Friday, September 29, 2017

Crisis: Russia-gate, On France, Fraud Frances, On Europe, On Trump´s Dangers

Sections                                                                     crisis index

1. Summary
Crisis Files
    A. Selections from September 29, 2017 


This is a Nederlog of Friday, September 29, 2017.

1. Summary

This is a crisis 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 [1] and with my health, but I am still writing a Nederlog every day and will continue.

2. Crisis Files

These are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:

A. Selections from September 29, 2017

The 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:

1. Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?

This article is by Glenn Greenwald on The Intercept. It starts as follows:
Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. “Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year’s presidential election, officials said Friday,” began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this extraordinary claim.

This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees – that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is now in doubt.
Yes, indeed. Also, many of the stories about ¨Russia-gate¨ (as I shall call them, because I have called them thus before) started with Hillary Clinton´s reactions (and her friends and assistants) to her defeat in the presidential elections, that all were modelled on the theme: Loosing the elections cannot be Clinton´s fault, ¨therefore¨ Putin did it.

Also, I should add that I wrote quite a few times about ¨Russia-gate¨ in the last year (check the two indexes, if you like, especially that of 2017, and if you also check ¨Russian hacking¨), and that I mostly agree with Glenn Greenwald, indeed not so much for the reasons he gave, but mostly because of the arguments by William Binney, Ray McGovern, and the people that form the VIPS, and also those by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.

Here is some more (and I should add that Greenwald´s story has many illustrations, all of which are skipped by me):

They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: “Is there anything more exciting that [sic] the possibility of Trump’s election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as our President?”

So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its election systems targeted by Russian hackers:

Yes, indeed. There is more on the why in the article, which I leave to your interests, but the following implication is quite true:

Sometimes stories end up debunked. There’s nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.

But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.

Precisely - and again see the index of 2017 with ¨Russia-gate¨ and ¨Russian hacking¨: There are quite a few of them in just one year.

There is also this, which I agree with:

None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inboxes (a claim for which, just by the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention, have now been repudiated.

But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.

In fact, this sickness that

Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.

seems to me to be part and parcel of the buying up of the mainstream media (I believe most American ones are now owned by five persons or corporations) followed by the quite planned change of producing real information to one that produces real propaganda.

That is were the mainstream media are, and that is also where they have been at least since 2001, at least for the most part.

Here is Greenwald´s ending (after considerably more that I leave to your interests):

Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?

I agree, but I do not see any (good) reason to assume that the mainstream media will alter their propaganda, indeed in good part because all this propaganda is intentional, and is known to be false by most who push it, at least on the level of editors.

It´s a great pity, but democracy is dead, in the USA, for democracy with mostly - intentionally - lying media that spreads very much propaganda and little real and reliable information is only a mock ¨democracy¨, for without media that are in majority free and honest, democracy is dead.

And that is where the USA is at present, while this is a recommended article.

2. French Activist: Emmanuel Macron is "Younger, Prettier" Face of Anti-Worker Reforms & a Police State

This article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts with the following introduction:

As we broadcast from Paris, we examine political turmoil in France, where it has been less than five months since the centrist political figure Emmanuel Macron defeated Marine Le Pen to become France’s youngest president ever. While Macron won in a landslide, opinion polls show most French voters now oppose how he has governed. On Saturday, leftist opposition leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon led up to 150,000 people in a protest against Macron and his attempt to rewrite France’s labor law. Meanwhile, human rights groups are criticizing Macron for pushing a new anti-terror law that would make permanent key parts of France’s state of emergency, which went into effect after the 2015 Paris attacks.

Yes, I think I agree (and I am a European): Macron seems to be an autocratic instrument of the right and the rich in France, who also is changing France into a police state, simply because that makes governing easy for him.

Here is some more:

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, human rights groups are criticizing Macron for pushing a new anti-terror law that would make permanent key parts of France’s state of emergency, which went into effect two years ago. Critics of the legislation include the U.N.'s human rights office, which has warned the bill could affect people's, quote, "right to liberty and security, the right to access to court, freedom of movement, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief."

Which is to say that Macron´s French police state ends ALL basic human rights.

