How Casually False Claims are Published: New York
Times and Nicholas Lemann
Trump Was Bailed Out of Bankruptcy by Russia Crime
3. Wall Street’s Win-Win with Trump
4. The Existential Threat of Trump’s Corporate Cabinet
5. A Unified Theory of
This is a Nederlog of January 11, 2017.
This is a crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is about an article by Glenn Greenwald about
(very many) false claims mainstream media publish as if it were truths;
is about Trump's apparently quite strong connections to the Russian
mafia: it seems he was saved by them and may be "owned" by them; item 3 is about
Wall Street winning anyway because both presidential candidates are pro
Wall Street, and about a coming enormous economic crisis; item 4
is about Trump's cabinet, which is an extremist corporate class of
billionaires that promises major miseries for the many and more riches
for the few; and item 5 is about a psychologist's
"unified theory" about Trump, which this psychologist does not
agree with, simply because I think Trump is an evident megalomaniac,
whereas the writer thinks he is a sadist, and there
are far more psychologists and psychiatrists who think the
former, and few who think the latter.
Incidentally: My providers are still awful. Today it was Jan 6
and 7 on the Dutch site (which has been reviewed every day now for
years) while it was (again) December 31 2015 for the Danish site
(likewise)... who is fucking up my sites systematically?!?!
note the Dutch one worked mostly correctly for 20 years, and the Danish
for 12 years, and someone has been seriously fucking them up since the
beginning of 2016.)
How Casually False Claims are Published: New York Times and Nicholas
The first item is by Glenn
Greenwald on The Intercept:
This starts as follows:
Like most people, I’ve long known
that factual falsehoods are routinely published in major media outlets.
But as I’ve pointed out before, nothing makes you internalize just
how often it really happens, how completely their editorial standards
so often fail, like being personally involved in a story that receives
substantial media coverage. I cannot count how many times I’ve read or
heard claims from major media outlets about the Snowden story that
I knew, from first-hand knowledge, were a total fabrication.
I certainly do not have the
experiences of Glenn Greenwald, but I agree with both points he
makes, and from my own experiences:
Yes indeed, I know since a long time that many "factual falsehoods are routinely published in major media
outlets", and I also know this has become far
worse the last fifteen years, and both in the USA and in Europe
(where I live).
Also, I know from my own experiences of being part of events
that were reported in the press that it was quite evident that in
the great majority
of the cases where I could read the journalists' reports and
it was like because I had been there myself, the reports usually missed
But Greenwald is going to treat a specific case:
We have a perfect example of
how this happens from the New York Times today, in a
book review by Nicholas Lemann, the Pulitzer-Moore professor of
journalism at Columbia University as well as a long-time staff writer
for The New Yorker. Lemann is reviewing a new book by Edward J.
Epstein – the long-time neocon, right-wing Cold Warrior, WSJ op-ed page
writer and Breitbart
contributor – which basically claims Snowden is a Russian spy.
I have been following both Snowden and the -
to me - extremely sickening news that everyone is being
spied upon as a matter of course by the NSA and
hundreds more of secret services, even since I first knew of Snowden's
existence, which I reported on June
10, 2013. Since then I wrote 1245 articles mostly about
Snowden and spying, but also about other aspects of the crisis that started in 2008, and I think I did this well.
And I know about Epstein's book (which I thought too crazy to review)
and also about Lemann's reaction. Here is first Lemann on Epstein:
Lemann himself is highly
dismissive of the book’s central accusations about Snowden, and
does a perfectly fine job of explaining how the book provides no
convincing evidence for its key conspiracies:
That seems fair enough. But here is more (and
I missed that):
Epstein proves none of this. “How
America Lost Its Secrets” is an impressively fluffy and golden-brown
wobbly soufflé of speculation, full of anonymous sourcing and
suppositional language like “it seems plausible to believe” or “it
doesn’t take a great stretch of the imagination to conclude.”
