considerable detail and in four pages, that I leave to your interests.

4. Hightower: Why Corporations Are Doing Everything They Can to Destroy Net Neutrality

The next item is an article by Jim Hightower on AlterNet:

This starts as follows:

When it comes to Internet Service Providers and high-speed Internet, the consumer marketplace has hardly been a model of competitiveness. Some of us are lucky enough to be able to choose from two providers, and some of us only have access to one.

These digital conduits are essential parts of America's utility infrastructure, nearly as basic as electricity and water pipes. They connect us (and our children) to worldwide knowledge, news, diverse viewpoints and other fundamental tools of citizenship. And, of course, we can buy and sell through them, be entertained, run our businesses, connect with friends, get up-to-the-minute scores, follow the weather and—yes indeedy—pay our bills.

Yet while this digital highway is deemed vital to our nation's well-being, access to it is not offered as a public service, i.e., an investment in the common good. Instead, it is treated as just another profit center for a few corporations.

There is considerably more under the last dotted link, but it is a - to my mind rather conventional - leftist view.

5. Snowden: "I Did What I Did Because I Believe It Is the Right Thing to Do" 

The next item is an article by Katherina vanden Heuvel and Stephen D. Cohen that I found on Alternet but that originated on The Nation:

This starts as follows:

On October 6, Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel and contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen (professor emeritus of Russian studies at New York University and Princeton) sat down in Moscow for a wide-ranging discussion with Edward Snowden. Throughout their nearly four-hour conversation, which lasted considerably longer than planned, the youthful-appearing Snowden was affable, forthcoming, thoughtful and occasionally humorous. Among other issues, he discussed the price he has paid for speaking truth to power, his definition of patriotism and accountability, and his frustration with America’s media and political system.
Incidentally, this is a good long interview that you should read all of. I select onky the bits that are - more or less - new to me. And there is rather a lot about Snowden in the crisis series since June 10, 2013, when I first read his name. (You can find these items by looking for "Snowden" in the crisis index.)

To start with, there is this small exchange:

The Nation: Do you watch television?

Snowden: I do everything on the computer.

Yes, the same holds for me - and I do not even own a TV, for over 44 years now, and indeed also rarely watch it, also not on the computer: Too little interest; too much propaganda; too many lies and falsities.

In the rest of my quotations, it is always Snowden talking: I did not copy any of the questions.

First, there is this clarification on surveillanve and secrecy and Obama:

Snowden: The surveillance revelations are critically important because they revealed that our rights are being redefined in secret, by secret courts that were never intended to have that role—without the consent of the public, without even the awareness of the majority of our political representatives. However, as important as that is, I don’t think it is the most important thing. I think it is the fact that the director of national intelligence gave a false statement to Congress under oath, which is a felony. If we allow our officials to knowingly break the law publicly and face no consequences, we’re instituting a culture of immunity, and this is what I think historically will actually be considered the biggest disappointment of the Obama administration. I don’t think it’s going to be related to social or economic policies; it’s going to be the fact that he said let’s go forward, not backward, in regard to the violations of law that occurred under the Bush administration. There was a real choice when he became president. It was a very difficult choice—to say, “We’re not going to hold senior officials to account with the same laws that every other citizen in the country is held to,” or “This is a nation that believes in the rule of law.” And the rule of law doesn’t mean the police are in charge, but that we all answer to the same laws.

Yes, indeed - although I am pessimistic enough to doubt that there will be anything much like real freedom or real democracy in the United States for
quite a long time. I much hope I am mistaken, but that is the trend, and that trend has big money behind it, and also has the NSA to safeguard it.

Next, here is Snowden on the internet as it developed:

Snowden: I would say the first key concept is that, in terms of technological and communication progress in human history, the Internet is basically the equivalent of electronic telepathy. We can now communicate all the time through our little magic smartphones with people who are anywhere, all the time, constantly learning what they’re thinking, talking about, exchanging messages. And this is a new capability even within the context of the Internet. When people talk about Web 2.0, they mean that when the Internet, the World Wide Web, first became popular, it was one way only. People would publish their websites; other people would read them. But there was no real back and forth other than through e-mail. Web 2.0 was what they called the collaborative web—Facebook, Twitter, the social media. What we’re seeing now, or starting to see, is an atomization of the Internet community.

