A. Selections from October 8, 2017
This is a Nederlog of
Sunday, October 8,
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 and since nearly two years (!!!!) 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 :
Selections from October 8, 2017
Worried About Trump’s Mental
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:
The Worst Is Yet to Come.
2. 5 of the Worst Things We Know Were
Emphatically Confirmed Again
4. Vladimir Putin’s 17
years in power: The
5. The problem with
summed up in one story
About Trump’s Mental Stability? The Worst Is Yet to Come.
article is by Medi Hasan on The Intercept. It starts as follows:
Is Donald Trump
psychologically unstable and unfit for office? Does the president of
the United States have a dangerous mental illness of some shape or form?
Ask his fellow
During the GOP primaries,
Marco Rubio suggested he was a “lunatic,”
Rand Paul dubbed him a “delusional
narcissist,” and Ted Cruz denounced him as “utterly
amoral” and “a
narcissist at a level I don’t think this country’s ever seen.” Mitt
“His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader,” and Jeb
“He needs therapy.”
Ask the ghostwriter of his best-selling book, “The Art
of the Deal.”
Tony Schwartz has called
Trump a “sociopath” and has said “there is an excellent possibility”
that the Trump presidency “will lead to the end of civilization.”
Incidentally, there are more who said so. I leave them to your
interests and turn to the psychologists and psychiatrists who
said so (and register that I am a psychologist, and that I totally
agree: See my Nederlog of March
psychologist Philip Zimbardo — of the famous Stanford prison study —
suggests the “unbalanced” Trump is a “specific personality type: an
unbridled, or extreme, present hedonist” and “narcissist.” Psychiatrist
Lance Dodes, a former Harvard Medical School professor, says Trump’s
“sociopathic characteristics are undeniable” and his speech and
behavior show signs of “significant mental derangement.” Clinical
psychologist John Gartner, a 28-year veteran of John Hopkins University
Medical School, argues that Trump is a “malignant narcissist” and
“evinces the most destructive and dangerous collection of psychiatric
symptoms possible for a leader.” For Gartner, the “catastrophe” of a
Trump presidency “might have been avoided if we in the mental health
community had told the public the truth, instead of allowing ourselves
to be gagged by the Goldwater rule.”
Quite so, and
Gartner may be right, and is right in implying that ¨we in the mental health community¨ should have ¨told the public the truth¨.
But instead nearly
all psychiatrists hid behind a rule that seems to have been designed
to let psychiatrists keep making money without any
public responsibilities. 
Next, here is an
introduction to the psychiatrist from the Yale School of Medicine who
gets interviewed in this article:
“The Dangerous Case Of
Donald Trump” was conceived of and edited by Professor
Bandy Lee, a forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of
Medicine, who writes of her profession’s moral and civic “duty to warn”
the American public about the threat posed by their volatile, erratic
and thin-skinned president.
Quite so. And the
interview is interesting. It ends as follows:
worried should we be that Trump has access to the nuclear codes?
Well, that is our critical concern: that his condition is actually
probably far worse than people are detecting now; that [his] mental
impairment goes deeper and is far more pervasive than people can
understand when they are untrained in psychological matters. And that
the worst is yet to come.
agree. Trump is insane,
and should be removed from power as soon as possible. And this
is a recommended article.
of the Worst Things We Know Were Emphatically Confirmed Again This Week
This article is by Kati
Holloway on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
Time somehow seems
both longer and shorter these days. The news cycle whizzes by, with
multiple stories breaking at previously unheard-of hours, making it
feel like we’re in some warp-speed crisis machine with the TRUMP logo
emblazoned along its side. This produces the opposite effect as well,
causing what happened just days ago to feel like months past, the
wearing effect of having an open Pandora’s box calling the shots from
the White House.
Actually, this does not
hold for me. But I agree I am every day making an effort in Nederlog,
and I can understand people who have trouble in keeping up with Trump´s insanity and Trump´s neofascism (and if you
disagree, you probably have not read my definition of
the last term).
Here are 5 horrible things
we already knew, that were confirmed this week.
Kati Holloway identifies the following five things (just) from last
week, and I only quote their titles, and leave the associated texts to
is a moron—and everyone, including his
I mostly agree, although I don´t
think Trump is - literally, speaking with due precision - ¨a moron¨,
but I do think he is
a malignant narcissist (see item 1 for
prominent psychologists and psychiatrists who agree with me)
and I also think (wholly apart from his madness) that he lacks
the intellectual and personal qualifications that are required
in a president of the United States.
staffers, knows it.
Breitbart is a white supremacist organization.
News coverage of mass shooters is racist.
Rape culture is real, and entire industries are
Donald Trump is a racist international
embarrassment who is inept at leading in times
both crisis and stability.
And this is a recommended article.
This article is by
Robert Parry on Consortiumnews. It starts as follows:
President Trump’s bellicose
speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month sparked a
crisis for the behind-the-scenes diplomacy that was then reaching out
to North Korea and Iran, with Trump’s comments jeopardizing not only
the talks but the credibility of the intermediaries, according to a
source familiar with those efforts.
Trump essentially pulled
the rug out from under the intermediaries by insulting North Korean
leader Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man,” threatening to “totally destroy”
Kim’s nation of 25 million people, and calling for regime change in
Iran. Trump’s bluster on Sept. 19 also deepened internal tensions with
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson who was privately supporting the
The next day, when one of
the intermediaries complained about the harm that Trump’s speech had
caused, the President glibly explained that he liked to “zigzag” in
charting his foreign policy, the source said.