I'd say that anyone who knows a bit
about Snowden - which surely covers Lemann - knows this
is utter crap. First, here is Greenwald:
Nonetheless, there is one statement in
Lemann’s review that is misleading in the extreme, and another
that that is so blatantly, factually false that it’s mind-boggling
it got approved by a NYT editor and, presumably, a fact-checker.
But it is worth looking at because it illustrates how easily this
happens. Here’s the first one:
Snowden, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks,
and their immediate circle of allies come from a radically libertarian
hacker culture that, most of the time, doesn’t believe there should be
an N.S.A. at all, whether or not it remains within the confines of its
Snowden believes nothing of
the kind. In fact, he believes exactly the opposite: that the NSA
performs a vital function and many of their programs are legitimate and
important. He has said this over and over. That’s why he wanted to work
for the agency. It’s why he refused to dump all the documents he took
and instead gave them to journalists, demanding
that they only publish those which expose
information necessary to inform the public debate: precisely
because he did not want to destroy NSA programs he believes are
Yes indeed - this is precisely as I
have understood it (and more below, to which applies the same). This
also means that the New York Times (which clearly knows this as
well and since June 2013 at the latest) and Lemann are lying on purpose
about Snowden's motives.
Here is some more (again precisely as I understood it from June 10, 2013 onwards):
What I’ve heard from both Snowden
and his “immediate circle of allies” has been quite consistent:
that – as is true of all countries – it is legitimate for NSA to engage
in targeted surveillance (i.e., monitoring specific
individuals whom a court, based on evidence, concludes are legitimate
targets) but inherently illegitimate to engage in suspicion-less mass
surveillance (i.e., subjecting
entire populations to monitoring).
Yes indeed - and this accords precisely
with the Fourth
Amendment (<- Wikipedia)  for this is as
follows (minus notes):
The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.
This implies for me (and also for
Greenwald, I am quite sure) that Snowden defended the Constitution
while the NSA raped it, royally and billionfold (for there are that
many people tracked in secret by the secret spies of
And Greenwald also disposes of the very current lie that Snowden was only
exposing the privacy violations on Americans: No, he was not
and indeed I am one (of many) who finds it very objectionable
that I am spied upon by Americans, not because of what
I did, but because I might do or say something that the
NSA or some US government might disapprove of :
From the beginning, [Snowden]
always said the exact opposite: that he greatly values the privacy
rights of Americans but also values the privacy rights of the 95%
of the world’s population called “non-Americans.” As Snowden
said in his first online interview with readers that I conducted
back in June, 2013: “Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay
simply because it’s only victimizing 95 percent of the world instead of
100 percent.” That Snowden said he only wanted to expose privacy
violations on Americans is just one of those falsehoods that no matter
how many times you disprove it, commentators for some reason feel
perfectly entitled to keep repeating it.
Again, this is just like I understood
Snowden from the beginning - which also means that people
who deny this, which covers many people who are
"journalists" for the mainstream media, simply are intentional liars who knowingly
try to deceive
And indeed that is the case and it seems to me that it sums
up the mainstream media quite well: I dislike them because I hate
to be lied to, I hate to be deceived and I hate to be propagandized,
and especially by a set of professional liars who claim to be
This is a recommended article.
2. Donald Trump
Was Bailed Out of Bankruptcy by Russia Crime Bosses
The second item is by Mark Summer on
Alternet and originally on Daily Kos:
from near the beginning:
Human rights lawyer Scott Horton, whose work in the
region goes back to defending Andrei Sakharov and other
Soviet dissidents, has gone through a series of studies by the Financial Times to
show how funds from Russian crime lords bailed Trump out
after yet anther bankruptcy. The conclusions are stark.
Among the powerful facts that DNI
missed were a series of very deep studies published in the [Financial
Times] that examined the structure and history of several major Trump
real estate projects from the last decade—the period after his seventh
bankruptcy and the cancellation of all his bank lines of credit. ...
The money to build these projects
flowed almost entirely from Russian sources. In other words, after his
business crashed, Trump was floated and made to appear to operate a
successful business enterprise through the infusion of hundreds in
millions of cash from dark Russian sources.