I suppose that is correct, though I must say I am not much interested to "communicate all the time" with "people who are anywhere": There are three times as many persons as there are seconds in my life, for example, and I also
need to think and read and write for myself (which I also like to do).

As to Web 2.0: I don't do Facebook or Twitter, and my own site is enough of
"social media" for me. Also, I'd say this was the democratization of the internet,
rather than anything else (and I am not much of a democrat, indeed, though I guess this was bound to happen).

Next, there is this on surveillance and the law - which is rather different in the U.S. and in the UK, New Zealand and Australia, because only the U.S. has a real
explicitly written constitution with inalienable rights (or that is at least how it is
supposed to work):

In the United States, we’ve got this big debate, but we’ve got official paralysis—because they’re the ones who had their hand caught most deeply in the cookie jar. And there are unquestionable violations of our Constitution. Many of our ally states don’t have these constitutional protections—in the UK, in New Zealand, in Australia. They’ve lost the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause. All of those countries, in the wake of these surveillance revelations, rushed through laws that were basically ghostwritten by the National Security Agency to enable mass surveillance without court oversight, without all of the standard checks and balances that one would expect. Which leads us inevitably to the question: Where are we going to reject that easy but flawed process of letting the intelligence services do whatever they want?

Well... the laws written "to enable mass surveillance without court oversight, without all of the standard checks and balances that one would expect" were written, I think, because "our democratically elected governors" just could not resist the itch and lure of absolute power over everyone, which is what secret
surveillance of everyone by a few hundredthousands of former colleagues of
Edward Snowden will amount to, if it is not radically checked and broken down.

Then there is this on the differences between Nixon and Bush Jr. and Obama:

Richard Nixon got kicked out of Washington for tapping one hotel suite. Today we’re tapping every American citizen in the country, and no one has been put on trial for it or even investigated. We don’t even have an inquiry into it.

In part, that is also related to the decline of the free press that was again triggered by the arisal of the personal computer. But in any case, the difference
is enormous - and shows again that few in government want to give up on the
absolute power idea of surveilling everyone.

As to rights, there is this:

We only have the rights that we protect. It doesn’t matter what we say or think we have. It’s not enough to believe in something; it matters what we actually defend. So when we think in the context of the last decade’s infringements upon personal liberty and the last year’s revelations, it’s not about surveillance. It’s about liberty. When people say, “I have nothing to hide,” what they’re saying is, “My rights don’t matter.” Because you don’t need to justify your rights as a citizen—that inverts the model of responsibility. The government must justify its intrusion into your rights. If you stop defending your rights by saying, “I don’t need them in this context” or “I can’t understand this,” they are no longer rights. You have ceded the concept of your own rights. You’ve converted them into something you get as a revocable privilege from the government, something that can be abrogated at its convenience. And that has diminished the measure of liberty within a society.

Well... yes. But in that sense there are few rights, simply because there are - comparatively, to be sure - few people who stand up to defend their rights when
these are attacked.

Indeed, that is one of the big problems: When you are talking about rights, creativity, freedom, you are in fact talking mostly about a minority of people
who are actively for these rights, who can be creative in some major way, amd who have sensible ideas about using their freedoms etc.

I do not know how large the minority is, but I do know it is a minority. And that is deeply problematic, in that the majority does not even see the difficulties in
there being secret dossiers about anyone that may contain everything a person has done with a computer or cellphone.

I'll return to that below. First there is this on Snowden's motives:

I did what I did because I believe it is the right thing to do, and I will continue to do that. However, when it comes to political engagement, I’m not a politician—I’m an engineer. I read these polls because civil-liberties organizations tell me I need to be aware of public opinion. The only reason I do these interviews—I hate talking about myself, I hate doing this stuff—is because incredibly well-meaning people, whom I respect and trust, tell me that this will help bring about positive changes. It’s not going to cause a sea change, but it will benefit the public.

