A. Selections from September 13, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
This is a
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last four years:
I have been writing about the crisis since September 1, 2008 (in Dutch) and about
the enormous dangers of surveillance (by secret services and
by many rich commercial entities) since June 10, 2013, and I will
continue with it.
On the moment I have problems with the company that is
supposed to take care that my site is visible 
and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and
2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
September 13, 2017
items 1 - 5 are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at
every morning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the
link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:
(an interview) is by Martin Knobbe and Jörg Schindler on Spiegel
International. It starts as follows:
I will pay more
attention to this interview than to many other interviews, simply
because Edward Snowded is a quite important man who risked his
life and his health in telling the world about the massive and illegal
spying that the NSA and the GCHQ do
The journey to interview
Edward Snowden is a long one. For DER SPIEGEL, it began over a year
ago, with numerous conversations with his lawyers in New York and
Berlin. It ended two weeks ago on a Wednesday in a Moscow hotel suite
with a view over Red Square.
The 34-year-old former
United States intelligence worker, who exposed the global surveillance
system deployed by the National Security Agency (NSA), lives somewhere
in the Russian capital. Since blowing the whistle, he has been an enemy
of the state in his home country. He has become an icon for defenders
of civil liberties and also a man on the run.
on all Americans and on all Englishman since 9/11 at
the latest, and
who also caused my focusing my attention on mass surveillance
since June 10, 2013.
In fact, I wrote now over 1680 articles on the crisis since September
1, 2008, that include over 1480 articles on the same and on
surveillance since June 10, 2013.
And I have one introductory remark: While I found this interview fairly
decent, I also think too much time was used in spitting over items that
have been treated pretty exhaustively since 2013.
But here goes...
(..) Was it all really worth it?
answer is yes. Look at what my goals were. I wasn't trying to change
the laws or slow down the machine. Maybe I should have. My critics say
that I was not revolutionary enough. But they forget that I am a
product of the system. I worked those desks, I know those people and I
still have some faith in them, that the services can be reformed.
DER SPIEGEL: But
those people see you as their biggest enemy today.
personal battle was not to burn down the NSA or the CIA. I even think
they actually do have a useful role in society when they limit
themselves to the truly important threats that we face and when they
use their least intrusive means. We don't drop atomic bombs on flies
that land on the dinner table. Everybody gets this except intelligence
I think that is all
quite correct in so far as Snowden himself is concerned, and indeed I
never blamed him for not being more revolutionary than he was.
The one thing that
disappoints me a little bit (but see below) is that he doesn't say that
the intelligence agencies don't get what they don't get because they do
not want to get it: For them this was a golden opportunity to start
spying on everyone, because this meant having the full
knowledge (in principle) on anyone that some American
government disagreed with.
And it was
evidently completely anti-democratic, but this also was intended,
least in my view.
Then there is this:
Snowden is completely
right that the NSA activities were illegal. I do not know
whether or to
what extent they are illegal now, after the - in my eyes also illegal -
Act and some other new laws, but by the First Amendment
and the Fourth
Amendment (in my eyes, and in most normal intelligent eyes),
that still are part of the Constitution, these acts of
massive spying on everyone are unconstitutional and illegal,
and apart from that vastly anti-democratic.
DER SPIEGEL: You
have called mass surveillance a violation of the law. But as far as we
know, so far not a single person responsible is sitting in jail.
Snowden: That is why
I call it the secret law. These NSA activities were illegal. In a just
world, the people who were authorizing these programs would actually be
sitting in jail today.
Precisely. And if
Spiegel is right in what it is saying, how does this differ
"the main purpose of publicly burning terrorists is to prevent attacks
against our countries"? That is plain bullshit, I'd
say, and so is mass
DER SPIEGEL: The
main purpose of surveillance is to prevent attacks against our
countries. In principle, there's nothing wrong with that.
Snowden: We don't
have any proof that these mass surveillance programs are stopping
And Snowden is also right that mass surveillance hasn't stopped
terrorists, while it made everybody in principe fully known
to the very
few who man the secret services. But what Snowden seems to miss
at least, and that I did not
miss in 2005, when I first wrote
about massive Dutch legal changes to further mass surveillance)
is that mass surveillance is fundamentally anti-democratic
Here is Snowden on some German changes (which are quite similar to all
the "legal" changes governments have proposed to vastly increase their
own powers over everybody:
The German public was angry about their surveillance policies, so they
needed to do something about it. But not that which I think the
opposition heroically tried to do, which was to find out what's
actually happening, establish some accountability and ultimately shape
the activities of these intelligence services to make them comport with
the law. Instead, these politicians went: Let's make the law looser so
they don't break it anymore.