He was their man.
Yes, even that much seems fantastic, and
the details include business agencies acting as a front for the GRU,
billionaire mobsters, a vast network of propaganda sources, and an
American candidate completely under the thumb of the Kremlin.
I say. I did not know this, but it
seems Scott Horton is quite reliable, and so I do believe it.
And there is considerably more (which is only summarized
The second Financial Times article puts
Trump at the middle of a money laundering scheme, in which his real
estate deals were used to hide not just an infusion of capital from
Russia and former Soviet states, but to launder hundreds of millions
looted by oligarchs.
Why would "a billionaire" like Donald
Trump do these things? Well, because he - probably - is not
a billionaire at all:
At the very least, Trump
confessed to partnering with, taking money from, and acting as a
representative for a corporation whose ownership he didn’t know,
in deals that totaled hundreds of millions in countries around the
world. However, it seems far more likely that Trump knowingly worked
with oligarchs, groups associated with the Russian government, and
plain old mobsters. Why? Because he was desperate.
Again I did not know this, but
believe it as before (i) because the source is good, and also
(ii) because I have been quite amazed
at seeing Trump trying to sell or popularize his own products - Trump
stakes, Trump wines etc. - while being a presidential candidate: Why
one should do this if one is wallowing in money ("a
billionaire") seems completely incomprehensible to me, but is quite
understandable if the point was to try to keep a sinking business
with very little money afloat.
The Trump Organization was a hollow shell
and Trump was bankrupt, but Donald Trump the public figure was a
“successful businessman,” a screen behind which criminal activity could
be carried out on a massive scale. Throwing his name at every scheme in
existence wasn’t a strategy, it was a fire sale on Trump’s
respectability. Steaks? Water? Vodka? Fake real estate school? You pony
up the cash, and Trump will slap his name on it. Because by the early
2000s, Trump wasn’t just broke, he had nothing left to pawn. He wasn’t
a successful businessman, but he still played one on TV. His image
had more value than his real estate portfolio.
Here is the end of the article:
In the end, there’s not a lot of
difference in the outcome. Trump got money. Oligarchs cleaned their
cash. Russia got their man.
And then the USA got this man for president. This is a
Wall Street’s Win-Win with
The third item is by Mike
Lofgren (<-Wikipedia) on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
During the 2016 campaign, pundits
claimed that Donald Trump’s proposed economic policies would bring the
end of the world as we know it. Moody’s
Analytics predicted his plans, particularly those involving trade
and the budget deficit, could trigger a severe recession. Others
asserted that Trump’s election would cause a severe stock market
The Wall Street Journal wrote
that none of the Fortune 100 CEOs endorsed him for president. For a
Republican candidate, this was both unprecedented and seemed an
unmistakable signal of a lack of confidence by the business community.
That was then and this is now. The stock
market has risen after the election, flirting with 20,000. And while
the many presentiments of doom have not been disproven by events –
after all, Trump has not yet even been inaugurated – the commanding
heights of capital are no longer sitting on their hands.
It appears that Corporate America has abruptly swung to Trump’s side.
Yes indeed. Then again, corporate America
anyway tends for the most part to support the sitting president, simply
because serving the power that is makes them money.
Here is Lofgren again:
Why the change? First, beyond whatever
innate skill at making money that they may possess, the typical
American corporate executive smells power in the way a pig locks on to
a Périgord truffle.
Second, regardless of their pious rhetoric about fiscal responsibility,
business leaders dearly love the deficits created by rate cuts on
income, capital gains, and dividends.
That is not the end of Trump’s fiscal stimulus. In addition to his $6.2
trillion in planned tax cuts, he is promising a large
infrastructure program as well as hefty increases in Pentagon spending
(the one Keynesian measure Republicans have traditionally adored).
Yes. And what Keynes
(<-Wikipedia) was a strong proponent of is what the
Republicans are strong opponents of if the president is a Democrat:
That the government invests in the economy, also by borrowing money.
