from December 9, 2017
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, December 9,
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.
moment and since two years (!!!!)
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
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from December 9, 2017
“The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump”:
Psychiatrist Dr. Bandy
Lee on Growing Mental Health
2. The Art of Keeping Guantanamo Open
3. The Real Evil Behind the Republicans' Tax and Budget Plans
4. The Republican Tax Bill Is a Poison Pill That Kills the
5. Is Citizens United to Blame for the Disastrous GOP Tax
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:
Dangerous Case of Donald Trump”: Psychiatrist Dr. Bandy Lee on Growing
Mental Health Concerns
This article is by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! It starts
with the following introduction:
Yes indeed, or at least
for the non-italiced part. That is also true, undoubtedly, but I am
wondering about its implications or presuppositions, such as: Was Dr.
Lee explicitly asked by Yale´s
¨administrators¨ to have that bit included in this personal
Questions over President
Donald Trump’s mental health continue to grow, following his speech on
Wednesday where he slurred his speech and mispronounced words during an
address on Israel. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders
responded Thursday to the mounting concerns by announcing that Trump
has scheduled a physical health exam. Meanwhile, Pentagon leaders last
month told a Senate panel they would ignore any unlawful order by the
president to launch a nuclear strike. The testimony came as part of the
first congressional hearings in more than 40 years on the president’s
authority to start a nuclear war. We speak with Dr. Bandy Lee, a
forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of Medicine and an
internationally recognized expert on violence. She edited the
best-selling book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27
Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”
Dr. Bandy Lee declares
that she is not representing the views of Yale University, Yale School
of Medicine or Yale Department of Psychiatry.
I don´t know.
Here are Amy Goodman and Dr. Bandy Lee on what has been disquieting me
now since March 14, 2016,
when I first found out that Trump
evidently satisfies ALL of the 9 observational
criterions that mark malignant narcissism aka megalomania (in
better English ).
In fact, 5 or more out of these 9 criterions are sufficient
to infer (according to the DSM-IV and the DSM 5) that Trump is ¨a malignant
narcissist¨. And being a psychologist, I have been especially
interested and concerned over Trump´s
evident insanity ever since, simply because I agree he
is mad (insane, has ¨narcissistic personality disorder¨) and
because I feel much endangered by a madman that can starts a
Here is the first bit of this interview that I quote - and in fact I do
quote from two interviews, which you are both strongly
recommended to read all of:
GOODMAN: Last month,
Pentagon leaders told a Senate panel they would ignore any unlawful
order by the president to launch a nuclear strike. The testimony came
as part of the first congressional hearings in more than 40 years on
the president’s authority to start a nuclear war. This is Connecticut
Democratic—Democrat Chris Murphy raised some of these questions.
But, for more, we’re joined
by someone who has led a discussion of mental health professionals who
are concerned about President Trump’s psychological instability. Dr.
Bandy Lee is a forensic psychiatrist on the faculty of Yale School of
Medicine, an internationally recognized expert on violence. She edited
the book The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and
Mental Health Experts Assess a President. The book became a
best-seller when it was published in October. It sold out over and over
Dr. Bandy Lee, welcome to Democracy
Now! What are your concerns? And are they increasing?
LEE: Well, we have been
concerned about the mental stability of the president, as well as his
dangerousness, since—pretty much since his campaign, but heightened
since his election. And I have been flooded with phone calls and
emails, messages, since morning after election. Much of my profession
had been silenced because of what is called the Goldwater rule. It basically states that—
GOODMAN: Explain the
DR. BANDY LEE:
—psychiatrists are not to diagnose a public figure without having
examined them personally and gotten consent. But, interestingly, the
American Psychiatric Association modified its own interpretation of the
rule in March of this year to basically say that psychiatrists are not
allowed to say anything about their speech or behavior, even in an
And I felt that that
actually went against the ethical principles of our profession. And so
I held a conference in April to discuss the ethical rules, and invited
Robert Jay Lifton, as well as a number of other renowned members of my
field. And only about 20 people showed up, to a large auditorium.
Basically, they were afraid. They were afraid to be—of being targeted
litigiously by the president or physically by his violence-prone
followers. But when the news got out, in the national and international
news, hundreds of mental health professionals got in touch with me. And
now we’re in the thousands.