Precisely. There is
DER SPIEGEL: Even
if the latitude of intelligence agencies is limited in the future,
people are giving huge amounts of intimate data away for free to
private corporations like Facebook, Google, YouTube and Instagram. Do
we not have to accept that we have entered an era of total transparency?
Yes indeed. This is at
least as frightening (to me, at least) as is the
with with the governors enormously increase their own powers,
away and refuse almost completely to discuss the rights for privacy
their total population:
A considerable part
of the population (worldwide) seems to be so propagandized
and seem to
know so little about programming
that they are quite willing to sell
their privacies (generally without much understanding) to Facebook and
others, in order to be "rewarded" with free advertisements of
commodities they want.
And there is this
about Mark Zuckerberg:
Snowden: And then
we'll see that the founder and CEO of Facebook is intending to run for
president of the United States in the next cycle. Do we want the
company that has the largest social media presence on earth and has
clear political ambitions, to start deciding what is permissible
political speech and what is not?
Yes indeed. (And I
wouldn't be very amazed if Zuckerberg gets to be the next president,
and fills his whole government with Facebook employees, but this is a
There is this on
Trump and the Deep State:
I agree with Snowden, and I
see that he gives a rather clear definition of the deep state (and the
last link is to an article of
January 2016 that also explains it).
DER SPIEGEL: Your
president. Is he your president?
Snowden: The idea
that half of American voters thought that Donald Trump was the best
among us, is something that I struggle with. And I think we will all be
struggling with it for decades to come.
Donald Trump doesn't even know what the deep state is. The deep state
is this class of career government officials that survive beyond
Here is Der Spiegel's conventional reaction, with a fine reply by
DER SPIEGEL: Isn't
that just another conspiracy theory?
Snowden: I wish
it was. Look at the election of Barack Obama, who by any measure at the
time, people saw as a genuine man who wanted to pursue a reform to
close Guantanamo, to end the mass surveillance of the time, to
investigate Bush-era crimes and to do many other things. And within 100
days of taking office, he pivoted entirely on that promise and said, we
are going to look forward not backward. The deep state realizes that
while it may not elect the president, it can shape them very quickly --
and this is through the same means with which they shape us.
with Snowden, although I doubt that Barack Obama really was "a genuine man who wanted to pursue a reform
to close Guantanamo, to end the mass surveillance of the time, to
investigate Bush-era crimes and to do many other things".
But Snowden is quite
right he was seen as such a man by the public, and also quite
suggesting that Obama completely denied his early promises of
such a man within the first three or four months of being president.
And here is Snowden's
reply to Der Spiegel's question about his saying that "[the deep state]
can shape them
very quickly -- and this is through the same means with which they
DER SPIEGEL: Which
Why do you think all these terrorism laws are passed without any
meaningful debate? Why do we have an indefinite state of emergency,
even in liberal places like France? I think you can also see
reflections of this dynamic in Germany, which I think has a much lesser
love for the intelligence services and spying in general given its
history. But the inquiry into the NSA files didn't look so deeply into
mass surveillance. The majority parties pretended they could not
confirm it despite the fact that evidence was literally everywhere and
impossible to miss. They didn't even bother to hear from me. All these
things show that intelligence services have influence through an
implicit threat. They are effective, they are persuasive. They created
a new politics of fear. Whenever one of their policy choices is
threatened, they feed the press and the public with all the dangers we
should fear. As a society, we become terrorized.
Precisely! And here
once again - a Nazi who said much the same a lot
The only difference
is that these days "the people" are not merely told that "they
attacked": They are told they are "terrorized" ("terrorized!", "terrorized!!") by "terrorists".
And here is Snowden's very
sound response on the real dangers "terrorists" cause:
Precisely - and
what Snowden doesn't say is that their are two kinds of
terrorists, always, as long as there are states and governments:
DER SPIEGEL: But
isn't there reason to fear terrorism?
there is. Terrorism is a real problem. But when we look at how many
lives it has claimed in basically any country that is outside of war
zones like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is so much less than, say, car
accidents or heart attacks. Even if Sept. 11 were to happen every
single year in the U.S., terrorism would be a much lower threat than so
many other things.