In case you want to see a classic statement of human rights, read the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, which is quite good - and realize that (i) later versions are pure crap, that give the secret services all freedoms that have been taken from the populations, while also (ii) none of the Human Rights in this or other declarations are real parts of the national laws, if they are not incorporated the national laws, which rarely happened, and hardly ever in full. (So in effect, the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights was reduced to propaganda by the politicians of the countries that formally adopted it.)

Here is more:

YASSER LOUATI: Well, you actually summarized everything. The situation in France is highly volatile, both socially, economically and politically. There aren’t many alternatives to what is currently happening. Of course, you spoke about Jean-Luc Mélenchon, but he only appeals to his own political party and not beyond that.

But the most worrying part is that we are definitely now living under a police state, where the extreme measures of the state of emergency have been passed into the common law.
One other measure was passed yesterday, thus actually giving the right to police officers to demand that you hand over your passwords to your electronic devices. And that, for a journalist, like yourselves, or lawyers or researchers, etc., that shows France no longer cares about human rights.
And there went the last Human Right. As I´ve said before:

The internet = the instrument of the neofascists. If you want real privacy, you cannot afford the internet - and please remember that, firstly, the states´ terrorists that are assembled in the police, the military and the secret services have murdered - e.g. in Stalin´s Russia, in Hitler´s Germany and in Mao´s China - many hundreds or thousands of times more persons than any non-state terrorists while, secondly most defenses that were part of the laws and the rights ordinary people had until 2001 have been systematically removed, indeed as was done by Macron in France.

Then there is this, which seems to me a return to the classical fascism that was practised in the 1940ies in Europe by the German Nazis:
YASSER LOUATI: The other point is that there has been not only a criminalization of refugees, but also a criminalization of those supporting them and giving them help, for example, the case of civil activists being sued by the state for giving them water, giving them shelter or actually helping them with their paperwork.
In Holland, whole families - man, wife and children - of those who took in Jewish children to protect them from being taken away to Germany (were they would be murdered) were murdered if found out. This French practice seems to be on the way to do just that.

This article ends as follows:

YASSER LOUATI: I think the situation in France is catastrophic, and it is—there is an incomprehensible share of individual responsibility. And the solution, as always, will not come from those deciding, but from those being victims of those decisions. If people continue to look at their own self-interests, the government will continue to do what it’s doing to them, which means destroying our environment, you know, keeping us from living in a safe and equal society, and continue to brutalize us with a state of emergency.
I am afraid the situation will only become worse as long as Macron is in power. And this is a recommended article.

3. Duke Psychiatrist: America Is Having a Nervous Breakdown

This article is by Mary Elizabeth Williams on Salon. It starts as follows:
Last winter, the former chair of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) Task Force and the department of psychiatry at Duke University School of Medicine wrote a widely circulated letter to The New York Times affirming that as the man who "wrote the criteria" that define narcissistic personality disorder, Trump doesn't seem to be suffering from it. Instead, as he suggests in his new book, 45 is just "a bad person." Which is worse.
I know very well who Allen Frances is:

He is a sick and morally degenerate fraud who wrote the completely unscientific DSM-IV and who seems to have earned millions doing that, and who now spouts trash, propaganda, bullshit and lies about Trump, precisely as the sick and morally fraudulent psychiatrists have been doing for nearly 40 years now in the case of the real and serious disease that I suffer from since nearly 40 years (as do around 17 million others):

I have ME/CFS since 1.1.1979 just as my ex has, also since then, but our real disease gets hardly any money nor any subsidies since 1980 because the sick fraud Wessely, the sick fraud Spitzer (who wrote the sick and fraudulent DSM-III), the sick fraud Frances (who wrote most of the sick and fraudulent DSM-IV) insist that the 17 million people who are ill like us are not ill but are insane (i.e. ¨psychosomatizers¨ or worse).

In fact, Frances has had all the evidence he needed to withdraw his opinion on people with ME/CFS, but he did not: Around 17 million people therefore are abused by bureaucrats and medics for nearly 40 years now: We do not have any rights on anything, for the psychiatrists insist we are not sane, and for people who are not sane, but who are not evidently mad, nothing is done as a matter of course, for nearly 40 years: You get no help whatsoever; you are declared to be healthy when you are in the dole; and hardly any medic wants to treat you because they think you are insane because you think you are ill. All on the word of psychiatrists, whose ¨science¨ was and is utterly fraudulent bullshit ever since the fraud Freud started it (after 15 years of taking cocaine).