Yes, indeed - I'd say Snowden is a wobbly. What is a wobbly? It is a term of C. Wright Mills, that is explained in the Wikipedia article on him as follows, in Mills' own words, in a book that he was writing to a supposed Soviet Russian intellectual called Tovarich:

You've asked me, 'What might you be?' Now I answer you: 'I am a Wobbly.' I mean this spiritually and politically. In saying this I refer less to political orientation than to political ethos, and I take Wobbly to mean one thing: the opposite of bureaucrat. […] I am a Wobbly, personally, down deep, and for good. I am outside the whale, and I got that way through social isolation and self-help. But do you know what a Wobbly is? It's a kind of spiritual condition. Don't be afraid of the word, Tovarich. A Wobbly is not only a man who takes orders from himself. He's also a man who's often in the situation where there are no regulations to fall back upon that he hasn't made up himself. He doesn't like bosses –capitalistic or communistic – they are all the same to him. He wants to be, and he wants everyone else to be, his own boss at all times under all conditions and for any purposes they may want to follow up. This kind of spiritual condition, and only this, is Wobbly freedom

Again, this is a small minority of people, at least in my - rather extensive - experience.

Now back to the majority and the minority:

The issue is too abstract for average people, who have too many things going on in their lives. And we do not live in a revolutionary time. People are not prepared to contest power. We have a system of education that is really a sort of euphemism for indoctrination. It’s not designed to create critical thinkers. We have a media that goes along with the government by parroting phrases intended to provoke a certain emotional response—for example, “national security.” Everyone says “national security” to the point that we now must use the term “national security.” But it is not national security that they’re concerned with; it is state security. And that’s a key distinction. We don’t like to use the phrase “state security” in the United States because it reminds us of all the bad regimes. But it’s a key concept, because when these officials are out on TV, they’re not talking about what’s good for you. They’re not talking about what’s good for business. They’re not talking about what’s good for society. They’re talking about the protection and perpetuation of a national state system.

Yes, indeed - but this does not say much about the big problem that a lot of
the internet freedoms and rights are only creatively useful for a relatively small group of people (that may still be tens or hundreds of millions), while the majority of the current users of the internet or cell phones (over 3 billion) just is not interested, doesn't understand or doesn't care.

Next, there is this on two kinds of surveillance:

The issue I brought forward most clearly was that of mass surveillance, not of surveillance in general. It’s OK if we wiretap Osama bin Laden. I want to know what he’s planning—obviously not him nowadays, but that kind of thing. I don’t care if it’s a pope or a bin Laden. As long as investigators must go to a judge—an independent judge, a real judge, not a secret judge—and make a showing that there’s probable cause to issue a warrant, then they can do that. And that’s how it should be done. The problem is when they monitor all of us, en masse, all of the time, without any specific justification for intercepting in the first place, without any specific judicial showing that there’s a probable cause for that infringement of our rights.

Yes indeed. And the reason for mass surveillance is quite different from the one given: it is control of everyone by secretively knowing what they are doing and thinking, and using that knowledge to upset them wherever their goals are not what the government desires.

Then there is this on mass movements and revolutions:

Snowden: In case you haven’t noticed, I have a somewhat sneaky way of effecting political change. I don’t want to directly confront great powers, which we cannot defeat on their terms. They have more money, more clout, more airtime. We cannot be effective without a mass movement, and the American people today are too comfortable to adapt to a mass movement. But as inequality grows, the basic bonds of social fraternity are fraying—as we discussed in regard to Occupy Wall Street. As tensions increase, people will become more willing to engage in protest. But that moment is not now.

Yes, and I certainly agree that, at present, there is no basis for a mass movement or indeed a revolution in the U.S.

Snowden: There’s a real danger in the way our representative government functions today. It functions properly only when paired with accountability. Candidates run for election on campaign promises, but once they’re elected they renege on those promises, which happened with President Obama on Guantánamo, the surveillance programs and investigating the crimes of the Bush administration. These were very serious campaign promises that were not fulfilled.

Yes indeed - there is no real accountability for political leaders, for high bureaucrats, for bank managers, and also not, at least in the United States,
for very rich people.

And that is a major shortcoming, that exists largely by design, and that strongly undermines any real democracy.

Finally, here is a brief political statement by Snowden:

I’m not a communist, a socialist or a radical.

Well... I'm not a communist nor a socialist as well, and indeed my main reason not to be (unlike my parents, who were sincere and intelligent communists) is that both seem inherently totalitarian to me, and I am a strong opponent of that
- and yes, I know in theory there is no need for this, but then communists and
socialists have rarely thought well about power.