Those who are against some state or states, and those who defend
some state or states; that both are equally terrorists who
also equally use terrorist methods; but that the state's
terrorists are historically extremely
dangerous than the non-state terrorists, because the state
terrorists of Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany,
and China's Mao
have together murdered at least 100 million persons.
But what Snowden does say is again quite correct:
I am saying is that terror is an ideal example of a growing culture of
fear. The intelligence community has used it to approach it with a new
dynamic of mass surveillance. And the most tragic part of this is that,
eventually it is the process itself that is doing the terrorizing. It
becomes systemic and this leads us to where we are today. How else does
one explain a President Donald Trump other than a systemic failure of
There is considerably more
in this article, that is strongly recommended.
Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture
This article is by Zaid Jilani
on The Intercept. This starts as follows:
In a stunning move,
the House of Representatives on Tuesday approved an amendment to the
Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act that will roll
back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion
of asset forfeiture.
Amendment number 126 was sponsored by a bipartisan
group of nine members, led by Michigan Republican Rep. Justin Amash. He
was joined by Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California; Washington
state’s Pramila Jayapal, a rising progressive star; and Hawaii’s Tulsi
Civil asset forfeiture is
a practice by which law enforcement can take assets from a person who
is suspected of a crime, even without a charge or conviction. Sessions
revived the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing Program, which
allowed state and local police agencies to take assets and then give
them to the federal government — which would in turn give a chunk back
to the local police. This served as a way for these local agencies to
skirt past state laws designed to limit asset forfeiture.
I say, which I do because
this was a very necessary change in how the American
police was allowed to operate, which in fact amounted to the "legal"
stealing of properties by the police from people who were neither
charged nor convicted, which also happened on a large scale.
Here is the reason why
Virginia Democratic Rep.
Don Beyer reached across the aisle to voice support for Amash’s effort
“Civil asset forfeiture without limits presents one of the strongest
threats to our civil, property, and Constitutional rights,” he said on
the flood. “It creates a perverse incentive to seek profits over
The amendment passed with
a voice vote, meaning it had overwhelming support.
Quite so, and this was - at
long last, I'd say - a good decision (in terms of my values).
Supreme Court Expands Freedom
This article is by
Menaka Guruswamy on The New York Times. The article starts as follows:
On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court of India, in a rare unanimous
judgment, declared privacy a constitutional right.
The court unflinchingly reasoned that the rights to life and
liberty of which privacy is a part protect the sanctity of the home and
relationships like marriage, procreation and sexual orientation.
It is a ruling that will forever affect the social fabric of
this country and reaffirm a constitutional morality in a time of deep
social and political division — a judgment that can be equated with
Brown v. Board of Education in the United States.
I say!! I
am quite impressed, and indeed this seems to be the first
time (!!) any supreme court anywhere affirmed that ("in a rare unanimous
judgment") (i) "privacy a constitutional right", and also did so for the right reasons:
namely because (ii) "the
rights to life and
liberty of which privacy is a part protect the sanctity of the home and
relationships like marriage, procreation and sexual orientation".
It is true that
I miss individual human rights, but this does seem to
me quite important, indeed also because there are no less than 1,3
billion Indians now.
Here is some
more on some backgrounds of the Indian decision:
And here is more on the
The ruling comes as the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata
Party, which came to power in 2014, is attempting a cultural
reconfiguration of Indian society — policing choices about food, gender
roles, sexuality, marriage and religion. Such actions are at odds with
the values of secularism, equality and dignity, and freedom of
expression, conscience and religion that are enshrined in India’s
progressive Constitution of 1950. This troubling context makes the
decision of the Supreme Court especially empowering.
judgment defining privacy as a fundamental right represents a
tremendous change in direction.
Yes indeed: I quite
agree. In case you are interested in comparing this with the above
v. Board of Education, here is a link.
In the ruling, the court envisaged the right
to privacy as flowing through other crucial rights like equality,
dignity, life, liberty, expression, association and speech.
The justices navigated privacy as a multifaceted right. They
highlighted its contours through violations including forced feeding,
lack of reproductive choices and telephone tapping.
They emphasized privacy as a necessary condition for
“seclusion,” which in turn enables the exercise of freedoms like
speech, expression and association.