I have to make a number
of notes to the above, and in fact fewer than I could have made:
First, I like Dr. Bandy
Lee and also agree with her, but while I am a psychologist (with an excellent
M.A. in psychology) I do not think psychology is a real
for a decent argument of the same) while I think psychiatry is a pseudoscience
for quite a few reasons, one of which is that I have read many
psychiatrists over the last 50+ years, but I discovered almost none with whom I could even partially
agree on almost any point of theory
Second, this position does
apply to the interpretations the vast majority of
psychiatrists give to their findings, but it does not apply to
their diagnoses for the simple reason that these are to be made
in observational terms, and in observational terms
I verified back in the
beginning of 2016 that Trump evidently satisfies 9 out
of 9 of the criterions that diagnose (malingnant)
Third, almost all
psychiatrists I know of are not only pseudoscientists,
but they also are much more interested in money than
in any of their patients, and it is this interest that
is behind the - unconstitutional, I
think - severe limitings of the
rights of free speech. 
I think Dr. Bandy Lee
is an obvious exception to this rule, and here is more from the
GOODMAN: So you’re just
back from Capitol Hill. You’re urging lawmakers, Democrat and
Republican, to call for an urgent mental evaluation of Donald Trump.
DR. BANDY LEE:
Yes, because usually when there’s a sign of danger, it’s an emergency.
So, what we do is we contain the person, remove them from access to
weapons and do an urgent evaluation. This is what we have been urging
for with regard to the president. He has shown a number of signs,
showing proneness to violence. He has incited violence in the past.
He’s shown an attraction to violence as a coping strategy of his own.
He has taunted hostile nations with nuclear power. Basically, the risk,
in our minds, is quite high.
I agree. Here is more:
GOODMAN: So talk about—lay
out what your concerns are as a psychiatrist.
DR. BANDY LEE: So,
our concerns are that someone with this level of mental instability and
impairment has this much power, in the office of the
presidency—basically, the power to start a devastating war, to launch
nuclear missiles, without any inhibition. You saw from the hearings
that there is very little inhibition in place right now. Within five
minutes of the commander-in-chief’s orders, nuclear missiles could be
GOODMAN: And how does that
relate to his mental fitness?
DR. BANDY LEE:
And, of course, his decision-making capacity, having such levels of
impulsivity, having a loose grip on reality and being so fragile in his
ability to cope with ordinary stresses, such as basic criticisms or
unflattering news, will tend to unravel, especially in times of
heightened stress, such as under the special counsel’s investigations.
Yes indeed - but
according to the APA each and every psychiatrist should totally
shut up on the danger that 7 billion people may soon be killed
by a nuclear war - and this is also their very recent
I conclude with a brief
diagnosis - I think - of Trump by Dr. Bandy Lee:
agree, and I
strongly recommend you read all of both interviews I
DR. BANDY LEE: And
what is most concerning for us is that his way of coping with this
critical sense of need at every moment, so much, to the point where he
cannot think of the past or the future or consequences, his main
urgency is to quench the need at the moment. And the way he does this
is by burnishing his power, by going to belligerent language or
affirming conflicts and others’ sense of the world as a threatening
place where you have to be violent
Art of Keeping Guantanamo Open
This article is by Erin L. Thompson on Truthdig and
originally on TomDispatch. It starts as follows:
We spent the day at
a beach in Brooklyn. Skyscrapers floated in the distance and my toddler
kept handing me cigarette filters she had dug out of the sand. When we
got home, I checked my email. I had been sent a picture of a very
different beach: deserted, framed by distant headlands with unsullied
sands and clear waters. As it happened, I was looking not at a
photograph, but at a painting by a man imprisoned at the Guantánamo Bay
I should open this review
by saying that Erin Thompson ¨is an assistant professor of art
which I admit is an academic specialism I never heard of and
also do not believe in, but then again I also insist
that over the last 40 years the universities everywhere in the
West (with the possible exception of Finland) have been going to
ruin. Then again, you do not need to believe me in order to
read this article.