Here is more:

MEW: You get called upon a lot as a person who is an expert on mental disorders, and particularly narcissistic personality disorder, to comment on Trump's state of mind. You have bucked expectations about him and about diagnosing him. Tell me why that is?

AF: It's a great mistake to confuse bad behavior with mental illness. Trump is one of the worst people we could possibly imagine as President, but that doesn't mean he's mentally ill. When we confuse the two, it's a terrible insult to those people who really are mentally ill. They're mostly nice well-meaning people who don't do harm. He's a bad person, not well-meaning, very selfish, who does lots of harm.
If we spend our time thinking about what's his diagnosis, we won't be focusing on what's more important: How do we contain this guy?

Was Allen Frances sane as he articulated this?

First, ¨Bad behavior¨ is a subjective qualification anyway, as anybody with the least intelligence knows for 2500 years now (for you and I may agree that we both are not mad, while we may disagree about most or all values and ends: Socrates already expounded that), whereas ¨mental illness¨ is supposedly an objective judgement, indeed also according to psychiatrists.

And second, what utterly sick and sadistic crap is it to say that mad people are ¨mostly nice and well-meaning¨ (again two purely subjective judgements), while people like myself, my ex and 17 million other seriously ill people have been discriminated, abused, and left without any social or physical help whatsoever, for nearly 40 years in the case of myself and my ex, because a bunch of greedy fraudulent psychiatrists decided that whoever has no identifiable disease but complains he or she is ill, in fact is mad (a ¨psychosomatizer¨ or almost any other diagnosis that are used to classify people as ¨mad¨), and therefore also incompetent to judge themselves, their environment, their disease, their minds or anything else.

What a sick and sadistic fraud! And here is more utter crap:

If we spend our time thinking about what's his diagnosis, we won't be focusing on what's more important: How do we contain this guy?

I´d say that if 53,000 psychologists and psychiatrists agree that - in the very terms that Frances wrote the diagnosis of malignant narcissism - Trump is a malignant narcissist, one must be rather mad (I´d say, provisionally) to say to all of them: You 53,000 are all crazy - Trump is not mad, he simply is bad. But not if one is Allen Frances:

AF: I think the two best ways to understand the daily drama of Donald Trump — and this daily drama, by the way, has been going on his entire life; there's nothing new in any of this. He's the most transparent person maybe in the history of the world. You don't have to be a psychologist to understand Donald Trump. The two best ways of understanding him are to think spoiled child. Think, a very selfish, spoiled four-year-old in a grown man's body. The other thing that helps [with] understanding him is think, reality show impresario. Trump isn't playing to the good-government crowd. He's playing to the reality show crowd. The daily dramas get him amazing TV ratings [and an] incredible number of social network followers. He's a man who loves attention, positive or negative, and he's received more attention than any human being, perhaps in the history of the world, for doing outlandish things. They work for him. We shouldn't expect rational government from a man who doesn't care much about rational government, is too ignorant to provide it and has an unstable approach to life that has his latest impulse be his governing principle.

We shouldn't label that "mental illness."
One: It is utter crap to insist that you ¨don't have to be a psychologist to understand Donald Trump¨: Most people - including most journalists - know very little of psychology or psychiatry. Also, psychologists and psychiatrists have diagnoses on which considerable groups of them agree (more or less) and which are used to diagnose people.

Two: One such diagnostic bible is the DSM-IV - indeed the DSM is the most important one in fact, for reasons I fail to understand, for it is intellectually speaking utter trash - and in terms of the diagnosis of being a malignant narcissist Trump fully qualifies on all of the eight criterions (in my opinion). Over 53,000 psychologists and psychiatrists agree. According to Frances they must be all incompetent (that is, if they are not mad), even though he himself drew up the 8 criterions, and even though 53,000 psychologists and psychiatrists agree that Trump satisfies most of these - supposedly objective, non-subjective, empirical - criterions.

Three: Nearly all that Frances does is airing his subjective feelings and convictions (which are baloney), but he also says:
We shouldn't expect rational government from a man who doesn't care much about rational government, is too ignorant to provide it and has an unstable approach to life that has his latest impulse be his governing principle.
Trump thinks he is rational. Trump also thinks - he said so many times - that he is better than anyone else in judging almost anything. If he ¨doesn´t care for rational government¨ he is a danger. If he is ¨too ignorant to provide it¨, he is a danger. If he is such that ¨his latest impulse be his governing principle¨ he has no self-control, and has one of the signs of madness (like junkies or alcoholics, who also cannot control themselves).