The court also made clear that bodily integrity,
informational privacy and privacy of personal choice is inextricably
linked to democracy, dignity and fraternity, which are provided for by
This conception of privacy as illustrated by violations, as
facilitating seclusion, and as enabling classical civil and political
rights and linked to the larger political project of democracy and
fraternity, is what makes the Supreme Court judgment such a watershed
moment. The judges reminded India that “the purpose of elevating
certain rights to the stature of guaranteed fundamental rights is to
insulate their exercise from the disdain of majorities, whether
legislative or popular.”
The article ends as follows:
And the privacy
ruling represents a remarkable shift in the Supreme Court from a
reticent post-colonial court on matters of individual liberty to an
erudite constitutional court safeguarding freedom in the terrifying
times of new India. The court is showing that it will be the
institution most responsible for India’s enduring as a constitutional
I do hope
so, and this was an excellent decision. This is a recommended
Storm of Silence: Study Finds Media Is Largely Ignoring Link Between
Hurricanes and Climate Change
article is by Amy Goodman and Juan González on Democracy Now! It starts
with the following introduction:
"A Storm of Silence."
That’s the title of a new report by the watchdog group Public Citizen
that looks at the media’s failure to discuss climate change in its
wall-to-wall hurricane coverage. While all the television networks
commented on the magnitude of Hurricane Harvey and "extreme weather,"
virtually none explained how warmer ocean temperatures lead to heavier
winds, warmer air causes more precipitation, and higher sea levels
exacerbate storm surges. The report examined 18 media sources’ coverage
of Hurricane Harvey—looking at 10 major newspapers, three weekly news
magazines and national programming from ABC,
CNN and Fox News over the course
of eight days’ worth of Hurricane Harvey coverage. The report
concludes, "Many failed to discuss the issue [of climate change] much
or failed to cover important aspects of it. ... Two of the three major
broadcast networks, ABC and NBC, did not mention climate change at all in the
context of Hurricane Harvey." We speak to David Arkush, managing
director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program.
Yes indeed -
and this is also an excellent example of the enormous
amounts of actual propaganda
that these days (and since 16 or more years) are levelled at "the
public" by what - are pretended to be - their sources of true
or at least reliable information.
Here are some details
about the findings of the Public
Citizen’s Climate Program:
ARKUSH: (..) The most
interesting, I think, are, first, ABC and NBC News didn’t mention climate change at all in
the context of Hurricane Harvey. This is for an entire—we looked at
Another major finding was
that—and we looked at 18 media sources—10 newspapers, three news
weeklies, five broadcast networks. And across all 18 sources, 72
percent of the mentions of climate change, in the context of Hurricane
Harvey, came from just four of the sources. Those were CNN, The New York times, The
Washington Post and the Houston Chronicle. So, the vast,
vast majority of the coverage was from a very small number of sources.
If you live within a certain media bubble and those are the sources
that you watch or you read, you might have thought that the climate
connection with Harvey was done pretty well in some of the media. It
turns out, outside that bubble, it was pretty awful.
Yes indeed. And here
are two other points of Arkush that I quite agree with:
Precisely: this is not
a matter for serious debates between non-scientists anymore, given
the fact that nearly all real scientists agree on climate
change. No one needs to trust any specific scientist, but if
over 10,000 climate scientists say they agree that (i) there are
climate changes, which (ii) are produced by human actions, for the most
part, and only 3 disagree, then those who disagree on political
grounds without knowing much or anything of (the relevant)
science, are simply posturing and lying.
ARKUSH: (...) It’s
actually scientists who should be debating that, and they have, and
they’ve reached a conclusion, and it’s clear what the science is. And
if you’re not going to accept what the scientists have to say about it,
then the debate never has to end. Right? The debate will go on and on
and on, if you’re going to actually reject conclusive, authoritative
evidence on one side. And that is what Scott Pruitt is doing. This
isn’t a debate; it’s a filibuster. Right? This is a multi-decade
filibuster, brought to you by the fossil fuel industry, of which he is
basically a part.
Psychiatrist: Trump Is a 'Sociopath' and a 'Very Sick Individual'
This article is by Chauncey
DeVega on AlterNet and originally on Salon.
