Three Professors of Psychiatry Call for 'Neuropsychiatric
Evaluation' of Trump out of
Fears He's Mentally Ill
2. Donald Trump’s Energy Nostalgia and the Path to Hell
3. Russia-Hack Story, Another Media Failure
4. The UK's ‘National Security’ Plan? It's a Blueprint for a
5. The Bullshit Era
is a Nederlog of Tuesday, December 20, 2016.
is a crisis
log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1
is about a letter that - very correctly and responsibly in my view -
some prominent psychiatrists wrote about Trump's megalomania to
President Obama; item 2 is about an article that
sets out that Trump's campaign promises about energy are inconsistent; item 3 is about an article that outlines the very
radical collapse in respect for the truth in the mainstream media; item 4 is about the recent changes in the law
that makes Great Britain a neofascist police state (and I am very
sorry, but this seems to be the case); and item 5
is about the prevalence of bullshit in the mainstream media,
and also about its definition: I define it - simply, but well - as
lying or deceiving.
part, for the moment --
In case you visit my
Dutch site: It keeps being horrible most days and was so on most days in
But on 2.xii and 3.xii it was correct. Since then it mostly wasn't
(until and including 19.xii).
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/reload several times
last update: It is not what I wish, nor how it was. 
In case you visit my
Danish site: This was so-so till 18.xi
and was correct since then (most or all days).
I am very
sorry, and none of it is due to me. I
am simply doing the same things as I did for 20 or for 12 years, that
also went well for 20 or for 12 years.
keep this introduction until I get three successive days
in which both providers work correctly. I have not seen
for many months now.
Three Professors of Psychiatry Call for 'Neuropsychiatric Evaluation'
of Trump out of Fears He's Mentally Ill
The first item
today is by Tom Boggioni on AlterNet and originally on The Raw Story:
This starts as follows:
In a letter addressed to President
Barack Obama, three professors of psychiatry — including one from
Harvard Medical School — expressed fears that President-elect Donald
Trump’s exhibits signs he may not be mentally fit to assume the
I should start by saying that I am a
psychologist (not a clinical one, though) who thoroughly
agrees with these professors of psychiatry, and who does so since
over 9 months.
In fact, here is a link
to the article in which I said so, more than 9 monts ago, from which I
also quote the nine psychiatric points that convinced me (as a
psychologist, who had a lot more to do with disturbed people
than most psychologists did ) that Donald Trump
is very probably a megalomaniac
aka grandiose narcissist :
- Observed lack of insight into the
impact they have on others
- More likely to regulate self-esteem
through overt self-enhancement
- Denial of weaknesses
- Intimidating demands of entitlement
- Consistent anger in unmet expectations
- Devaluation of people that threaten
- Diminished awareness of the
dissonance between their expectations and reality, along with the
impact this has on relationships
- Overt presentation of grandiose
- Conflict within the environment is
generally experienced as external to these individuals and not a
measure of their own unrealistic expectations
The videos I had then seen about Trump evidently
showed that he manifests each and every of these
points. Indeed, I add that everybody who reads these points
(that define megalomaniacs  for psychiatrists)
who is not quite stupid nor quite prejudiced should
make the same inference: If psychiatry is a science and if
its lists of symptoms define people's specific kinds of madness, both
of which are strongly maintained by the APA, then
anybody with a decent mind should be able to make the same
inference as I made.
Indeed, here is more:
In the letter, which can be found
at The Huffington Post, Judith Herman, M.D. a
professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School — along with two
professors who taught at the University of California, San Francisco —
made the appeal to Obama based upon their “grave concern” after
watching Trump’s antics.
Yes, of course: Anybody who saw the litany
of lies and
degeneracies Trump engaged in as a presidential candidate should
have "grave concern" - and especially psychiatrists and
psychologists who are trained to diagnose the mental properties of
people. And the letter - see The Huffington Post - is quite good, quite clear,
and uses the same 9 points as I used.
Here is more:
“We are writing to express our grave
concern regarding the mental stability of our President-Elect,” the
letter reads. “Professional standards do not permit us to venture a
diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally.”
I agree there are such "professional
standards", but these are completely inapplicable to the
election of the most powerful person on earth, who very probably will not
wish to see any psychiatrist or psychologist.
As to "diagnosis" and "professional": Both
terms are in fact used in a specific sense that mostly serve
the psychiatrists' claims to be the only ones capable of
diagnosing persons, but in fact are quite misleading here.