The man whose painting I saw
has been held for nearly 15 years without trial, without even having
charges filed against him. The email came from his lawyer who had
volunteered to defend a number of Guantánamo detainees. Some had been
released after she helped them convince a military tribunal that they
were no longer “threats” to the United States. The others remain in
indefinite detention. Many of her clients pass their time by making art
and, of all the unexpected things to come into my life, she was now
looking for a curator who wanted to exhibit some of their paintings.
Here is some more - and Thompson does sound quite naive, but I
don´t know how sincere that is:
I´d say myself that if you
volunteered as a U.S. soldier to work on Guantánamo, my own
psychologist´s personal probability that you are a sadist is at least
0.9, but then again I am a psychologist, while my grandfather was murdered by the Nazis
in a Nazi concentration camp, and my father survived over 3 years and 9
months of the same as a ¨political terrorist¨, which means - among
other things - that I know a lot more about concentration
and Nazis than most do.
Puzzled, I asked the
lawyer, “Why all the water?” She shrugged. Maybe the art instructor at
the prison, she suggested, was giving the detainees lots of pictures of
the sea. The detainees, it turned out, could actually take art classes
as long as they remained “compliant.” But when there was a crackdown,
as there had, for instance, been during a mass hunger strike in 2013,
the guards promptly confiscated their art — and that was the reason the
lawyer’s clients had asked her to take it. They wanted to keep
their work (and whatever it meant to them) safe from the guards.
As it turned out, the art
doesn’t leave Guantánamo that much more easily than the prisoners
themselves. Military authorities scrutinized every piece for hidden
messages and then stamped the back of each work, “Approved by US
Forces.” Those stamps generally bled through, floating up into the
surface of the image on the other side.
And Guantánamo is a U.S. concentration camp, though I agree the
inmates are better fed than the inmates of Nazi concentration
Here is the last bit that I quote from this article, and again I do not
know how sincere this is:
The answers were
strikingly uniform and seemingly unrevealing. They wanted people
to see their art, they said, and through it know that they are actual
human beings. Really? I didn’t get it. Of course, they’re human
beings. What else could they be?
My own answer is: If
you are locked up in a US concentration camp for 15 years without any
trial or any conviction you are explicitly and on purpose abused as if you are a
And indeed they are not, but they are
treated as if they are. And many Americans do believe the propaganda
they are fed.
Real Evil Behind the Republicans' Tax and Budget Plans
article is by Neil Gabler on AlterNet and originally on BillMoyers.com.
It starts as follows:
It isn’t easy watching the
country you love fall down a black hole from which it is not likely to
emerge, but that is precisely what happened this past week with the
Senate passage of the so-called “tax reform” bill. Bernie Sanders spoke
for many when he said it will “go down in history as one of the worst, most
unfair pieces of legislation ever passed.”
To which I’d add, not only
the worst legislation, but also the most radically transformative
passed in our lifetimes. The bill seems to have something to hurt every
American, except for the wealthy. It raises taxes on most middle-income
wage earners over the long haul,
eliminates the individual mandate for health care (which will send
insurance premiums soaring) and allows oil drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The House version removes deductions for
large health care expenses and compels graduate students to pay taxes
on tuition waivers, though the Senate version retains both. Speaking of
the health care provisions alone, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers predicted
millions would die.
And I think Lawrence
Summers is evidently right, and he would also have been right
if he had said that this is all very intentional by the Republicans:
There are too many people to feed properly in the present economic
system, so why feed the losers in the USA?! (I don´t think
Summers meant that, but then the video already cannot be found at
But I think Summers is
quite correct in his prediction, and one question I have about his
prediction is this: Does he think that the predicted millions
says will die are less, about the same, or significantly
more than the
approximately 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis? (I am merely asking.)
Here is more:
In fact, for all the
haphazardness, the tax reform measures passed by the House and Senate,
which must be reconciled in conference before final passage, achieve a
deliberate and much-cherished GOP goal that supersedes short-term
victory. Republicans have long dreamed of destroying the social safety
net once and for all. This is the bill that finally threatens to
accomplish their plan.
Yes indeed. Then there
is this about Roosevelt´s New Deal:
New Dealism was a set of
programs — Social Security, public works, fair labor laws, conservation
and dozens more — but it was also an attitude about government and the
role it could and should play, from actively helping citizens in
distress to equalizing an unfair tax structure.