I should say before
on that I am a psychologist, with an excellen degree
relevant), who thinks since the beginning of 2016 that Trump is insane,
and who also has wondered some about (especially) the unwillingness
psychiatrists to (even) say so, but then I also have been
helped in this
by my illness that lasts now nearly 40 years, that is still not
acknowledged though over 15 million people have it, worldwide,
again on the mere sayings of a handful of psychiatrists
This is from the beginning
of the article:
What is to be done if
this evidence collectively suggests that the president of the United
States is mentally ill?
Donald Trump this is not the stuff of a political thriller. It is
painfully plausible and all too real. The evidence suggesting that
Donald Trump may have serious mental health problems is overwhelming.
He is a compulsive liar
who creates his own fantasy world. Trump is also extremely moody and impulsive.
Trump’s advisers have to satisfy his extreme narcissism and nurture his
detachment from reality by presenting him — on a twice-daily basis
— with a file folder full of “good news”. Fellow
Republicans have been recorded on a hot mike suggesting that Trump
may be “crazy.” The American news media, as well as
commentators from other countries, have voiced serious concerns about
Trump’s mental health and the threat it poses to global security.
Quite so, and
I am a psychologist who does think Trump is insane, and who
did so since the beginning of 2016, indeed on the basis of explicit
readings of the DSM-5, that diagnoses a person with the
characteristics of Donald Trump (who has all 9 defining traits quite
evidently) as a
And I agree,
although I am not in favor of psychiatry :
He definitely is
and given that hundreds of millions of people are being judged by
psychiatrists , I think I am quite right
in applying their
own rules, and also quite right in applying these rules to a person
probably no psychiatrist will ever interview.
And when I do I
simply have to agree with - meanwhile - 53,000 psychologists
and some brave psychiatrists who concluded as I do: By the accepted
rules Trump is evidently
a malignant narcissist, who never should have been
president for that very reason.
Here are some
Why are so many
psychiatrists and other clinicians afraid to comment about Donald
Trump’s mental health? What is the role of the “Goldwater
rule” — which holds that mental health professionals should
not attempt to diagnose public figures they have not personally treated
— in their relative silence? Is Donald Trump suffering from symptoms of
mental illness? If so, what type of disorder does he exhibit, and what
are the consequences for America and the world?
As I have explained
several times, the Goldwater rule was in fact an illegal rule
that nevertheless was accepted by the American Psychiatric
Association in order to guard the incomes of the majority
of - conforming
But these questions will
be answered in the interview that follows:
In an effort to answer
these questions, I recently spoke with Dr. Lance Dodes.
He is assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at
Harvard Medical School (retired) and a training and supervising
analyst emeritus at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute.
Dodes is a signatory to
the much-discussed February 2017 open letter to the New York Times that
sought to warn the public about the dangers posed by Donald Trump’s
mental health. He is also a contributing writer for the new book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists
and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”
I agree with Dodes,
but I guess (I don't know) that the fact that he no longer works as a
psychiatrist (he is emeritus) may have made his conclusions
firmer than they otherwise might have been.
Here is Dodes on the
Lance Dodes: The
Goldwater rule is from the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
However, the APA’s version of the Goldwater rule is not subscribed to
by any of the other major mental health agencies, including my own, the
American Psychoanalytic Association. It is also not subscribed to by
the American Psychological Association or the National Association of
Social Workers, among others. The APA’s view as expressed in the
so-called Goldwater rule is unconstitutional because it prohibits free
speech. It is also nonsensical and unethical to have the rule as is.
The concerns that the APA is expressing about things like
confidentiality and getting the permission of the person before you
talk about them simply do not apply unless the person is your patient.
Donald Trump is not
anyone’s patient, so there is no confidentiality rule. In fact, no
other branch of medicine has this rule.
so-called Goldwater rule is unconstitutional because it prohibits free
speech". And indeed "it is also nonsensical and unethical to have
the rule as is".
Then there is this on
psychiatry and psychology:
(...) To go to your point, anybody, trained or not, can observe speech
and behavior. It is good to be a professional in the field because then
you can take the next step with confidence and say, “People with this
kind of speech and behavior have this kind of problem.” That is
completely fair and that is exactly where the APA diagnoses things. If
you consider, for example, the diagnosis “antisocial personality,” that
is a diagnosis in the DSM-5 and you can look it up.
