from January 11, 2018.
This is a
Nederlog of Thursday,
This is a crisis
log but it is a bit different from how it was the last five 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 more than 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
I shall continue.
Section 2. Crisis Files
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
Selections from January 11, 2018
are five crisis files that are all well worth reading:
1. Is Mr. Trump Nuts?
2. The Washington Post Lied While Correcting President
Trump's 1,950 Lies
3. Time to Bring a Monarchy to the U.S., or Time to End One?
4. Trump, the 'Very Stable Genius,' Is Falling Apart as
5. Rising Concerns About Nuclear War as Trump Prepares to
Constraints on Weapons
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:
Mr. Trump Nuts?
This article is by The Editorial Board of The New York Times. It starts
Is Donald Trump
mentally fit to be president of the United States? It’s an
understandable question, and it’s also beside the point.
because Mr. Trump’s behavior in office — impulsive, erratic, dishonest,
childish, crude — is so alarming, and so far from what Americans expect
in their chief executive, that it cries out for a deeper explanation.
It’s beside the
point not because a president’s mental capacity doesn’t matter, nor
because we should blindly accept our leaders’ declarations of their own
alone genius. Rather, we don’t need a medical degree or a
psychiatric diagnosis to tell us what is wrong with Mr. Trump. It’s
obvious to anyone who listens to him speak, reads his tweets and sees
the effects of his behavior — on the presidency, on the nation and its
most important institutions, and on the integrity of the global order.
I am sorry, but I am a psychologist, and this
is simply total bullshit.
Here are some of my remarks:
First, questions of mental fitness are
professionally judged by psychologists and psychiatrists, and also
(perhaps) by judges in court, mostly on the basis of some testimony by
some psychologist, psychiatrist or medical person.
Thus, I had to study (officially) six years to
M.A. in psychology. You may say that you do not believe that
six years of studying qualify people to make accurate judgements about
mental characteristics, but this is not done: All of these
qualifications are declared - implicitly - to be nonsense by The
Editorial Board of the
NYT - and I would be rather amazed if this board contains as
much as one psychologically/psychiatrically or medically
Second, I am a psychologist, who did
read the statement that Trump is
not sane for the first time on March
14, 2016, eight months before Trump was declared to be president.
since the verification that Trump satisfies
9 out of 9 criterions
that are being used by psychiatrists to decide whether someone has
a narcissistic personality disorder only
statements, while satisfying 5 out of 9
criterions is sufficient for
the diagnosis that Trump probably has a
personality disorder, I felt (and feel) quite correct when I
March 2016 that Trump does have a narcissistic
Third, at that time The New York Times did not at
all insist that ¨we
don’t need a medical degree or a psychiatric diagnosis to tell us what
is wrong with Mr. Trump. It’s obvious to anyone who listens to him
speak, reads his tweets and sees the effects of his behavior¨: it
simply totally avoided those questions. (And since when are
by people who have been trained for - at least - six years to
the mental capacities of other persons declared wholly
it also wholly irrelevant if physicists decide that one´s
physics are correct?! Or if mathematicians decide that one´s
reporting on mathematics is correct?!)
Fourth, in fact The Editorial Board of The New
York Times wholly avoids the question what it is that is ¨obvious to anyone who listens to him speak,
reads his tweets and sees the effects of his behavior¨ and at the
times both strongly suggests he is insane and
that questions of insanity are not the province of
psychologists and psychiatrists.
Here is more by The Editorial Board:
Mr. Trump hasn’t
undergone a mental-health evaluation, at least not one made public. But
even if his behavior were diagnosed as an illness, what would that tell
us that we don’t already know? Plenty of people with mental disorders
or disabilities function at high levels of society. Conversely, if Mr.
Trump were found to have no diagnosable illness, he would be no more
fit for the office he holds than he is today.
The problem lies
in trying to locate the essence of Mr. Trump’s unfitness in the
unknowable reaches of his mind, as opposed to where we can all openly
see it and address it in political terms. As the psychiatrist
Allen Frances told The Times: “You can’t say enough about how
incompetent and unqualified he is to be leader of the free world. But
that does not make him mentally ill.”
to the first quoted paragraph:
the judgements of people who have been academically trained for six
years to pronounce on the mental characteristics of people have some
professional sense (as is daily presumed by the courts) or else
professions of a psychologist and of a psychiatrist are total bullshit.
The Editorial Board in effect takes the second position.
What percentage corresponds to
of people¨?! 5%? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 90%? I have no idea whatsoever,
and if it were true in some
sense that ¨[p]lenty of people
mental disorders or disabilities function at high levels of society¨, then I do think it makes sense to seriously
worry about the levels at which people who ¨function at high levels of society¨ in fact do function.