The proof of its success is
that Republicans didn’t dare revoke it when they came back to power.
Frankly, they couldn’t, because New Dealism was too popular for them to
do so. Dwight Eisenhower didn’t even reduce the highest marginal tax
rate of the 1950s, which sat at 91 percent. And believe it or not, no
one outside of right-wing extremists called him a socialist.
This is more or less
correct, but several important things are missing. I mention two:
First, Roosevelt was not a socialist and also not a leftist: In fact, he said
himself, probably correctly, that he saved capitalism, which is
what he wanted to do.
And second, there is
one other man who is at least as important as Roosevelt, and who also
was neither a socialist nor a leftist: John Maynard
eonomical + legal ideas reigned the West from 1946 till 1980 or briefly
Incidentally, I am also
quite willing to agree that both Roosevelt and Keynes
were far more
humane than the present Republican leaders.
Of the many ways Reagan
changed American politics, among the most important was taking the
extreme right-wing factions of conservatism who had been knocking at
the party’s door and letting them in. This was a sneaky trick and a
cataclysmic one that eventually would lead to Donald Trump.
Once upon a time, these
folks were widely dismissed as kooks and pushed to the margins. Now
they were at the heart of the party. All you need to know is that
Reagan got his political start delivering speeches about “the ant heap
of totalitarianism” and reviling Medicare as
inevitably leading to a socialist dictatorship. (We’re still waiting.)
Reagan and his right-wing
friends shared one great ambition: to destroy New Dealism. Part of this
was to further enrich their rich benefactors and disempower the poor
under that old guise of free markets and Social Darwinism. But there’s
another possible reason, more psychological than ideological: You hurt
people because it makes you feel more powerful and because you think
they have it coming. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) admitted as much the
other day when he said, in defense of the estate tax repeal, that if
you give ordinary Americans tax breaks, they will just waste their money on “booze,
women and movies.”
Yes indeed, but again I
need to make two remarks about this:
First, it was not
Reagan: It was also Bill Clinton, also Bush Jr. and also Obama: They
all did the same: Deregulate,
deregulate, deregulate - because this
helps the very rich Wall Street bankers, who helped them, financially.
And second, I agree on Grassley, as a psychologist: He is an obvious sadist.
Here is what it amounts
to according to Neiil Gabler (the writer of this article):
That is the basic point.
The object of tax reform is to create a gigantic deficit to justify
ending the New Deal.
The time will come, and it
is not far off, when every New Deal and Great Society program will be
on the chopping block. And when they are, Republicans will start their
deficit hawk mating call again. And because the deficit will have
swelled so much, programs will be slashed. They won’t just nibble away
at the edges. They will try to kill the whole thing
I agree. How many
will be forced to suicide? Tens of millions, it seems, for the simple
reason that you have to if your money has been taken from you,
your health care.
This article ends as follows:
In a way, you can’t blame
Republican office holders for being fired up. They have the New Deal in
their sights, and they are eager to pull the trigger. Yet this country
already has suffered grievously from Republicanism and Trumpism. It has
lost its moral compass, and is about
to put an alleged child molester in the Senate. America is going to
suffer a great deal more once the deficit reckoning comes and the great
unraveling begins. When the social safety net is gone, what happens to
those who fall — which in truth, could be every single one of us?
Not quite: The
Republicans may be kind enough to allow 10 or 15% of the richest
Americans to survive. Am I serious? Yes and no: Decide yourself.
This is a recommended
Republican Tax Bill Is a Poison Pill That Kills the New Deal
article is by Heather Cox Richardson on Common Dreams and originally on
BillMoyers.com. It starts as follows:
Shortly after President
Trump took office, House Speaker Paul Ryan could feel just how close he
was to finally
achieving the goal he and his party colleagues had dreamed about
for decades. With Republicans in uncontested power in Washington, he
tweeted, they had a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enact real
comprehensive tax reform and get our economy moving.” Many Trump
supporters thought reform meant relief for the “forgotten Americans” he
talked about on the campaign trail. But Republicans had other plans,
intending to take a wrecking ball to the system of American government
that has been in place since 1933 and replace it with one based in
their own ideology. If the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” becomes law, they
will have succeeded.
