A. Selections from September 29, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
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 
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 29, 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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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):
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.
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?
It´s a great pity, but democracy is dead, in the USA, for democracy
with mostly - intentionally - lying media that spreads very
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
Activist: Emmanuel Macron is "Younger, Prettier" Face of Anti-Worker
Reforms & a Police State
is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts with the following
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:
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
Which is to say that Macron´s
French police state ends ALL basic human
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:
And there went the last
Human Right. As I´ve said before:
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
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.
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
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:
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:
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
Psychiatrist: America Is Having a Nervous Breakdown
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¨
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:
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
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:
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
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
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
Three: Nearly all that Frances does is airing his subjective
feelings and convictions (which are baloney), but he also says:
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
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:
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.
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 ).
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
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
(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:
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?
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.
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.
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¨.
New European Narrative?
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
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
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.)
Duty To Warn: The Most Dangerous Man In the World
This article is by
Abby Zimet on Common Dreams. It starts as follows:
Maybe I should warn Abby
Zimet, as a psychologist?
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.
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¨ :
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
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:
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. 
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
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
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.
 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.
claimed that my site was wrongly named in html: A lie.
They have claimed that my operating system was out of date: A lie.
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).
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 (!!).
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
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.
 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:
Everything is known in medical science, and therefore those
who claim they are ill while a medical doctor can find no evidence must
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.
 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.)