As to the second
according to the fraud Frances about
17 million people with ME/CFS, of
which I am one since nearly forty years (!!), are
probably insane on the basis of his decisions and the
criterions of the
DSM-III and the DSM-IV. (He has had quite a few years to revise
judgement, but did not. In
fact, Frances does not even know how to define
mental illness, by his own admission.) And these 17 million
are insane, according to the lights of the APA for one single
reason: Their disease has not yet been medically recognized.
Ergo, all 17
million of sufferers of the disease are promptly declared insane (in
fact: for financial reasons, that strongly favor
psychology and psychiatry have pretensions of being real
Clearly, the pronouncements of real science are much better founded
than ¨political terms¨, which tend to be mostly a matter of prejudice
(in most ordinary
simply is a fact that according to Frances´ own criterions for
attributing a personality disorder to persons (like I have,
believe since nearly 40 years that I am physically ill, during
time I did become a psychologist with only straight As, but was
to find work) Trump is
insane. Fraud Frances denies that Trump
is insane by - completely invalidly and irrelevantly - insisting that
Trump in order to be declared mad must also feel bad (?!?!?!); insisted
that he could not diagnose him because of the Goldwater Rule
.... and then
diagnosed over 300 million Americans (none of whom gave him
permission) as ¨psychotics¨.
Here is more
by The Editorial Board:
number of psychiatrists, politicians and others who
should know better have increasingly taken up the Trump-is-crazy
line. In “The
Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” released last October, more than
two dozen contributors, most mental-health professionals, concluded
that Mr. Trump presents a grave and immediate danger to the safety of
America and the world. No argument there, but why do we need to hear it
from psychiatrists relying on their professional credentials?
psychiatrists and psychologists have spend years and years on
how to rationally judge whether someone is insane or not, and because
no one else did such academic studies. That is, because the
psychological judgements of non-psychologists and non-psychiatrists
(also if on The Editorial Board of the NYT) tend to be mere personal prejudice.
this article is unqualified, stupid and unscientific bullshit from a
psychologist´s point of view.
Washington Post Lied While Correcting President Trump's 1,950 Lies
This article is by Lee Camp on Truthdig. It starts as follows:
The Washington Post
put out an in-depth analysis of President
Trump’s 1,950 lies and misleading claims over his first year in
office. It’s an impressive feat since the Post had to fact-check
everything and allow Trump’s third-grade-level speeches to enter its
fact-checkers’ earholes, a punishment I wouldn’t wish on my worst
In fact, the middle of the
above three paragraphs in the original version is an image,
text I quoted. And it seems to me as if Lee Camp is quite correct
these opening statements.
days, President Trump has made 1,950
false and misleading claims
The writers at the Washington
Post are correct that lies spray out of Trump’s face with the force of
an untethered fire hose. They’re also correct that almost every
statement by Trump is either false or misleading. However, the irony is
that almost every statement the Washington Post prints in correcting
Trump’s lies is in itself a lie or misleading statement. So, to be
clear, I’m not saying Trump is not lying. I’m saying that the way in
which our mainstream media correct him is also meant to deceive us.
Here is some more:
The Washington Post
starts with December and counts backward through the year. Here are my
corrections to its corrections to Trump’s lies. (This is only
a few weeks’ worth, but you’ll probably get my gist and need to purge
yourself in a bathroom immediately.) The quote on the left is from
Trump. The writing to the right is the Post’s correction.
I quoted this mostly to
clarify Lee Camp´s conventions, that are used in the following bit that
I quote from his article:
“The stock market is at an all-time high and continues to go up, up,
correction: “This is a flip-flop for Trump. Before he was
elected, he dismissed the stock-market performance under Obama as
‘artificial’ and ‘a bubble.’ Moreover, the U.S. rise in 2017 was not
unique. When looking at the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index, it’s
clear U.S. stocks haven’t rallied as as robustly as their foreign
What the Post won’t tell
you is that the stock market does great when workers are effectively
exploited. When the average American worker doesn’t have the power or
leverage to demand better pay or safer working conditions, corporations
are thrilled, the stock market grows and the fabled coke-fueled Wall
Street parties go off without a hitch. The market has also continued to
grow with increasing inequality. Furthermore, over
90 percent of the income gains since the 2008 collapse have gone to
the top 1 percent, and 80 percent of stock value overall is held
by the top 10 percent of the population.
Plus, the market does not
take into account externalities such as impacts on the environment.
Even as the environment collapses around us, the stock market thrives.
Note that the last two
paragraphs are by Lee Camp. And I wholly agree with his
which I probably would have added that the incomes of the 95%, as
contrasted with the much higher incomes of the 5% who are most paid,
did not significantly rise (in real terms) since 1980.
And in fact there is a
lot more by Lee Camp in his article to which I also mostly agree,
that I leave to your interests.