They succeeded, and doing so
they created the Neofascist United States of America (and see January 21, 2017). The Republicans are now
back in the 1920ies, although - see e.g. Roy Moore - their ideal time
is the 1850ies, with slavery in tact, and they may get there as well,
eventually (say in ten years).
Here is more, which also has
the merit of showing that for the Republicans the USA now has been
restored to the 1920ies, when the rich had all the
socialists were in prison or kicked out from the country, and when the
poor were really poor:
This was indeed a “new deal
for the American people,” as FDR
put it. When he named it in 1932, government policy was based on
the opposite ideology. Republicans who controlled the government in the
1920s insisted that national prosperity depended on government
protection of the rich, who they believed would plow their capital back
into the economy to provide jobs and higher wages for workers. When
they took control of all branches of the federal government in 1921,
they used their unchecked power to remake the government along the
lines of their ideology. They slashed
taxes and regulations and turned government over to businessmen,
arguing that their policies would speed up the economy and bring the
nation untold wealth.
And this is on the
background of the present shift back to the 1920ies:
Here is a link that provides
some background, namely the neofascist Lewis
In 1971, business lawyer
and future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell actively
enlisted business interests in the crusade. He urged the director
of the US Chamber of Commerce to attack media, education, politics, and
the courts in order to destroy the socialists who were attacking the
American system of free enterprise.
The onslaught worked.
Voters signed on to the goal of reducing handouts to lazy ingrates. In
1980, they put Ronald Reagan in the White House, and he promptly began
to roll back regulations, cut taxes and slash social welfare programs. Wealth
began to move upward.
Rather than acknowledging
that their programs did the opposite of what they promised, the Reagan
administration pushed movement conservative ideology by killing the
Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation that required news to be honest,
equitable and balanced. Immediately, talk radio hosts and Fox News
started their own media, calling it “fair and balanced” because it gave
airtime to the ideological narrative of movement conservatives.
Also, I should remark that Reagan´s policies were enthusiastically
if dishonestly embraced by the
supreme deregulator Bill Clinton
who seems to have deregulated anything he or Robert Rubin could lay
hands on, although I also should reassure my readers that he
suitably rewarded after the fact by speeches to bankers: He seems
have acquired (together with his lovely wife) some $150 million dollars
(though this again seems to be a secret again, as were the contents of
his speeches to the bankers he deregulated).
This is from the ending of this article:
control in Congress, Republicans are scrambling to deliver a final
death blow to the New Deal. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Acts slashes taxes on
the very wealthy and kills regulations with the idea that rich
businessmen will invest their money into the economy to support workers
— the same idea that Republicans embraced in the 1920s. The $1.4
trillion hole the bill creates in the deficit will require crippling
cuts to Medicare and Medicaid: This is deliberate. The bill also
repeals the individual mandate, the piece of the ACA that enables it to
work. That cut follows Congress’ refusal to fund the originally
bipartisan Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Today’s Republicans would have fit right in to Hoover’s administration.
Regarding social welfare programs, Utah’s Sen. Orrin Hatch noted: “I
have a rough time wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions
of dollars to help people who won’t help themselves — won’t lift a
finger — and expect the federal government to do everything.” Iowa Sen.
Chuck Grassley defended killing the estate tax because the repeal
“recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are
just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or
women or movies.”
Well... when I read this, from
the sadist and the neofascist Orrin Hatch:
Welcome back to the Roaring
“I have a rough time
wanting to spend billions and billions and trillions of dollars to help
people who won’t help themselves — won’t lift a finger — and expect the
federal government to do everything.”
... all I wonder is: How many tens of
millions of Americans are you planning
to murder - and I don´t mean
that you have the guts to do it yourself,
for I simply mean that you take all
their money and you take all their
health-insurance, and leave it to them how they want to kill
themselves, in your Republican kindness.
Grassley I commented on above. And this is a
Citizens United to Blame for the Disastrous GOP Tax Bill?
article is by Andy Kroll on Mother Jones. This is from near the
Not even sloppily
drafted bill language or glaring mistakes
in the text have gotten in the way of Speaker Paul Ryan’s and Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s mad dash to ram the bill through.