So anybody can read that
and then look at Donald Trump and, as you say, the thousands of hours
of interviews and evidence that we have about him, and see whether he
either meets this criteria for speech and behavior or he does not. The
fact is he does.
and this is indeed also why being a psychologist or a psychiatrist does
Then there is this
Trump’s case of narcissism is particularly severe because he also is
out of touch with reality whenever he becomes upset. When he says, “I
had the largest crowd at an inauguration in history,” it does not
matter that you can tell him that it is not true, he still insists on
it. Well, that is very troublesome because what it means is that he
needs to believe it. He is able to give up reality in exchange for his
wished-for belief. Sometimes we call that a delusion.
Quite so, and
see my entry on wishful
thinking. Then there is this on sociopathy, that Trump is also
Sociopathy itself is a sign of a very sick individual, someone with a
lying, cheating and emotional disorder. The intersection of those two
occurs in sociopathy. It is not just bad behavior that people have to
lie and cheat the way he does, it is an incapacity to treat other
people as full human beings.
Here I have to
partially disagree, because I think the diagnosis of sociopaths is a
mistake: you may be diagnosed as a sociopath simply because
you disagree with the norms of society, as did quite a few brave
men and women in the Soviet Union, who were not mad at all, but
were treated and diagnosed and locked up as if they were mad
nevertheless, by Soviet psychiatrists.
Then again, there is
a rather close associate of sociopathy, which is psychopathy, with
which diagnosis I more or less agree (and see Robert Hare if
you are interested), as I also agree with the diagnosis of
Trump as a psychopath.
And here we have - at
long last - a specialist and not a journalist
who says what he thinks Trump is:
The best diagnosis for Trump is that he is a malignant narcissist. It
contains the narcissistic part which is no big deal alone — lots of
people are narcissistic — but the malignant part is the sociopathy
dimension. These terms suggest that Trump is a very primitive man. He
is also a man who has a fundamental, deep psychological defect. It is
expressed in his inability to empathize with others and his lack of
genuine loyalty to anyone. You will notice that Trump wants everyone to
be loyal to him, but he is loyal to nobody.
So yes, you want to say he is narcissistic personality, yes. Malignant
narcissism? Yes. Sociopathy? Yes. Antisocial personality? Yes.
Paranoia? Absolutely. He is quite paranoid but again, if you look at it
from underneath, it all fits together.
agree, except that I like to say he is a psychopath rather than a
sociopath (which is not possible in terms of the present DSM-5, which
has substituted sociopathy for psychopathy, which is one of its
very many mistakes (see here for more)).
Here is the last bit
from this fine interview:
I think one of two things will happen and maybe both. First of
all, the greatest risk to us right now is that there will be
another “Reichstag fire”-type event.
Snyder has been warning the public about that possibility for
Then I think they will go to Trump and say, “We are going to impeach
you or we are going to apply the 25th Amendment.”
But in the end he will
simply cut bait. He will leave other people to clean up the mess. Trump
will resign and say, “I am still the best and the only savior, and
these evil people and their evil media have forced me out.” He will
keep his constituency, he’ll leave with honor in his own mind and by
the way, keep his businesses.
Quite possibly so.
And in any case this is a strongly recommended article.
 I have now been saying since the end of 2015 that
xs4all.nl is systematically
ruining my site by NOT updating it within a few seconds,
as it did between 1996 and 2015, but by updating it between
two to seven days later, that is, if I am lucky.
They have claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
And they just don't care for my site, my interests, my values or my
ideas. They have behaved now for 1 1/2 years as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I will
from now on suppose they are (for truth is dead in Holland).
The only two reasons I remain with xs4all is that my site has been
there since 1996, and I have no reasons whatsoever to suppose that any
other Dutch provider is any better (!!).
 I have outlined my
objections to psychiatry-as-is, when based on the DSM-5, as a major
part of modern psychiatry is, here: DSM-5:
Question 1 of "The six
most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" and I have
outlined various objections about psychiatry, the DSM-5 (and earlier)
and ME/CFS here: DSM-5:
100 Nederlogs about and around the APA and the DSM-5.
But none of these - quite considerable, quite scientific -
disagreements entails that I must or do reject
definitions of psychiatric diagnostic terms in observational terms.
(In fact, I agree with some, like "narcissism" and disagree with
others, like "sociopathy".)
 As to the "hundreds of milloons": I do
not mean those who were patients of psychiatrists, but that psychiatry
now has become the main provider of rules that decide who is normal,
and if not what is wrong with them psychologically, if anything. And
this is so in courts and for bureaucrats.
I do not think that current psychiatry is a good enough theory to be
used in the way it is.