1. Proven Wrong About Many of Its Assertions, Is
the GOP’s Not-So-Secret Plan to Dismantle
3. Obama, Our 'Peace President' Turns Out to Be Rather
4. Jeremy Corbyn Easily Re-Elected Labour
5. Noam Chomsky on the
Evolution of Language: A
This is a Nederlog of Sunday, September 25, 2016.
is a crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is about
psychiatry, which is a fraudulent pseudoscience according to me
(the last 50 years, also). It may be doubted this is a crisis
item, but it is included here for those who are interested. Item 2 is about the GOP's plan to destroy the
livelihood of the poor: Being a psychologist, I have a fair and
precise term for those tryng to do that: Sadists. Item 3 is on the fraud Obama (who may be rewarded as
much as Clinton was for his services to the rich) who took care the
Americans will spend trillions on new atomic weapons, among
other things; item 4 is about a rare bit of Good
News: Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected as Labour leader, and even better
than the last time; and item 5 is about another
non-crisis item that I included, namely a good interview with Noam
Chomsky, indeed about linguistics.
Also, there is an earlier Nederlog today, namely the latest in the
series "me+ME: Update about my vitamins", which is indeed about that.
In case you visit my
Dutch site: I do not know, but it may be you need
to click twice
to see any changes I have made. This certainly held for
possible this was caused by the fact that I am also writing it from my
In any case, I am now (again) updating
the opening of my site with the last day it was updated.
(And I am very sorry if you have to click several times to see
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. And
it was yesterday still or again the case. Indeed, this also
holds for the opening pages: These too are not renewed at
"xs4all", or at least: Not for me.) 
1. Proven Wrong About Many of Its Assertions, Is Psychiatry
item today is by Bruce
Levine (who is "a practising clinical psychologist") on AlterNet:
This starts as follows:
In the current issue of the
Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Australian dissident psychiatrist
Niall McLaren titles his article, “Psychiatry as Bullshit” and makes a
case for just that.
I say. And I don't say so because I
disagree, but because I did pay attention to Niall McLaren in 2011,
when he wasn't quite as far yet. The longest article I
published about McLaren is this, from August
21, 2011 (over 5 years ago).
Also, I am a philosopher and a psychologist who
absolutely never believed psychiatry is a real science;
who always insisted it is at best (!) a pseudoscience (<-Wikipedia) and who
has said since he knows about Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" that psychiatry
also was plain bullshit.
Indeed, I did so in part because I am now a mere 37 years the victim
of the bullshit pseudoscience psychiatry, for I have ME, which these
bullshitters and frauds (see below) classify as belonging to their
pseudoscience because that would profit them financially.
And I wrote a long and very good article in 2012, DSM-5:
Question 1 of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" which explains my position in detail.
So no... I don't really need a clinical psychologist to assure
me in 2016 what was no news to me in 1966 (for then I
bought and read the first book about psychiatry) but I repeat parts of
it here as a service to my readers: Unless you are totally mad, you
better avoid psychiatrists! 
Here is a first bit about the lies that psychiatrists used since 1980,
according to Ronald Pies (whose last name in Dutch means "Piss"):
The great controversies in
psychiatry are no longer about its chemical-imbalance theory of mental
illness or its DSM diagnostic system, both of which have now been
declared invalid even by the pillars of the psychiatry establishment.In 2011, Ronald Pies, editor-in-chief emeritus of
the Psychiatric Times, stated,
“In truth, the ‘chemical imbalance’ notion was always a kind of urban
legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed
I am sorry, but Pies lied. Both the chemical
imbalance baloney and the bullshit that were the DSM-III, the DSM-IV
and the DSM 5, were all defended, repeated, asserted, abused, lied and
put forward again and again by all manner of what Pies calls "well-informed psychiatrists": He was
merely lying - in 2011 - about the last 30 years of psychiatry.
So, the great controversy today
has now become just how psychiatry can be most fairly characterized
given its record of being proven
wrong about virtually all of its assertions, most notably its
classifications of behaviors, theories of “mental illness” and
treatment effectiveness/adverse effects.
And why would you not call a bunch of
liars and frauds a bunch of liars and frauds? If they are proven
wrong (I agree!) about "virtually all of its
assertions, most notably its classifications of behaviors, theories of
“mental illness” and treatment effectiveness/adverse effects"?!?! As they have been?!