(As Lofgren says, as soon as there is a Republican president, the
Republican norms totally shift as long as the rich profit a lot
from the deficits created by the Republican president.)
Here is why Trump's - I think: crazy -
economical plans will be quite important:
They will almost
certainly fail, and will fail in a major way:
It may only be different in
terms of how big a disaster Trump’s policies will unleash. His tax cuts
are potentially three
times the magnitude the 10-year cost of Bush’s cuts. Because they
are heavily targeted at those who are already rich – 47 percent of the
dollar amount will go to the top one percent – it will exacerbate
income inequality, which is already at its highest level since the
And that is just the beginning. Here is
Given that the tax cuts and spending
increases will be of a much greater magnitude than Bush’s own
prodigious fiscal mismanagement, the resulting asset and real estate
bubble will be a thing to behold.
Aggravating the odds of a financial
meltdown will be the unrelenting
hostility of Trump’s economic team, as well as that of the
Republican Congress, towards financial regulation in general and the
Dodd-Frank law in particular. While Dodd-Frank is only a halting half
step in the right direction, some of its provisions, such as those that
required banks to hold greater reserves, are useful in preventing the
overleveraging of asset bubbles and, when the assets fall, a bank
liquidity crisis. If Trump’s policies are enacted this country will
have a gargantuan fiscal deficit-driven asset bubble in the making, and
will have removed the regulatory tools to ameliorate it.
Precisely. And that spells e-c-o-n-o-m-i-c
Why is this foreseeable economic crisis
so seldom discussed in the mainstream media compared to the potential
of a trade war?
The brief answers to this are that
talk about a possible crisis might upset the investors, while most
economists anyway have no adequate ideas about it. (There is more in
This is from the end of the article:
The big banks in effect had a hedged bet
during the campaign: Hillary Clinton, a friend of Wall Street, was
successfully denounced as such by an opponent who was an even bigger
friend of the Street. It was a no-lose proposition.
The only question remaining is this: in the
aftermath of a future blowout that could make the 2008 saturnalia look
tame, will Trump’s voters correctly identify the source of their
economic pain, or will they be effortlessly distracted by some
supposedly existential terrorist menace, predatory trading partner, or
newly confected domestic Culture Wars bugaboo?
Yes indeed. And to put it slightly
otherwise: Wall Street won the elections because both
presidential candidates were much in favor of Wall Street.
And there very probably will be a
major economic crisis compared with which the crisis of 2008 is
small, but indeed the question is whether "the American people" will be
frauded yet again by their few rich exploiters and the
corporate mainstream media.
This is a recommended article.
4. The Existential Threat of Trump’s
The fourth item is by Robert Weissman on
This starts as follows:
We’re facing the prospect of a
government literally of the Exxons, by the Goldman Sachses and for the
President-Elect Donald Trump’s cabinet and top nominees draw
more deeply from an extremist faction of the corporate class than any
in memory, and likely in history. We are witnessing the wholesale
corporate takeover of the American government.
Nothing more plainly shows Trump’s complete cynicism and dishonesty
than his absolute betrayal of the core claim of his campaign – to rid
Washington of corruption, cronyism and insider dealing. The corporate
interests who he properly alleged in the campaign buy politicians will
now themselves be directly in charge of the government.
Yes indeed (though I thought and said so
from the beginning). Here is more on Trump's cabinet:
With this cabinet, it is a virtual
certainty that this administration will be the most corrupt and scandal
prone in American history.
And it is absolute certainty that, by
design, they will pursue a policy agenda that serves the interests of
the corporate class against and does deep harm to the American people.
To understand the scope of what we are
facing, it’s useful for a moment to step back and consider not just one
or two of Trump’s nominees, but the totality of his handover to
I completely agree, but I also totally
both the list and the explanations, which I will leave to your
interests. (They are interesting, but a bit too specific to treat here.)
Here is the end of the article:
Those in and around the transition, and
those who have had prior business dealings with Trump,
tell Politico that Trump “doesn’t usually like getting
into day-to-day minutiae or taking lengthy briefings on issues. He
doesn’t have particularly strong feelings on the intricacies of some
government issues and agencies, these people say, and would rather
focus on high-profile issues, publicity and his brand.”