In case of the mental health of the
most powerful person on earth, people whose specialism is
pronouncing on the mental health of persons, who believe they do
know something relevant based on their special knowledge, should
so, simply to say clearly what they think as specialists on mental
health - and if they don't want to call this "a diagnosis"
because this might conflict with their "professional standards" -
vis-à-vis a person who will get the power to blow up everyone
with nuclear arms and completely destroy human civilization -
then don't call it "a diagnosis", but insist that you are
qualified. And so they do:
“His widely reported symptoms of mental
instability — including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to
slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between
fantasy and reality — lead us to question his fitness for the immense
responsibilities of the office,” it continues. “We strongly recommend
that, in preparation for assuming these responsibilities, he receive a
full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by an impartial team of
But of course there also is the unethical
and irresponsible APA President Maria A. Oquendo, who
wrote these lines:
“This year, the election seems like
anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright
vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead
some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not
only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.”
I should add that I dislike the
APA for quite a few reasons, that may be summarized by these two
points: (1) I maintain - as a psychologist, whose longest and clearest
article about psychiatry and psychiatrist is here - that psychiatry is far
less of a real science than the vast plurality of
psychiatrists claim, and (2) I also maintain that the APA deeply collaborates
with the pharmaceutical corporations who excel in frauds and
deceptions, which it does do because pharmaceutical
corporations earn enormous
amounts of money, that in part may be used, and are being used, to make
leading psychiatrists multi-millionaires, essentially by fraud and
corruption (see here for more
than a hundred articles about this).
But as I explained, none of the
last three paragraphs seem very material as long as psychiatrists do not
claim the term "diagnosis" but simply say - as they have both
the right and the moral duty to do - that in the light of
their own professional knowledge an extremely powerful
politician does not seem sane, and that they have the duty
to say so as responsible persons, if only because that person
will very soon be able to blow up everyone.
Which is what they did, and which I agree
to. And this is a recommended article.
2. Donald Trump’s Energy Nostalgia and the Path to Hell
The second item is by Michael T. Klare on Truthdig and originally on
This starts as follows:
Scroll through Donald Trump’s campaign
promises or listen to his speeches and you could easily conclude that
policy consists of little more than a wish list drawn up by the
major fossil fuel companies: lift environmental restrictions on oil and
natural gas extraction, build the Keystone XL and Dakota Access
pipelines, open more federal lands to drilling, withdraw from the Paris
climate agreement, kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan, revive the coal
mining industry, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.
In fact, many of his proposals have simply been lifted
straight from the talking points of top energy industry officials and
their lavishly financed allies in Congress.
If, however, you take a closer look at
this morass of pro-carbon proposals, an obvious, if as yet unnoted,
contradiction quickly becomes apparent. Were all Trump’s policies to be
enacted—and the appointment
of the climate-change denier and industry- friendly attorney general of
Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, to head the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) suggests the attempt will be made—not all segments of the energy
industry will flourish. Instead, many fossil fuel companies will
be annihilated, thanks to the rock-bottom fuel prices produced by a
colossal oversupply of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Yes indeed: This seems quite true. And one
possible reason Trump's "campaign promises" are inconsistent is that over 70% over Trump's
pronouncements were lies
anyway. Here is some more (from four pages of texts, that are too long
to properly extract):
If all of Trump’s proposals are enacted,
U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will soar, wiping out the declines
of recent years and significantly increasing the pace of global
warming. Given that other major GHG emitters, especially India
and China, will feel less obliged
to abide by their Paris commitments if the U.S. heads down that path,
it’s almost certain that atmospheric warming will soar beyond the 2
degree Celsius rise over pre-industrial levels that scientists consider
the maximum the planet can absorb without suffering catastrophic
repercussions. And if, as promised, Trump also repeals a whole
raft of environmental regulations and essentially dismantles
the Environmental Protection Agency, much of the progress made over
recent years in improving our air and water quality will simply be
wiped away, and the skies over our cities and suburbs will once again
turn gray with smog and toxic pollutants of all sorts.
Quite possibly so. There is also this:
With more petroleum entering the market
all the time and insufficient world demand to soak it up, prices have
remained at depressed levels for more than two years, severely
affecting fracking operations as well. Many U.S. frackers,
including some in the Bakken formation, have found themselves forced to
suspend operations or declare
bankruptcy because each new barrel of fracked oil costs more to
produce than it can be sold for.