Four: Allen Frances himself does not know himself what ¨mental illness¨ is: See here:
Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.  Besides, as explained above, there simply is no ¨mental illness¨, for no one knows (precisely) what ¨the mind¨ is and does (other than the brain, which is still about as well-known as the earth was around 1300 A.D.), while psychological disorders are not illnesses with proven pathologies (except for 2 or 3 of the over 450 grounds that psychiatrists assembled to utterly disqualify people as - somehow - ¨disturbed¨).

Then there is this:

MEW: As you say in the book, crazy doesn't matter. That's one of the things that you make very clear. The crazy-not-crazy is not relevant to his performance or his actions.
AF: I have to say that in my own personal life, which stands a lot of difficult people and many, many, many thousands of patients, I have never met anyone as disturbing as Donald Trump. I've never met anyone as selfish, as impulsive, as dangerous as Donald Trump. I think that most of us have experience with difficult people, but we should put him in a separate category.
I have no idea who Mary Elizabeth Williams is, but unless she is at least an M.A. in psychology (or - God forbid - in psychiatry) she is not qualified to judge Allen Frances' bullshit decision that when judging Trump ¨crazy doesn't matter¨, while when judging over 17 million people with ME/CFS - none of whom have any power - it does all the way (and they are mad, because doctors cannot find what ails them [2]).

Also, I do not see how Frances can combine his personal diagnosis of Trump that he (Frances) never did meet anyone who is ¨
as selfish, as impulsive, as dangerous as Donald Trump¨ and still insists that ¨crazy doesn't matter¨ (with which at least 53,000 psychologists and psychiatrists disagree, and I think correctly).

Here is the last bit that I´ll quote from this baloney:
MEW: You were very frank that you yourself didn't fully understand how — you were looking at this campaign a year ago and wondering, how anyone could possibly fall for this guy?
AF: He's a con-man, a snake oil salesman and reality show host. He plays on people's fears; he plays on people's angers very successfully. People who think he's crazy don't realize that in many ways he's crazy like a fox. He didn't get there completely by accident. He's totally incompetent as a President, but very competent in marshaling people who are upset with the way their lives were going.
I only pick ¨People who think he's crazy don't realize that in many ways he's crazy like a fox¨: Many of the people who think he is crazy are psychologists or psychiatrists. If you believe Allen Frances, you disbelieve 53,000 (other) psychologists and psychiatrists.

Besides, if Trump is not insane, and if he is also ignorant and stupid (and selfish and impulsive), as Frances said he is, how can he be ¨crazy like a fox¨? That seems to be quite rare anyway, and also seems to involve more intelligence than Trump has.

But OK - now you know what the psychiatrist Frances thinks about Trump: He is not mad (as I am, because I think I am ill since 1.1.1979), but he is ¨bad¨.

4. A New European Narrative?

This article is by Anne Applebaum on The New York Review of Books. in fact, this is a review of six books about Europe, that I will not mention here. It starts as follows:

Back in 2013—an age ago, the calm before the storm—José Manuel Barroso, then the president of the European Commission, gave a speech launching a new project. This was before the refugee crisis, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, before the British voted to leave the European Union, before the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, London, and Barcelona.
With that, he launched the “New Narrative for Europe,” a cultural project that looked impressive on paper. Artists, writers, and scientists from across the continent signed a declaration: “In light of the current global trends, the values of human dignity and democracy must be reaffirmed.” They made contributions to a new book, The Mind and Body of Europe: A New Narrative. Debates on the New Narrative were held across Europe, in Milan, Warsaw, and Berlin as well as Brussels. Members of the European Commission (each member state has one) held “citizens’ dialogues” across the continent too. A New Narrative website was created so that young Europeans could “have their say.”

I say! And I add immediately that if you believe in a United Europe or in José Manuel Barroso, you believe in something I never believed in, and that I think is in fact a project to change the democracies that existed until the 1980ies or 1990ies into corporatist neofascist states were almost all the powers and almost all the wealth goes to the few that belong to the richest 10%.