Not only will the cabinet officials be
given lots of latitude, Trump will encourage them to carry out
extremist agendas – even if Trump himself has little idea what changes
are merited or what they are doing.
Get ready, America. We’re in for some
very tough times. A massive resistance – including demands to block the confirmation of this
motley collection of corporate cabinet nominees – our best hope to
limit the damage.
Yes indeed. And this is a recommended
A Unified Theory of Trump
The fifth and last item of today is by
John Montgomery on Psychology Today:
This starts as follows - and yes,
Montogomery is a Ph.D. in psychology and also a psychotherapist:
Trying to fully elucidate Donald Trump’s
psychological pathologies is fast becoming a national pastime. If the
core of Trump can somehow be held up to the light that reveals all, can
the Republic and the increasingly nervous planet somehow be saved? I
don’t know the answer to that, of course, but out of both civic duty
and sheer desperation, I’d like to give this a shot. I’d like to
propose, as it were, a unified theory of Trump.
When people discuss Trump’s psychology,
they most commonly reference his narcissism, which is
indeed something to behold – a garish, intrusive spectacle that both
fascinates and repels. It’s also hard to miss his dishonesty, present
to a degree so shocking and bizarre that one wonders how he relates to
it within himself. Does he truly believe, at least at some level, that
just because he himself says something, it must, by that reason alone,
be true, despite often abundant evidence to the contrary? This
explanation fits nicely with his narcissism, and does seem to be the
In fact, I think (and I am a psychologist
as well) Trump is a megalomaniac aka grandiose narcissist, and
I think so since March 14, 2016,
and indeed for the reasons that were exposed in a letter to Obama by
three professors of psychiatry.
And because these reasons are quite
convincing, I am less satisfied by the following suggestion,
and will explain myself after giving it:
What I’d like to focus on more
specifically, though, is the suggestion, made by the comedians Jon
Stewart and Dave Chappelle, among others, that Trump is the embodiment
of an internet troll. A study published in 2014 in the journal Personality and
Individual Differences looked at the personality attributes of
internet trolls – defined as people who behave ‘in a deceptive,
destructive, or disruptive manner in a social setting on the internet’
– and found that being an internet troll is strongly associated with
very high levels of sadism. The study clearly showed that internet
trolls derive real and measurable enjoyment from provoking, abusing,
and hurting other people over the internet.
While I agree that Trump clearly has quite
a few marks of sadism
as do internet trolls, what I am less satisfied with are these points:
First, there is a clear identification
by psychologists and psychiatrists that Trump is a megalomaniac (aka grandiose narcissist, but that
term is too much psychiatrese for me). This also implies sound
doses of sadism
in such megalomaniacs, but is different from a diagnosis as a
sadist or a psychopath .
Second, this was an explicit diagnosis
of Trump and not of (anyway anonymous) "internet trolls",
of which there are very many more than Trump.
So it seems to me that shifting the
diagnosis from megalomania
because Trump acts like a troll (he does: look at his Tweets)
leaves a specific and personal and in my eyes quite valid diagnosis
(or professional opinion ) of Donald Trump undiscussed,
and instead discusses some common points he shares with a vast
mass of anonymous internet trolls.
I think that is a mistake, and not
because it is not valid (he shares sadism with trolls) but because there
is a specific psychological diagnosis of Trump that is hardly
discussed by this psychologist.
He also says this, in part in explanation:
I don't quite agree. First, to
attempt a revenge normally does not
have as its first aim to dominate a person, but to get even with him,
because he (or she) has gravely hurt one (one thinks). Second, not
all healthy relations require "a sense of equivalent worth", for
example between (loving) parents and children or between (good)
teachers and pupils.  Third, all
relations between people comprise many
dimensions (and the more the better one knows the other) and on quite a
few one or the other will be clearly better than the other.