And let me once again point
out that if North Korea goes, a large part of South Korea also
goes, which means that Trump is risking to kill or help kill 25
million in North Korea + 51 million in South Korea, which sums together
to 76 million persons, which is 15 million more than all the
persons killed in World War II on the allied site, and - if all of
them get killed, which seems probable if nuclear arms are used - also
more than the
total number of deads in World War II, which is 73 million
But Trump is not only very
sane in his own opinion, but also one of the greatest
individuals that ever lived, again in his own opinion.
Here is one more bit from
Trump’s “zigzag” approach
to foreign policy has similarities to President Richard Nixon’s
infamous “madman theory,” in which Nixon pretended to be crazy enough
to launch a nuclear strike against North Vietnam in a ploy to gain
concessions from Hanoi and its allies during the Vietnam War.
Quite possibly so.
And this is a recommended article.
Putin’s 17 years in power: The scorecard
This article is by
Alex Krainer on The Off-Guardian and originally on The Naked Hedgie.
This is from near the beginning (minus a footnote):
To start with, Putin
played the pivotal role in keeping the country from disintegrating.
When he came to power, Russia’s regional governors were writing their
own laws, disregarded presidential instructions and were not even
returning their republics’ tax receipts to the Federation’s purse.
Mikhail Gorbachev stated that Putin “saved Russia from the
beginning of a collapse. A lot of the regions did not recognize our
constitution.” But this historical feat was only the starting
point of the subsequent renaissance of the nation. Its economy returned
to growth and became more vibrant and diverse than it had been perhaps
since the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin of the early 1900s.
I think that is
correct, i.e. that Putin “saved
Russia from the beginning of a collapse.” There is a
whole lot more in the article, which was surprising
For example, this:
In 2000, Russia was one
of the most corrupt countries in the world. Without instituting
draconian purges, Putin took on the oligarchs and steadily curtailed
their power, gradually returning Russia to the rule of law. By
2016, his government had reduced corruption to about the same level as
that of the United States. That was the empirical result of the annual
study on corruption published in 2016 by Ernst & Young.
And there is this:
One of the strategically
important sectors where Russia has made striking progress is its
agricultural industry. After the disastrous 1990s, when she found
herself dependent on food imports, Russia again became self-sufficient
in food production and a net food exporter. By 2014, Russian exports of
agricultural products reached nearly $20 billion, almost a full third
of her revenues from oil and gas exports. Not only is Russia now
producing abundant food for its own needs, the government is explicitly
favoring production of healthy foods, a strategy which includes a ban
on the cultivation of genetically modified (GMO) crops, introduced by
the State Duma in February of 2014.
And this is just the
beginning of much more, including quite a few graphics,
that all spell out the message that Russia is doing quite well under
Putin in the eyes of most Russians.
This article may
be a bit one-sided (and I don´t know Russian), but it certainly is quite
interesting and is strongly recommended.
problem with modern “journalism” summed up in one story
This article is by Kit on The Off-Guardian. It starts as follows (and
mind the title):
That a protest
Facebook/twitter account focusing on the mistreatment of black people
by American police was actually a fake account run by Russians to make
the US look bad and spread division in the West…is one hell of a claim.
If you were to make it, you’d probably be expected to supply evidence
to back up your accusation. That’s only reasonable.
Which meant that CNN was
indulging in the providing of propaganda,
and not in the providing of honest information. And indeed I
agree with Kit that that is the main sin of the mainstream media in
Well, CNN don’t feel the
But going back to the article, that treats one - exemplary - case:
Now, the headline doesn’t
say HOW these accounts were linked to Russia, or indeed who linked
them. But that’s OK, because neither does the body of the text. There’s
not a single link, source or piece of evidence cited at all. The only
basis for the claim is:
two sources with
knowledge of the matter told CNN
That’s it. In total. They
never say who these two sources are (leaving the very real possibility
they don’t even exist), they never say what their supposed “knowledge
of the situation” is. They tell us nothing of any note, and have the
gall to put “exclusive” in the headline.
Yes, and that made it
into pure bullshit,
for if one cannot judge something supposedly real on the basis
of real evidence,
what one is reading is not honest information but dishonest
Here is Kit´s sum-up:
No reference to the
keystone questions of journalism – who, when, where, why, how. No
reference to evidence or sources, or agendas. Just a vague analysis of
the plausibility of a rumor started by CNN on the basis of two
anonymous sources with “knowledge of the situation”. This is the modern
method of spreading propaganda – through a concerted effort of
repetition without evidence, you can turn a lie into a “fact”.
That is the cancerous
absurdity of today’s “journalism” in a nutshell.
Yes, indeed: I entirely
agree (and I have been following the crisis since 2008, and in more
detail than almost anyone I know of: see here).
And - I quite agree, on the
basis of very much evidence about
there being no good evidence whatsoever in the mainstream
media for many of their claims - this is the level
of a lot of the ¨news¨ you get these days in the mainstream
media (which are far more important in terms of the number of
its readers/viewers than the non-mainstream media): it must be
considered as bullshit,
because without real evidence about the sources of the news,
these sources may as well not exist at all or may be pure liars from
anywhere: You don´t know, and
also you can´t know because your
mainstream source simply does not give any real
evidence that might be used to test their claims.
This is a recommended
 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 (!!).
 Yes, you are right: I start Nederlogs
again with a list of the titles of the articles I review in that
Nederlog. In fact, I did start that way around 2011/2012,
and instituted it (so to speak) in 2013.
This was maintained until June of 2017, when I stopped doing it mostly
because my health got worse then. Since my condition now has again
somewhat improved I return - more or less - to the style I used in
 For it may be considered fair not to
diagnose a named private person who has little or no power, as nearly
everyone does, but it is completely unfair to refuse to
diagnose a person who sets out to become the most powerful man
on earth, and who can fire nuclear missiles at his will: If
psychiatry can tell anything about mental health, it should
do so whenever possibly mad political leaders are involved,
simply because mad political leaders may kill very many because
of their madness.