First, there is this about psychiatry as pseudoscience
In “Psychiatry as Bullshit,”
McLaren begins by considering several different categories of
“nonscience with scientific pretensions,” such as “pseudoscience” and
“Pseudoscience” is commonly
defined as a collection of beliefs and practices promulgated as
scientific but in reality mistakenly regarded as being based on
scientific method. The NIMH director ultimately rejected the DSM
because of its lack of validity, which is crucial to the scientific
method. In the DSM, psychiatric illnesses are created by an APA
committee, 69 percent of whom have financial
ties to Big Pharma. The criteria for DSM illness are not objective
biological ones but non-scientific subjective ones (which is why
homosexuality was a DSM mental illness until the early 1970s). Besides
lack of scientific validity, the DSM lacks
scientific reliability, as clinicians routinely disagree on
diagnoses because patients act differently in different circumstances
and because of the subjective nature of the criteria.
Clearly a branch of pretended
science that consistently lies and deceives is a pseudoscience. Also,
the "scientific reliability" is total trash: The absolutely only
thing that is measured in the DSMs is the amount of
agreement among psychiatrists in their diagnoses - not
whether these diagnoses are correct (and they are usually bullshit), nor
whether the psychiatry is a science, nor whether these
psychiatrists know what science is: ALL that is measured is the
degree of their (dis)agreement on their (mostly nonsensical) diagnoses
- and these are pretty abysmal as well, in many cases (in part because since
1979, when there were between 40 and 50 "psychiatric disorders"
there have since then been created over 400 more of these
"disorders", all because that pays very well, and not
because this had anything to do with real science).
Then we have this, which is
“Fraud” is a
misrepresentation, a deception intended for personal gain, and implies
an intention to deceive others of the truth—or “lying.” Drug companies,
including those that manufacture psychiatric drugs, have been convicted of
fraud, as have high-profile psychiatrists (as well as other doctors).
Human rights activist and attorney Jim Gottstein offers an argument as
to why the APA is a “fraudulent
enterprise”; however, the APA has not been legally convicted of
To best characterize
psychiatry, McLaren considers the category of “bullshit,” invoking
philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s 1986 journal article “On
Bullshit” (which became a New York Times bestselling book in 2005).
Why is fraud a misrepresentation
if most American psychiatrists only prescribe pills (usually
without a real diagnosis) they earn a lot on, while their
pretended science is a pseudoscience (<-Wikipedia)? They are earning 20, 30, 50, 100
or more times than I am earning, who is a psychologist and a
philosopher, and what they earn, practising a pseudoscience, is
what keeps them psychiatrists. How is this not
Behold the GOP’s Not-So-Secret
Plan to Dismantle Government Services
Anyway... there is a lot more in the article, which is recommended, but
which also is by a clinical psychologist (also not a real
science, says this psycho- logist since 1980, as is supported by Paul
Lutus) about the pseudoscience of psychiatry, that in the last 35
years has frauded tens or hundreds of billions of dollars out of
the pockets of naive Americans.
The second item is by Paul Rosenberg
This starts as follows:
I say. Here is what the GOP set out to
One side effect of the three-ring circus this
presidential campaign has become is the distraction it provides so that
other damaging agendas can be advanced with little or no attention.
Take for example, the Republican Party’s long-standing efforts to
dismantle America’s internationally modest, but still crucially
important welfare state, which helps keep tens of millions of Americans
out of poverty. Social Security and Medicare have both been top targets
via various schemes over the years, and this budget cycle is no
exception, regardless of what noises Donald Trump may make.
Not only does Social Security lift tens
of millions of retirees out of poverty, but in 2014 3.2 million
American kids directly received Social Security benefits, mostly in the
form of survivor benefits. Another 10 million disabled workers were
covered as well. But it’s not just these many millions of people who
benefit: Retirement security for grandparents means more money for
parents to invest in their children’s future. Security for orphans and
disabled workers have similar spillover benefits as well. So attacks on
Social Security really are a threat to Americans of all ages, now as
well as in the future.
Those attacks are already well under way,
thanks to the austerity measures imposed since the Tea Party first
arrived in Washington with the GOP congressional wave of 2010. (The
money comes directly from workers — not from the overall Federal budget
— but Congress controls the spending.)