Aggression and revenge are often
pursued, at least in part, to establish a sense of dominance over other
people – to feel somehow ‘more than’ those people. Dominance can
unquestionably feel intoxicating, and, as we all know, it certainly is
better than feeling inferior to, or ‘less than,’ other people. But
there are huge costs, especially in our close relationships, to
becoming overly attached to that feeling of ‘more than.’ Healthy
relationships require mutual respect and a sense of equivalent worth. A
relationship where one person is consistently in the role of being
‘less than,’ and the other person is in the role of being ‘more than,’
is never going to be a truly healthy or fulfilling relationship.
Then there is this, and again I don't quite agree:
I agree that to love a person is to
wish that person well, and indeed according to the person's wishes,
and real love also comprises many acts and choices that express this
As I’ve written about previously,
people who are in the healthiest, most loving relationships very much
want the person they love
to find and sustain states of emotional and physical equilibrium, or
homeostasis – indeed I’ve proposed that this desire, or ‘drive,’ is
what love, at its core, actually is. When you truly love someone, you
want them to be in the ‘flow’ of their lives, to be in homeostasis, to
be happy. The most destructive people, however, often operate in the
exact opposite way: consciously or unconsciously, they seem to do their
best to throw other people out of homeostasis. Although it
may sound perverse, such people try, in effect, to dysfunctionally
‘bond’ with other people by bullying them,
‘popping’ them with hurtful remarks, or making them afraid, anxious, or
insecure. Controlling and manipulating other people in this way seems
to provide a potent drug-like reward in their brains that acts as a
dysfunctional substitute for the rewards they might otherwise receive
from healthy relationships.
As unsettling as it may sound, Donald Trump
is probably the clearest example in public life of this latter dynamic.
But to say that "you want them to be in the ‘flow’
of their lives, to be in homeostasis" is to substitute technical terms (and 'flow' also
is a quite recent one) for descriptive terms of experiences:
Few have clear ideas about what 'flow' or 'homeostasis' mean, but all
have more or less clear ideas and experiences of what it feels like to
Similar remarks apply to more of this quotation: It is vague tech talk
rather than good expressions of widely shared human experiences.
And while I agree that Donald Trump is an obvious bully and an
evident sadist, I think these are the more or less
commonsensical terms to convey this (much rather than "this way seems to provide a potent drug-like reward in their
brains that acts as a dysfunctional substitute for the rewards they
might otherwise receive": these are just
metaphorical vague euphemisms).
Then there is this, which I think Montgomery mostly owes to the diagnosis of Trump as a
megalomaniac aka grandiose narcissist:
He has all sorts of psychological
defenses that seek to protect him from this reality. Claiming to be
able to see through things in ways that other people can’t, is one –
hence his penchant for bizarre conspiracy theories. Another, I would
say, is partly what explains his often shocking degree of ignorance
about the world for someone who is about to be president. Instead of
ever really bothering to learn very much, to do his ‘homework,’ his
strategy is instead to delude himself into believing that he is so
special, so smart and all-knowing, that he doesn’t actually need to
spend much time learning anything.
I think that is mostly correct, as is the
following (from the same source):
The dysfunctional cycle typically
starts for Trump when another person criticizes, insults, or
disrespects him in a way that threatens to generate a ‘less than’
feeling in him. Then, almost reflexively, and often with tremendous,
violent force, his ‘more than’ compensations take over. If people don’t
go along with the stories Trump tells about himself, those people will
become a severe threat to his ‘more than,’ and will then be subject to
his vengeful, often sadistic wrath.
I agree that Trump very strongly (and
quite falsely) feels that He Is The Greatest In
Everything That Counts (which is utter baloney: no one is), and
that he is extremely aggressive against anyone who doubts his sense of
absolute superiority. And I think that is extremely unhealthy
and extremely dangerous in a president of the USA.
Finally, there is this bit, with which I disagree again (as a
psychologist, who has read some of the same stuff as Montgomery
Trump, that is, appears to derive
an enormous psychological and emotional ‘charge,’ a drug-like reward,
from generating different forms of emotional distress in other people
with the overriding goal of ‘winning,’ of establishing dominance over
them. It’s the basic behavior pattern of an internet troll, but Trump
behaves this way when he’s off the internet as well.