Senate Democrats learned about the GOP’s last-minute amendments to the
bill not from their own colleagues, but from
a lobbyist. They received
the final 479-page bill, complete with handwritten changes in the
margins, only hours before voting on it—that’s how backward the process
has been in the chamber that likes to call itself the world’s greatest
What explains the
Republican Party’s reckless rush to pass this bill?
It boils down to two words:
Citizens United is
of course the 2010
Supreme Court decision that said it was unconstitutional to ban
corporations and labor unions from spending unlimited amounts of money
in elections. That decision and several subsequent court rulings have
unleashed a tidal wave of campaign spending by outside players like
super-PACs and dark-money nonprofits. When I say that Citizens
United explains the GOP’s tax-bill frenzy, I really mean the
big-money political climate that Citizens United helped
create and, broadly speaking, embodies.
Yes indeed, altough I
think at least one more term is required:
Neofascism is a. A social system that is
marked by a government with a centralized powerful authority, where
the opposition is propagandized and suppressed or censored, that
propounds an ethics which has profit
its main norm, and that has a
politics that is rightwing,
anti-liberal, anti-equality, and
and that has a corporative
organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are
stronger than a national government or state, b. A political philosophy or
movement based on or advocating such a social system.
Maybe you should
compare it with Donald Trump´s opinions and values. (I
think - once
again - he evidently satisfies 10 out of 10 criterions I
As to Citizens
United: It was pushed
through by a neofascistic
total falsification of the meaning of the First
Amendment, that reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
According to the
neofascist majority of the US Supreme court, speech = money,
for which reason to they decided to give the most free speech/money
to the richest, on the grounds that these evidently have the
most dollars, that is the most free speech/money (while clearly
also those without billions, or
millions, or hundreds of thousands of income deserve no or extremely little free speech/money,
because they have little
speech/money). All thanks to the majority of the Supreme Court.
Incidentally, the above
also was argued by a former Judge of the Supreme Court in 2010 (and
apart from my term neofascism, indeed: he did not use that term
There is considerably
more in the article, that is recommended.
 I have now been
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 2 years
as if they are the
eagerly willing instruments of the US's secret services, which I
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 (!!).
The term ¨megalomania¨ my Shorter Oxford Dictionary assures me, is an
English term since 1890. (Before Freud, that is.) The term
¨narcissistic personality disorder¨ is psychiatrese that was
proposed by a psychiatrist in 1968.
Nevertheless, the term ¨megalomania¨ has totally disappeared
from the Wikipedia (it was there until a few years ago), and has
everywhere replaced by the psychiatrese bullshit term.
I think this is part of a major tendency: I think the Wikipedia is - very
quickly, as well - falling in the hands of the rich, the dishonest,
and/or the propagandists, as is also indicated by their intentional
falsification of the term ¨Totalitarian¨, that has two
meanings and not
just the one that is now reserved as THE meaning on the falsifying and
 In fact, my disbelief in psychiatry
started at age 16, in 1966, when I first read Mullahy´s ¨Oidipous -
Myth and Conflict¨, that was a competent sum-up of
psychiatry-until-then, by a proper Freudian, it seems. This convinced
me psychiatry was mostly baloney.
Since then, I read a fair amount more, and I can say that in fifty
years of reading, that also includes an excellent M.A. in psychology
and an excellent B.A. in philosophy, I discovered precisely two
American psychiatrists I more or less like, although I do not
agree with either of them: Silvano Arieti,
whose ideas about the science and practice of psychiatry were quite
opposed to that of the DSM-III of 1980, and Mickey Nardo, who was a smart
doctor who started out as an internist, and who also disagreed with the
DSM-III and later.
Both are dead now (since 1981 and 2017, respectively). Both were
intelligent, competent and honest.
 Yes indeed. I thought I wanted to say
considerably more, but I reserve it to these two points:
One. I am not against psychiatry-as-such, though I think it
will not be a real science as long we know as little of (human) brains
as we do, but I am a strong opponent of the DSM-III etc. which
was utter pseudo-
science compiled in secret, as indeed were the DSM-IV and 5.
Two. Somebody who objects to my thesis that all except a very few
psychiatrists are more interested in money than in their
patients... well, what can I say given that everybody who
doesn´t own millions is forced to work for money?