Now Republicans in Congress just want to
make matters worse, with cuts that will require 10 furlough days —
which equates to a two-week shutdown of Social
Security. “Government doesn’t work,” they’re saying, “Watch, we’ll
show you how to make sure!” The amount of money involved is
trivial — about 7 cents for every $100 of benefits paid. And it
all comes out of money that recipients have paid into the system
Bear in mind, this is what the “responsible
Republicans” in Washington are doing — more of what they’ve been doing
since the 2010 midterms gave them control of the House.
Since I am a psychologist, I have a
perfectly adequate term for the GOPers that do these thiings: They are
simply rich sadists indulging their perversions.
I am sorry, but if you treat the poor as poorly as the GOP
wants to, this is what you are.
3. Obama, Our 'Peace President' Turns Out to Be Rather
The third item is by Tom Engelhardt on AlterNet and originally on
This is from the beginning (and I am
selecting three bits from much more):
And why? Because Obama was a "leftish" fraud like Bill
Clinton was. Here is also how Obama extended the wars the USA conducts:
Nuking the Planet: I’m sure you
remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the Oval Office pledging to work toward “a nuclear-free world.” You know, the
president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say stirringly: “So today, I state clearly and with
conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a
world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we
will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security
strategy, and urge others to do the same.” That same year, he was
awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do,
particularly in the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!
Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace
president, the only one who has ever called for nuclear “abolition”—and
whose administration has retired fewer weapons in our nuclear arsenal than any
other in the post-Cold War era—is now presiding over the early stages of a trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal.
Note that the USA also is - formally - not "at war" with any
of these, it seems because they are easier bombed (maybe better as
well) without any decla- ration of war.
Plain Old Bombing: Recall that
in October 2001, when the Bush administration launched its invasion of
Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In
fact, it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly
“liberated,” the Taliban crushed, al-Qaeda put to flight, and that
was that, or so it then seemed.
On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington
Post reported that, over a single weekend and in a
“flurry” of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs on, or fired missiles
at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya,
Yemen, and Somalia.
And here is the third item about Obama's proud presidency:
Selling Arms As If There Were No
Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center for International
Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a stunning figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi
Arabia. “Since taking office in January 2009," he wrote, "the Obama administration has offered over
$115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia in 42 separate deals,
more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi
According to Tom Engelhardt -
"You must be kidding!" - this is all sick. I cannot say I disagree.
This is a recommended article, also with considerably more.
4. Jeremy Corbyn Easily Re-Elected Labour Party Leader
The fourth item is by Andrea Germanos on
This starts as follows, and is the only bit I
will quote, but this is a bit of Good News to me:
Corbyn got 61.8 percent of the vote to
opponent Owen Smith's 38.2. The Guardian reports
that the 67-year-old "won a majority over Smith in every
category—members, registered supporters, and trades union affiliates.
He won the support of 59 percent of voting members, 70 percent of
registered supporters, and 60 percent of affiliated supporters."
Cory Doctorow writes
at BoingBoing that his reelection came despite sabotage from
his own party and the UK press's efforts to "to sideline, belittle and
dismiss him." As such, Doctorow argues, "it is nothing short of a
miracle that Corbyn has won the leadership race, and that, moreover, he
has increased his lead, beyond last year's landslide, with a higher
voter turnout than ever."
In fact the Bristol Post writes,
it was "one of the most one-sided contests in the history of the party."
The reasons I consider this Good News are
(1) I like Jeremy Corbyn, indeed for roughly the same reasons as I like
Bernie Sanders: Both are honest politicians (rare these days) and both
are genuine Leftists (very rare these days),
and also because (2) I dislike most of the Blairite careerists that
attempted to take over the Labour Party since multi-millionair fraud
and warmonger Tony Blair took it over.
5. Noam Chomsky on the Evolution of Language: A
There is a bit more in the article, which is recommended - and at least
the ordinary members of Labour can still reason as I do. I hope they
also will succeed in ousting the Blairite careerist parlementarians.
The fifth and last item today is by C.J. Polychroniou on Truthout:
This starts as follows, and is here mostly
because (1) I like Noam Chomsky both as a scientist and as an
anarchist, and because (2) C.J. Polychroniou has been preparing a
series of interviews with Chomsky, that is quite good, and which has
been quoted before in Nederlog.
The following also are brief selections from a lot more. It starts with
Human language is crucial to the
scientific quest to understand what kind of creatures we are and, thus
crucial to unlocking the mysteries of human nature.