No, this is a mistake again. Trump is an
evident internet troll, also off the internet, but not so much
because he is a sadist, as because he is a megalomaniac, which is also
as he has been diagnosed by many psychologists and
And therefore it is a mistake to suggest this alternative
diagnosis without thoroughly discussing the widely accepted diagnosis
of megalomania (let alone refuting it).
This is not "a unified theory of Trump" but a fairly
superficial discussion of some of his aspects, while not
discussing the theory of Trump that many psychologists and
psychiatrists do have.
 I print it
once again, and also linked to Wikipedia again, which I do because I like
the Fourth Amendment: It seems to draw the right distinctions in the
Also, I do like to point out that it was over a breach of the
conditions that the Fourth Amendment described (later, indeed) that the
American Revolution broke out.
 And in fact I think this is thoroughly
dictatorial or thoroughly fascistic, and only a
government that planned on being a dictatorship
would want to introduce these means to terrorize everyone
in secret and by the government's state terrorists,
which were started as a - totally false, totally dishonest
- project to protect "the people" against attacks by non-state terrorists
(which are far less dangerous than state terrorists, let alone
state terrorists who know everything about anyone).
 Yes indeed, and I should add that I
developed my dislike for mainstream journalism all by myself,
and mostly moved by the rapid decline and final total collapse of
the standards of the - Dutch - NRC-Handelsblad, that I read for 40
from 1970 till 2010, which was the first 37 years or so a decent paper,
but from 2007 onwards started to decline rapidly, it seems in part
because it had lost a lot of money and had been sold to a few rich
Since then - the end of 2008, as it happened - I have only seen lots
more of evidence that the mainstream media have been systematically
corrupted and indeed these days I only read some mainstream media (The Guardian, The New York Times) to
know what they say, but nearly always with very little belief, and
especially about important issues.
 In fact, there are "bibles" of
psychiatry, which are known as DSMs, which abbreviate "Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"
(<-Wikipedia). I say "bibles" because this is how they are treated,
and because they exist since 1952. The latest edition (from 2013) is
the DSM-5. My point of mentioning this is that John Montgomery clearly
knows some of these bibles (very probably at least the latest), while
many non-psychologists or non-psychiatrists do not know this.
Second, clearly the diagnosis of a narcissist is different from that of
Third, I know that "a psychopath" is no longer in the DSM 5 and has
been replaced by "a sociopath", but I disagree with this, as do
quite a few psychologists and psychiatrists indeed for the same
reason (normally) as I do: Sociopaths need merely
disagree with the norms of their society to be diagnosed as sociopaths,
while psychopaths need to have something wrong with them (besides).
 I put in
"professional opinion" mostly because many seem to believe that it is reasonable
for psychologists and psychiatrists to refuse to make any
diagnosis of anyone without having met them in a diagnostic context.
I think myself that is a quite unreasonable criterion, for that
criterion does not apply to any other science, and
seems mostly to exist to ascertain the rights of psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists to make money from the mentally ill or their
insurances, and to deny this to anybody else.
But then if one wants to prohibit "diagnoses" one can make do with
I happen to think myself that "equality" and "equivalence" are much
abused terms, but I will make only three points about them, and make
First, I think legal equality - everybody is to be
treated in the same way for the same crimes and everybody is to have
the same fundamental rights as everybody else - is desirable and
reasonable, but also describes an ideal that does not exist in fact.
Second, everybody is factually unequal to everybody
else, and has many properties that many others may have in a better or
in a worse way.
Third, as to desirable properties: Only extremely few excel
nearly everyone there is in one property, and far fewer
in two properties, and absolutely no one in the tens or hundreds of
desirable properties, as in: "He is the greatest skater, chess player,
football player, painter, composer, mathematician, linguist, physicist,
photographer, psychologist, humorist, actor and philosopher ever":
Absolutely no one ever was.