There is one bit I will
quote, for it summarizes what it criticizes in the Washington Post:
I quite agree, and the article
ends as follows, after a lot more that I leave to your interests:
One need look no further
than its hilarious “Prop or Not” article (which
was quickly debunked) to see how far down bullshit lane it’s
willing to travel. But more importantly, what the Post won’t tell us
here is what it won’t tell us all the rest of the time. (And that last
sentence is not a typo.) The corporate media—even when it’s getting the
story correct—is endlessly avoiding certain topics or points.
Just last week, former New
York Times reporter James
Risen revealed how he was stopped by his editors from reporting on
the Bush-era illegal surveillance of American citizens. That occurred a
decade before the Edward Snowden revelations and could’ve changed the
outcome of presidential elections as well as the course of our
government’s continued assault on our civil liberties. (No biggie.)
Our media avoids everything
from climate change (which it’s known about for decades but hardly
covers even as it covers extreme weather events) to the current
U.S.-backed destruction of Yemen to the fact that only
1 percent of terror plots stopped by the FBI are real—and most of
those 99 percent were helped along by the FBI.
And here’s the
thing—The Washington Post knows this.
I mostly agree, although I may
be slightly more optimistic
than Camp´s last statement, for while I mostly
agree with Camp´s criticisms of The Washington Post, I think its
assessment of Trump´s lies as lies is of some help.
It knows everything I just
stated. It’s even covered some of it in the past. And yet, in general,
most of the time, it leaves out this context so that our nation
continues arresting thousands upon thousands of people (of color) a
year for small-time drug use. It seems the Post wants to have its coke
and eat it, too.
Overall, The Washington
Post has filled its “corrections” with decontextualized manipulations
of its own. (And I’ve covered only about two weeks out of 52.) The Post
is lying to us as much as Trump is. Until we can see these issues for
what they really are, we will never be able to change anything.
to Bring a Monarchy to the U.S., or Time to End One?
This article is by Thom Hartmann on Truthdig and originally on
AlterNet. It starts as follows:
The New York
Times recently ran a fascinating
article by Leslie Wayne putting forth arguments from the International Monarchist
League. Summarizing them, Wayne wrote, “Their core arguments:
Countries with monarchies are better off because royal families act as
a unifying force and a powerful symbol; monarchies rise above politics;
and nations with royalty are generally richer and more stable.”
What the author misses is
that we already have an aristocracy here in the United States: rule by
the rich. In fact, much of American history is the story of the battle
between the interests of the “general welfare” of our citizens, and the
interests of the #MorbidlyRich.
I completely agree
the second paragraph, while I very probably would give considerably
less weight to the first paragraph, mostly because monarchism vs.
non-monarchism is an extremely vague rule. (Thus Holland - the country
where I live - is a monarchy, but the monarchy is quite
practice, while I have not seen much of the ¨unifying force¨ attributed to it.)
But this is a quite
good article. Here is its summary of the present position of
Here’s where we are right
- A billionaire oligarch
programs his very own entire television news network to promote the
interests of the billionaire class, with such effectiveness that
average working people are repeating billionaire-helpful memes like
“cut regulations,” “shrink government,” and “cut taxes” – policies that
will cause more working people and their children to get sick and/or
die, will transfer more money and power from “we the people” to a few
oligarchs, and will lower working-class
wages over time.
- A small group of
billionaires have funneled so much money into our political sphere that
“normal” Republicans like Jeff Flake and Bob Corker point out that they
couldn’t get elected in today’s environment because they’d face
rightwing-billionaire-funded primary challengers.
- The corporate media
(including online media), heavily influenced by the roughly billion
dollars the Koch Network, Adelson, Mercers, etc. poured through their
advertising coffers and into their profits in the last election, won’t
even mention in their “news” reporting that billionaire oligarchs are
mainly calling the tunes in American politics, particularly in the GOP.
- Former President Jimmy
out on my radio show that the US “is now an oligarchy, with
unlimited political bribery,” in part as a result of the right-wing
Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.
- Nobody in corporate
media, even on the “corporate left,” is willing to explicitly point out
how billionaires and the companies that made them rich control and
define the boundaries of “acceptable” political debate in our country.
- Thus, there’s no honest
discussion in American media of why the GOP denies climate change (to
profit petro-billionaires), no discussion of the daily damage being
done to our consumer and workplace protections, and no discussion of
the horrors being inflicted on our public lands and environment by
Zinke and Pruitt, the guys billionaire-toady Mike Pence chose to run
Interior and the EPA. There’s not even a discussion of the major issue
animating American politics just one century ago: corporate mergers and
how they damage small business and small towns.
I think that is a good
summary (and I grant there are other ones), while I add that the rest
of the article is also quite good, but is reserved for your interests,
except for its ending:
In fact, this goes less far than I do, but OK. And
is a strongly recommended article.