As to (not) being a radical: I would guess Snowden is a radical by most men's standards. I suppose his meaning is that he does not speak for radical solutions
to social problems, but then that is a different meaning of the term.

In any case, I think you should read all of this interview: it is good and it is quite long, but also quite interesting.

6. Plumbing the Depths of NSA’s Spying

The next and last item for today is an article by Lars Schall on Consortium News, that is in fact a rather long and quite good interview with William Binney:

This starts as follows:

William Binney, who spent 36 years in the National Security Agency rising to become the NSA’s technical director for intelligence, has emerged as one of the most knowledgeable critics of excesses in the NSA’s spying programs, some of which he says managed to both violate the U.S. Constitution and provesince the late 1960ies inefficient in tracking terrorists.

Binney has been described as one of the best analysts in NSA’s history combining expertise in intelligence analysis, traffic analysis, systems analysis, knowledge management and mathematics (including set theory, number theory and probability). He resigned in October 2001 and has since criticized the NSA’s massive monitoring programs.

I do think - if you are interested in the NSA - that you should read all of this.

Here are a few selections. First, here is Binney on his statements to the German parliament:

Anyway, it was quite lengthy and very thorough, and my whole point was to try to get across to them that what NSA and the intelligence community in the Five Eyes, at least, and probably in some of the other countries (I don’t know exactly which ones and I’ve made this clear, but I think they’re not doing it alone) is the idea of collecting massive amounts of data is just like the STASI – except this time I kind of tried to get across to them that it’s like the STASI on super steroids.

As Wolfgang Schmidt, the former lieutenant colonel of East German STASI, commented about NSA’s surveillance program: For us, this would have been a dream come true. Well, that’s the whole point of it, it’s so invasive, it’s digital surveillance on a massive scale, and I tried to get that across to them. Because this is basically a fundamental threat to our democracy and every democracy around the world. You know, I call it over here in the United States the greatest threat to our democracy since our Civil War.

Yes indeed: The NSA is the STASI on super steroids, and that also is and always was their main end, if not since the late 1960ies then since 9/11: To spy on everyone.

And here is the technique they use:

And of course they are all doing it on the basis of fear-mongering of terrorism. They try to get everybody afraid so they will do whatever they want, that’s the kind of leverage that they are trying to use not just against the public, but also against Congress. It’s just all based on fear-mongering. The whole point is to get more money and build a bigger empire, which they have done. Over here, we’ve spent, for all the 16 agencies, close to a trillion dollars since 9/11. That’s really been a money-making proposition for them, this fear-mongering. Now they are doing it with cyber security. It’s how you control your population, how you manipulate them, and how you let them pay for things you want done.

Precisely, as indeed Hermann Goering knew as well.

Next, Lars Schall gives a good quotation on Senator Frank Church and his work (I refer you to the last link) and William Binney answers this as follows:

Frank Church captured it right away. The point is that they are in the process of perfecting this whole operation, and the point is that now that everybody has a greater capacity to communicate the invasion of privacy or the intrusion into what people’s lives is all about is even worse then what Frank Church could have known. Back then he was only thinking about and looking at the landline telephone calls, where now it’s not only that but also mobile phones, satellite phones, the internet, the computers, the tablets, and so on. All the networks people are carrying around.

There are at least over 3 ½ billion phones in the world, and something very similar in terms of computers. The explosion has been tremendous both in terms of volume and in terms of numbers. Frank Church couldn’t have dreamt about that in his time; he was just talking about a smaller segment of what was available that time. And now the intrusion is even greater.

Which means that the dangers have multiplied many powers of ten times - it is a million time worse, at least, than Frank Church could foresee in the 1970ies.

Finally, here is Binney on the U.S. Department of Justice and others:

I mean, that’s our Department of Justice; that’s not justice, that’s criminal. So, what they’re doing, the House and Senate intelligence committees, the FISA court, the Department of Justice and the White House, they are trying to cover up any exposure of this, and that’s why they were really after Snowden, and that’s why they wanted to stop all those leaks. It’s exposing them for the crimes they were committing against the people of United States and against the people of the world.

Yes, indeed. And as I said: You really want to read all of the interview if you are interested in the NSA.

[1] 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 government, if good, is part of its executive power. Here I quote Aristotle from my More on stupidity, the rule of law, and Glenn Greenwald:
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 quote from is quite pertinent.)

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