Saturday, December 9, 2017

Crisis: Madman Trump, Guantánamo, On Republicans*2, Citizens United

Sections                                                     crisis index

1. Summary
Crisis Files
     A. Selections from December 9, 2017

This is a Nederlog of Saturday
, December 9, 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 and since two years (!!!!) 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.

Section 2. Crisis Files

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

A. Selections from December 9, 2017
1. “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump”: Psychiatrist Dr. Bandy
     Lee on Growing Mental Health Concerns

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 New Deal
5. Is Citizens United to Blame for the Disastrous GOP Tax Bill?
The items 1 - 5 are today's selections from the 35 sites that I look at every morning. The indented text under each link is quoted from the link that starts the item. Unindented text is by me:

1. “The 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:

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.

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 interview?

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 [2]).

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 nuclear war.

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:

AMY 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 again.

Dr. Bandy Lee, welcome to Democracy Now! What are your concerns? And are they increasing?

DR. BANDY 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—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the Goldwater rule.

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 emergency.

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 science (see here, 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 [3].

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) narcissists.

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. [4]

I think Dr. Bandy Lee is an obvious exception to this rule, and here is more from the interview:

AMY 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:

AMY 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 launched without
 question. And—

AMY 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 opinion.

I conclude with a brief diagnosis - I think - of Trump by Dr. Bandy Lee:

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

I completely agree, and I strongly recommend you read all of both interviews I quoted from.
2. The 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 detention camp.
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.
I should open this review by saying that Erin Thompson ¨is an assistant professor of art crime¨ - 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.

Here is some more - and
Thompson does sound quite naive, but I don´t know how sincere that is:

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.
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 camps and Nazis than most do.

And Guantánamo is a U.S. concentration camp, though I agree the inmates are better fed than the inmates of Nazi concentration camps.

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 sub-human.

And indeed they are not, but they are treated as if they are. And many Americans do believe the propaganda they are fed.

3. The Real Evil Behind the Republicans' Tax and Budget Plans

This article is by Neil Gabler on AlterNet and originally on 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 Yahoo.)

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 whom he 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 also 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 Keynes, whose eonomical + legal ideas reigned the West from 1946 till 1980 or briefly before it.

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 only 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 persons 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, as has 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 article.

4. The Republican Tax Bill Is a Poison Pill That Kills the New Deal

This article is by Heather Cox Richardson on Common Dreams and originally on 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 power, 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:

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.

Here is a link that provides some background, namely the neofascist Lewis Powell Jr.

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 was suitably rewarded after the fact by speeches to bankers: He seems to 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:

With majority 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.”
Welcome back to the Roaring ’20s.
Well... when I read this, from the sadist and the neofascist Orrin Hatch:
“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 recommended article.

5. Is Citizens United to Blame for the Disastrous GOP Tax Bill?

This article is by Andy Kroll on Mother Jones. This is from near the beginning:
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 deliberative body.

What explains the Republican Party’s reckless rush to pass this bill?

It boils down to two words: Citizens United.

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 as its main norm, and that has a politics that is rightwing, nationalistic, pro-capitalist, anti-liberal, anti-equality, and anti-leftist, and that has a corporative organization of the economy in which multi-national corporations are stronger than a national government or stateb. 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 mention to identify neofascists.)

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 at all).

There is considerably more in the article, that is recommended.


[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 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 (!!).

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 first 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 been 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 anonymous Wikipedia.

[3] 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.

[4] 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?
           home - index - summaries - mail