Trump’s approach to this predicament—pump out as much oil as possible
here and in Canada—is potentially disastrous, even in energy industry
That is, unless Trump knows a way
in which the oil price will get up (which seems quite
improbable, given the successes of solar and wind power).
Here is the last bit I'll quote from this article:
My own answers to the last question are in
fact two: First, Donald Trump is a bizarre and very probably crazy -
see item 1 - man, who in fact doesn't seem to know
much but who pretends He Is The Greatest Of The Great. And
second, more than 7 out of 10 of his sayings that were checked were lies or fantasies
In other words, Trump’s plan will
undoubtedly prove to be an enigma wrapped in a conundrum inside a
roiling set of contradictions. Although it appears to offer boom
times for every segment of the fossil fuel industry, only carbon as a
whole will benefit, while many individual companies and sectors of the
market will suffer. What could possibly be the motivation for
such a bizarre and planet-enflaming outcome?
The second fact also means that none of Trump's campaign
promises can be taken seriously, but I agree that Trump is a very
frightening man to become president of the USA.
3. Russia-Hack Story,
Another Media Failure
The third item is by Joe Lauria on
This starts as follows:
President Obama admitted
in his press conference on Friday that his government hasn’t released
any evidence yet of Russian interference in the election, but he said
some would be coming.
That’s proof that an uncritical press
has already printed stories as if true without any evidence just on the
say-so of the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization long
dedicated to deception, disinformation and meddling in other countries’
elections, not to mention arranging coups to overthrow elected
Forty years ago, the established press
would have been skeptical to buy anything the CIA was selling after a
series of Congressional committees exposed
a raft of criminal acts and abuses
of power by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Today’s
journalists work for newspapers that fraudulently still bear the names
New York Times and Washington Post, but they are no longer the same
I agree with most of this, though I do not
think it was or is a fraud that the New
York Times and Washington Post still bear the names they had for a very
long time and that also changed a lot at earlier times as well.
Then again, I agree that journalism
(not only in the USA, also) has changed a great lot during
the last 35 years. Here is Joe Lauria's personal experience
with these changes:
Neither the Times nor the Post suffered
any consequences and have picked up where they left off, still
uncritically reporting anonymous U.S. officials without demanding proof.
On the contrary, any reporter who did
demand evidence was in danger of career consequences. An editor for a
newspaper chain that I was reporting for called me to chew me out
because he said my stories were not in support of the Iraq war effort.
He told me his son was a Marine. I told him I was sure he was proud but
that my job was to report the news based on the evidence. On the very
day when the invasion began, I was fired.
I say. This editor clearly believed it was
not his duty to report the facts, but it was
his duty to do propaganda.
In fact, that seems to be the opinion of most "journalists" who these
days write as propagandists in the mainstream media.
Here is Joe Lauria's estimate of how
common this is, in the United States at least:
There have been a few periods in
American journalism when demanding proof from government was expected.
The muckraking period led by Lincoln Steffens of the Progressive Era
was one. The 1970s was another. But mostly it has been a business
filled with careerists who live vicariously through the powerful people
they cover, disregarding the even greater power the press has to cut
the powerful down to size.
I say, for this is worse than I
thought it is: This means that there were two periods of ca. 10 years
in which there was decent - fact based, evidence based -
journalism during the last 125 years, and the first of these was around
1900 and the second around 1970.
I certainly do not know the
American press as well as Joe Lauria does, but I am a bit less negative
about earlier journalism, were it only because at earlier times
the press had much more money (from advertisements)
and there also was much more variety in ownership and in
And this is a recommended article: Maybe
Lauria exaggerates a bit, but he is right that the present mainstream
media seem to lie,
and to deceive
much more than they did in the Seventies, and that
this is a major
danger for any real democracy.
4. The UK's ‘National Security’ Plan? It's a Blueprint for
a Police State
The fourth item today is by Nafeez Ahmed on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
In early December, the British
government released its first
annual report on the National Security Strategy and Strategic
Defence and Security Review.
Despite the total media blackout, the
document reveals in stark detail the Conservative government’s plans to
expand Britain’s military activities around the world.