Here is what happened to Barroso´s project:

The artists, writers, and scientists squabbled about the declaration. The Mind and Body of Europe sank without a trace. The debates went unremarked. The website is still there but seems not to have been recently updated. None of the six books reviewed here, all by experts on European politics, mentions the New Narrative project at all.

I am not amazed, but this was somewhat pleasant, simply because I detest a United Europe, for that is a Europe that is owned by the rich and works only for the rich. The whole ¨United Europe¨ was an enormous mistake (if it was a mistake, and not an outright attempt to provide most powers and most decisions to the rich, as may also be very well the case).

This seems to be the general lesson Applebaum has distilled from the six books she reviews:

And yet in very different ways, and for very different reasons, all six of these books ultimately argue that yes, a new narrative, or a new European political project, or an institutional revolution, is exactly what Europe needs.

I say, but not really: That is not much of a conclusion. Indeed, it may be that some of the six books Applebaum reviews are more definite, but I don´t know for I have read none of them, and also will not read any of them (for they seem mostly bullshit).

Here is part of my reasons:

If the artists, writers, and scientists assigned to the New Narrative could not agree on a way forward, neither can the six books here. And it is notable that although they come from different countries—the UK, the US, Greece, Ukraine, Germany, Bulgaria—the problem isn’t one of national differences. The issues that separate them are temperamental, ideological, and even, one might say, eschatological. Ultimately, they disagree about the endgame: where Europe is going, what it should become, and what it should do in order to get there.

I think that the whole idea of the European Union, and indeed also of the euro, were completely mistaken, and have turned out to only help the rich, the governors, the secret services, and the banks.

Apart from that, I have no idea how to break down the European Union. I do think that as long as it exists, it will mostly implement ideas like those of Macron, criticized above, simply because it was designed to do so: Far too few people have far too much to say in Europe. (And they will not give up from their own wishes.)

5. A Duty To Warn: The Most Dangerous Man In the World

This article is by Abby Zimet on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:

The Trumpian lunacy spirals onward: The delusions - "Virtually no President has accomplished what we have accomplished in the first 9 months!" - the irrational rages - unfathomably, he is still harassing football players - and the narcissistic view of hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico or any other disaster, which is always about him and the "great marks" he's getting even though it's hard - "It's in the middle of an ocean! And it's a big one!" - but not to worry, because he's from New York and some of his best friends are Puerto Rican. Yes. He said that.

Having heard and watched this sick crap along with the rest of us for too long, a group of esteemed psychiatrists and mental health professionals decided to re-examine the so-called Goldwater Rule - no diagnosis without personal examination and permission - at a conference at Yale University in the name of their moral and civic "duty to warn" during an "increasingly alarming Trump presidency." As a result of that gathering, over two dozen mental health experts wrote essays for a new book assessing "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump," being released by Thomas Dunne Books on October 3.

Maybe I should warn Abby Zimet, as a psychologist?

She does seriously risk being painted psychiatrically insane by Allen Frances, because she says things he does not desire to hear, just as I and 17 million others have been declared insane by psychiatrists because we say we are ill whereas current medical science has not found a cause, which in the eyes of the medical frauds that are psychiatrists - who now have, since the DSM-IV, over 450 ways of declaring people insane, while psychiatry until 1980, that was as unscientific as the DSMs, that stareted in 1980, had ¨only¨ between 40 and 50 ways of doing the same - is a total proof that these 17 million are not ill, for medical science (in which psychiatrists have a B.A.) is - according to psychiatrists - complete, and knows everything there is to know about the human body and the human ¨mind¨ [3]:

Clearly, in psychiatrists´ fraudulent eyes, there simply are no undiscovered diseases, which must be their reason to obstruct all medical investigations into the causes of ME/CFS since 1980. For 17 million people. None of them is ill, according to psychiatry. All are ¨psychosomatizers¨ or worse.

Then again, I am a psychologist who agrees with 53,000 other psychologists and psychiatrists that Trump does suffer from delusions, rages, and malignant narcissism, which is a psychopathology.

I suppose all of them are utterly incompetent in the eyes of Allen Frances, but then Frances admitted himself in 2010 that he does not even know what ¨mental illness¨ is - see here:

Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness

in which he happens to be correct, for it is quite problematic whether there is ¨a mind¨ (that sounds much like a soul, that simply has no place in real medicine, and that I have never seen a decent definition of).

