Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Crisis: Snowden Interview, "Legal" Theft, Indian Privacy, Climate Change, Trump Is Insane

Sections                                                                     crisis index

1. Summary
Crisis Files
    A. Selections from September 13, 2017 


This is a Nederlog of Wednesday, September 13, 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 13, 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:

This article (an interview) is by Martin Knobbe and Jörg Schindler on Spiegel International. It starts as follows:

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.
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
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 mass 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...
DER SPIEGEL: (..) Was it all really worth it?

Snowden: The 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.

Snowden: My 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 agencies.

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, at least in my view.

Then there is this:

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.
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 - PATRIOT 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: 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 terrorist attacks.
Precisely. And if Der Spiegel is right in what it is saying, how does this differ from saying "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 surveillance.

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 (saying 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 and extremely authoritarian.

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:
Snowden: (...) 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 also this:

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 incredible ease with with the governors enormously increase their own powers, and put away and refuse almost completely to discuss the rights for privacy of 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 personal aside.)

There is this on Trump and the Deep State:

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 administrations.

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).

Here is Der Spiegel's conventional reaction, with a fine reply by Snowden:

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.

I completely agree 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 right in suggesting that Obama completely denied his early promises of being 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 shape us":

DER SPIEGEL: Which means?

Snowden: Fear. 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 is - once again - a Nazi who said much the same a lot earlier:

The only difference is that these days "the people" are not merely told that "they are being 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:

DER SPIEGEL: But isn't there reason to fear terrorism?

Snowden: Sure 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.

Precisely - and what Snowden doesn't say is that their are two kinds of terrorists, always, as long as there are states and governments:

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 much more 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:
Snowden: All 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 rationality?

There is considerably more in this article, that is strongly recommended.

2. In 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 Gabbard.

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 spelled out:

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 justice.”

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).

3. India’s 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:

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.

And here is more on the actual ruling:
[The courts] judgment defining privacy as a fundamental right represents a tremendous change in direction.

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 the Constitution.

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.”

Yes indeed: I quite agree. In case you are interested in comparing this with the above mentioned Brown v. Board of Education, here is a link.

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 democracy.

I do hope so, and this was an excellent decision. This is a recommended article.

4. A Storm of Silence: Study Finds Media Is Largely Ignoring Link Between Hurricanes and Climate Change

This 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, CBS, NBC, 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:

DAVID 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 eight days.
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:

DAVID 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.

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.

5. Harvard 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 going on that I am a psychologist, with an excellen degree (which is relevant), who thinks since the beginning of 2016 that Trump is insane, and who also has wondered some about (especially) the unwillingness of 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, and again on the mere sayings of a handful of psychiatrists [2].

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?

Unfortunately, with 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 (malignant) narcissist.

And I agree, although I am not in favor of psychiatry [2]: He definitely is not normal,
and given that hundreds of millions of people are being judged by psychiatrists [3], 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 relevant question:

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 - psychiatrists.

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 Goldwater rule:

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.

Precisely: "the 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:

Lance Dodes:  (...) 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.

Again precisely, and this is indeed also why being a psychologist or a psychiatrist does matter.

Then there is this about Trump's narcissism:

Lance Dodes:  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 accused of:

Lance Dodes:  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:

Lance Dodes:  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.

I quite 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:

Lance Dodes:  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.

Timothy Snyder has been warning the public about that possibility for months.
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.


[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 (!!).

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".)

[3] 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.
      home - index - summaries - mail