In the name of defending "national
security", Britain is building a “permanent” military presence in the
Gulf to defend Britain’s access to regional energy resources; deploying
more troops into Eastern Europe, near Russia’s border; and drumming up
support for rampant arms sales to despots in search of better tools to
repress their own populations. This is all happening as it promotes
economic aid as a mechanism to open up poorer economies to “UK
Yes indeed, and the last paragraph makes
it quite clear that Great Britain is doing the same as the USA,
that is, it defines as "British interests" to have a permanent military
presence in many areas that are very far from Great Britain,
and it does so not to help the average Englishman, but to help
the English very rich (and only them).
Here is more:
Defending "national security" also means
making sure the British public don’t get too uppity about all this.
That means keeping an eye on what they're saying, emailing, posting on
social media and talking about in schools and universities.
And this is neofascist
intrusion into the personal, individual rights of 60 million Brits,
it seems by a bunch of deeply protected neofascist
secret spies. (In case you object against my use of "neofascism": it is
clearly defined in note .)
Here is some more:
Actually both "extremism" and "terrorism" are
quite ill defined in decent legal terms, and especially if used by the state's
terrorists to justify their own secret terrorism and secret
spying on 60 million Brits who in great majority are not
guilty of anything whatsoever.
The justification, of course, is
preventing and countering the extremism that leads to terrorism. But
the word "extremism" is so ill-defined it has already been deployed to
great effect under the government’s Preventing Violent Extremism
(Prevent) programme. The new national security strategy report
celebrates the massive expansion of Prevent, as well as the passing of
the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Police forces, local councils and schools
have been caught
identifying anti-fracking and
environmental protesters as posing “key risks” under Prevent.
Also, I repeat that state terrorists
- in Hitler's Germany, in Stalin's Russia, in Mao's China, in Pol Pot's
Cambodia - have been far more dangerous, in terms of people
killed, tortured and abused, than non-state terrorists.
This article ends as follows:
The Investigatory Powers Act will
enhance police powers to a vast extent: as the report says, it “brings
together the powers available to law enforcement and the security and
intelligence agencies to acquire communications and communications
No wonder it has been described as the “most
surveillance law ever passed in a
democracy”, according to the Open Rights Group.
The new annual report makes one thing
very clear. Britain is now not only a fully-fledged police state, it is
also an unashamed empire of predatory neo-liberal capitalism, which has
no qualms about abusing its military power to expand its reach.
I agree: Great Britain now is "a fully-fledged police state" and
it has adopted neofascism as its dominant
political policy (and no, this doesn't please me at all: it frightens
me, for I liked the Great Britain I learned to know in the
This starts as follows:
5. The Bullshit Era
The fifth and last item today is by Ezra Rosser on Common Dreams:
In the middle of the Bush II
Presidency, a literary classic was published: Harry G. Frankfurt’s On
Bullshit. Printed as an abnormally small hardback that
was perfect for tucking into a pocket or for pulling out
surreptitiously, the not-so-serious book adopted a serious approach to
the topic of bullshit. We are now at the start of an era that
sadly might be remembered by future generations, assuming of course
that independent free thought survives, as the era of bullshit.
I do like the popularization of the
concept of bullshit,
in part because bullshit is quite important itself, and also in part
because this was done by a philosopher.
Then again, Frankfurt's book clearly was not "a literary classic" when it was
published, and whether it will become one seems to me to be a future
judgement and not a present one ("assuming of
course that independent free thought survives",
which is not very likely, given the amounts of bullshit that are being published now, and the very strong
financial reasons to do so: it helps the very rich to lie and deceive, and
the very rich have a whole lot of money to support their falsities, and they
There is also this:
distinguishes bullshit from lying, explains that “the essence of
bullshit is not that it is fake but that it is phony,” and goes on to
argue that the bullshitter’s “only indispensably distinctive
characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up
to.” It is not an exaggeration to say that bullshit is
everywhere. It can be seen when every five year old on a soccer
team is given an end-of-the-season medal and when people agree to meet
at seven for dinner, knowing full well they will not make it on time.
I don't agree.
First, if you check the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which I did,
because it is American, you'll find that there is little
difference between what is fake ("imposture,
fraud, sham, fake, humbug, counterfeit mean a thing made to seem other
than it is") and what's phony ("not true, real, or genuine : intended to make someone think
something that is not true"), and indeed both also do not
differ much from what is bullshit ("to
talk nonsense especially with the intention of deceiving or
Second, I disagree with Frankfurt's analysis of bullshit, for the simple reason that bullshitters do have "the
intention of deceiving or misleading" (and that their eyes "are not on
the facts at all" is hardly relevant, and indeed makes it very
probable that they are lying or deceiving or misleading).