Also, there is no evidence that there are ¨mental illnesses¨ except (to some extent, and in some sense) in Alzheimer´s, and syphilitic madness, but not for any of the other over 450 different means to declare people ¨mentally ill¨, that psychiatrists have nearly all developed (more than 400 new ¨mental illnesses!!) since 1980.

Incidentally, I do not say there is no madness and I do not say that mad people may not be in (serious) need of help. But so far (in 2017) there is no evidence that somebody who is diagnosed (correctly) as ¨mad¨ in some sense is also ill, for illness requires some provable pathology, and there is no proven pathology in nearly all (supposedly) mad persons.

What I do say - in fact: again like most psychologists - is that psychiatry is fraudulent since Freud and through all its later incarnations. [4] And what I also do say is that the only empirical evidence ¨for psychiatry¨, that American psychiatrists make a great game of, is their kappa which only is a measure for the degree of agreements of psychiatrists on the diagnoses they do make, and which in absolutely no way is any guarantee whatsoever that the diagnoses themselves are correct or empirically based.

In brief, it all seems utter fraudulence (to this psychologist and philosopher of science). And in fact I´ve explained much about modern psychiatry here:
DSM-5: Question 1 of "The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis" that I strongly recommend, for it also contains quite a lot of philosophy of science (that nearly all psychiatrists, including Allen Frances are totally ignorant of).

This also - it dates from 2012 - was downloaded a lot, presumably mostly by psychiatrists. Absolutely no one answered it.

In any case, I fully agree with Abby Zimet. She also says this, which according to Allen Frances is all false, but which is true according to more than 53,000 psychologists and psychiatrists:

Excerpts of their findings, published Wednesday by Newsweek, are not for the faint of heart - but are for those of us who believe the more information we have, the more effectively we can think and act. A brief summary: Yes, it really is that bad, and what you thought you were seeing, you were. Based on years of observing Trump's behaviors, psychiatrists found "overwhelming evidence of profound sociopathic traits," as well as malignant narcissism. Both disorders cause the multitude of symptoms clear to professionals and other sentient humans: Persistent loss of reality, paranoia, bullying, violent impulses, low self-esteem, lying and cheating, rage reactions and impulsivity and lack of empathy or compassion. And, possibly, dementia or Alzheimer's Disease, from which his father suffered.
I mostly agree, although I much prefer psychopathy over sociopathy (but I agree he has many psychopathic traits) and I also agree that he is a ¨malignant narcissist¨, which I do because he obviously satisfies all criterions there are in the DSM-IV to make that diagnosis (except if you are called Allen Frances, and you are supposed to judge the president of the USA).

And this is a recommended article.


[1] I have now been saying since the end of 2015 that 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 (!!).

[2] And that is precisely correct for me, for my ex and for millions of others. My ex and me also got excellent M.A. degrees in psychology while we were ill, but it is true that we are both highly gifted.

Nevertheless, in Holland everybody who has ME/CFS gets branded as a misfit, as an exploiter of the dole, as healthy (!!), and as not sane as well (for you say you are ill, while the doctor can´t find anything, and therefore he or she says you are mad, for that is what the psychiatrists say).

Incidentally, this also happens to medical doctors with ME/CFS, of which there also are several in Holland.

[3] I am quite serious: I do think that the premiss that most psychiatrists and medics do use, to conclude that those whose illness cannot presently be established must be mad, is that they must believe the incredible nonsense that medical science is complete:

is known in medical science, and therefore those who claim they are ill while a medical doctor can find no evidence must be insane.

In fact, most of the things in ordinary medicine and certainly in psychiatry and psychology are either not known or else not fully known, and there is very much that needs to be found out.

[4] In fact, I think so since I was 16 and read Patrick Mullahy´s ¨Oidipous: Myth and Conflict¨ which was a fair summary of psychiatry until 1960 or so. (I was born in 1950.) It was a fair summary indeed, but most that I read was totally incredible to me, and it still is (as most current psychiatrists also should agree, incidentally).

It so happened that I also studied psychology, and got an excellent M.A. (as did my ex) and it so happens that most psychologists agreed with me that Freud and psychiatry by and large are nonsense. (Some don´t, and these tended to study clinical psychology. I did not.)
      home - index - summaries - mail