In the interview that follows, Noam
Chomsky, the scholar who single-handedly revolutionized the modern
field of linguistics, discusses the evolution of language and lays out
the biolinguist perspective -- the idea that a human being's language
represents a state of some component of the mind. This is an idea that
continues to baffle many non-experts, many of whom have sought to
challenge Chomsky's theory of language without really understanding it.
I take that for granted, and continue with
the first quotation:
Noam Chomsky: At
the outset of the modern scientific revolution, Galileo and the
scientist-philosophers of the monastery of Port Royal issued a crucial
challenge to those concerned with the nature of human language, a
challenge that had only occasionally been recognized until it was taken
up in the mid-20th century and became the primary concern of much of
the study of language. For short, I'll refer to it as the Galilean
challenge. These great founders of modern science were awed by the fact
that language permits us (in their words) to construct "from 25 or 30
sounds an infinite variety of expressions, which although not having
any resemblance in themselves to that which passes through our minds,
nevertheless do not fail to reveal all of the secrets of the mind, and
to make intelligible to others who cannot penetrate into the mind all
that we conceive and all of the diverse movements of our souls."
Yes, indeed, although I think there is more
in the human mind than can be indicated by language. There is a
little more below.
First, here is Chomsky on "the Basic Property of
Yes, indeed. And this leads to the last thing
I will quote from this article:
But why is it that the view of
language as a species-specific capacity is not taken up until well into
the 20th century?
There is a good reason why the insights
languished until mid-20th century: intellectual tools were not
available for even formulating the problem in a clear enough way to
address it seriously. That changed thanks to the work of Alan Turing
and other great mathematicians who established the general theory of
computability on a firm basis (...)
With these intellectual tools available, it
becomes possible to formulate what we may call the Basic Property of
human language: The language faculty provides the means to construct a
digitally infinite array of structured expressions, each of which has a
semantic interpretation expressing a thought, and each of which can be
externalized by means of some sensory modality. The infinite set of
semantically interpreted objects constitutes what has sometimes been
called a "language of thought": the system of thoughts that receive
linguistic expression and that enter into reflection, inference,
planning and other mental processes, and when externalized, can be used
for communication and other social interactions. By far, the major use
of language is internal -- thinking in language.
In fact, I think - since the 1960s, also -
that the representationalist theory is correct - if it is reformulated
as being about thoughts about things rather than real things.
In fact, I even changed the definition of truth (<- in my
Philosophical Ditctionary) to account for that.
What about the so-called
representational doctrine about language? What makes it a false idea
for human language?
As I mentioned, the conventional view is
that atomic elements of language are cultural products, and that the
basic ones -- those used for referring to the world -- are associated
with extra-mental entities. This representationalist doctrine has been
almost universally adopted in the modern period. The doctrine appears
to hold for animal communication: a monkey's calls, for example, are
associated with specific physical events. But the doctrine is radically
false for human language, as was recognized as far back as classical
Then again, Chomsky is right that most others, e.g. Hilary Putnam, saw
this quite differently, for Putnam repeatedly argued that "meanings are
not in the head".
I think Putnam was quite mistaken, and I also think that a semantics
without explicitly considering meanings as separate from whatever facts
that may support them is baloney.
But there is a lot more Chomsky in this article, which is recommended.
this is precisely as I said it does, and it goes on for
months now. I
do not know who does it, and I refuse to call the liars of
(really: the KPN), simply because these haven been lying to me from
2002-2009, and I do not trust anything they say I cannot control
myself: They have treated me for seven years as a liar because
"you complain about things other people do not complain about" (which
is the perfect excuse never to do anything whatsoever for
while I think most of psychology is not a real science, and none of
psychiatry ever was, I am not saying all psychologists and all
psychiatrists are worthless.
What I am saying is that their pretented science is not a real science.
It may be true that some of them are effective for some patients or
some persons, for the simple reason that they may be honest and
rational, and did see a lot of people with problems of various kinds.
(I indeed think there are some, but in a fairly small minority.)
 You'll have to
find out yourself - if you are interested - what I think about
psychiatry and psychology, but the main essay I wrote about it is this:
Question 1 of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis"
while there are about 131 more articles (!!) I wrote about the DSM
100 Nederlogs about and around the APA and the DSM-5 (from 2012, originally).
Perhaps it helps if you remember that I did take the psychology
M.A. with a straight A (and without ever hearing any lectures I could