So my own analysis of bullshit is along the lines of
Merriam-Webster: It is language that is designed to deceive or
mislead, and if there is a difference between bullshit on the one
hand, and fake or phony messages on the other hand, it is in the
scale: The typical bullshitter lies on a larger scale than
many others, mostly because the typical bullshitter often engages in propaganda for
group, and not for a specific product.
Then again, Rosser is quite right that there
are enormous amounts of bullshit these days, indeed specifically
in politics (and religion):
Bullshit also enjoys a
privileged place in politics. The public should be forgiven for
not knowing that the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act is
in fact much better known for its bullshit name: U.S.A. Patriot
Act. Or that “Right to Work” laws actually are ways of further
crushing unions—as if that was needed. Both are examples of quality
bullshit. But we are entering into an era of unparalleled
Yes, though both are examples of just one
kind of bullshit: Choosing acronyms for laws that suggest something
contradictory to their real meanings. Finally, the article ends
But introspection and gloom only
go so far, it can be quite refreshing to acknowledge the
bullshit. Try it yourself. Say the word aloud. After
all, Trump’s bullshit doesn’t end at the nominees. Denying
climate change: bullshit! Using the Presidency to advance the
Trump brand: bullshit! Nor is Trump the only bullshitter.
The Democratic National Committee replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz
with Donna Brazile: bullshit! Paul Ryan vowing to solve poverty
by replacing all entitlement programs with a single block grant:
Everywhere you look, there is bullshit and more bullshit.
I suppose this is connected to the fact that
the term "bullshit"
(<-Wikipedia) is taken to be a profane expletive. As I
explained, in case you are upset by its profanity or by its being an
expletive, you may just as well or better replace it by "lie" or "deception".
After all, this is what it is about and what makes it very
objectionable, and there are these days enormous amounts of
lies and deceptions, indeed mostly because the mainstream media have
engaged to reproduce the lies and deceptions that the
government and the rich want to see spread widely.
And this is quite different from what the mainstream media
tried to be in the 1970ies.
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
KPN), simply because these have 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
 I am saying
this not because I want to
offend but because I want to explain,
and my own explanatory definition of neofascism is this:
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit as
its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist,
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
Also, I am
rather certain that most (not: all) of those who style
themselved as "neoliberals" in fact are neofascists as defined
(even though they probably do not like the term).
And this is
fascism as I
is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with centralized authority and a dictator, that
suppresses the opposition through propaganda, censorship and terror,
that propounds an ethics founded
on discipline, virility, and collectivism, that has a politics that is
totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-individualist,
anti-equality, and anti-Marxist, that is also authoritarian,
rightwing and nationalistic, and often racist, and that has a corporative organization of the economy, b. A political philosophy or movement based on or
advocating such a social system.
following if you are interested: On Fascism
and Neofascism: Definitions. (This lists 22 definitions of the term
"fascism", and critically
reflects on them.)
 The reason has in fact not
much to do with my study of psychology, but with my love for a woman
who, briefly after I fell in love with her, got cocaine + speed from "a
friend", which made her - quite classically also: here my study
of psychology helped me - a schizophrenic
(<-Wikipedia). After that it turned out that we could not find any
psychologist or psychiatrist we both trusted, and that is how the whole
job of trying to cure her fell on my shoulders (and on that of our -
very good - G.P.)
Also, when I knew her as schizophrenic (from February 1986 onwards) she
had no house, no income and had been kicked out from her school. After
two years, I had it arranged she could study psychology, had a house,
and she also soon
got a job at the university, and indeed in the end got a Ph.D. in
psychology, none of which she would ever have succeeded in
doing without knowing me.
This is the main reason why I know a lot more about mad people
than most psychologists, for she was quite mad the first 1 1/2
years, and I was responsible for her 24 hours a day - which is rather different
from the - very well-paid - three quarters of an hour most clinical
psychologists spend on their clients, once a week or so.
Also, I got nothing for my troubles, and in the end concluded
that the woman I had fallen in love with never loved me and
deceived me about her love for me.
 Originally - on March 14, 2016 - I chose to go by the
psychiatric term "grandiose narcissism", but I have revised my
opinion: "Megalomania" is much
clearer for nearly everyone than "grandiose narcissism", for it is a fairly
common English term and not a piece of made-up psychiatric