To save our republic, we
must acknowledge that the American aristocracy of the morbidly rich is
destroying our country. And then overturn (via constitutional amendment) the
twin policies of right-wingers on our Supreme Court that say that
billionaires can own their own personal politicians, and that
corporations are “persons” with human rights.
Once we reject America’s
new self-appointed royalty, with their billionaire and corporate money
fouling our system, our elected officials can restore protections for
working people – and we can once again see our wages begin to rise like
they did for 40 straight years before the advent of Reaganism.
Only then can we bring back
rules to keep the oligarch’s poisonous money out of our political
system, and begin to break up their control of American business and
media so that small- and medium-sized businesses, unions, and local
media can once again thrive. And, with them, we can return to something
resembling a democracy.
the 'Very Stable Genius,' Is Falling Apart as Mueller Seeks Interview
This article is by Jefferson Morley on AlterNet. It starts as follows:
The tide of discussion of
President Trump’s mental competence is rising along with the alarm of
the president’s lawyers. As special prosecutor Robert Mueller seeks
an interview with President Trump, the president's legal
representatives are grappling with the challenge of a talkative client
who alternates between self-serving
lies and self-destructive
truths while sowing doubts among his own closest aides about his
While Trump has proclaimed
himself, via Twitter, to be a "very
stable genius," the members of his staff have their doubts,
according to Michael Wolff, author of Fire
and Fury,a book about the first year of the Trump
presidency. Wolff wrote that "100 percent" of the people close to the
president with whom he spoke concluded Trump was "incapable of
functioning in his job."
In fact, I do not
how correct the statements of Michael Wolff are, but I believe
he may be
quite correct, or almost quite correct with his statement that ¨"100 percent" of the people close to the
president with whom he spoke concluded Trump was "incapable of
functioning in his job."¨
Here is more on that
Wolff told BBC's
Radio 4 that he overheard the president’s aides question his
"The truth is, over this
period that I witnessed, this seven or eight months, they all came to
the conclusion gradually at first, then faster and faster, that
something was unbelievably amiss here," Wolff explained. "That this was
more peculiar than they ever imagined it could be.”
I do not quite say ¨I
say¨, if only be because I
decided nearly two years ago that Trump very
probably is insane, and because I agree that judgement is not
very difficult to make, while I also do agree that in Trump´s mind
¨something (..)¨ is ¨amiss¨. And I am quite capable of believing that
Trump´s associates came to realize this over the course of the last
year, indeed in part because I believe, as a psychologist, that Trump is not sane and that insanity
is relatively rare (which may not be what many
believe these days, but which is true according to most
Here is the ending of this
"You cannot listen to this
man talk without at least contemplating the possibility that something
is grievously amiss,” Wolff said.
Soon Robert Mueller will be
listening to Trump and contemplating the possibility that the president
of the United States is both criminally liable and mentally
I agree with the first
of these two paragraphs. I do not know about the second
indeed in part because Mueller is neither a psychologist nor a
psychiatrist, and in part because I think Trump very probably
criminally liable, and that Mueller will limit his research to that
Concerns About Nuclear War as Trump Prepares to Loosen Constraints on
This article is by Jessica Corbett on Common Dreams. It starts as
Advocates of nuclear
disarmament are raising alarms about reports
that the Trump administration is planning to loosen constraints on the
U.S. nuclear weapons program, warning that the Pentagon's forthcoming
plan "makes nuclear war more likely."
Jon Wolfsthal, an official
who worked on arms control in the Obama administration and has reviewed
what he believes is the final version of the Nuclear Posture Review
the Guardian the Pentagon's new review includes plans to
develop more nuclear weapons and expand "the circumstances in which the
U.S. might use its nuclear arsenal, to include a response to a
non-nuclear attack that caused mass casualties, or was aimed at
critical infrastructure or nuclear command and control sites."
I say, which I do because I wholly
agree that ¨the Pentagon's
forthcoming plan "makes nuclear war more likely"¨, and indeed I would also agree with what is
not being said here: Any major nuclear war will very
exterminate human civilization, and may well exterminate all human
And this is mostly by Kate Hudson, , general secretary of the
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament:
"The review also includes
new scenarios for when nuclear weapons would be used to respond to
non-nuclear attacks," Hudson noted. "This is a hostile and provocative
development and will be understood as such by other states."
Hudson acknowledged the
U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) that was published last
month—which experts warned
could create "more pathways to potential nuclear war" and, as
Hudson observed, was "littered with references to nuclear weapons and a
belligerent approach to North Korea"—and concluded, "Both the NSS and
the soon-to-be-published Nuclear Posture Review reflect Trump's seeming
obsession with nuclear weapons and nuclear war."
I completely agree. And
it also is especially the combination of Trump´s insanity together with
his capacity to start a nuclear war within 5 to 10 minutes that
seriously worry me - and while I do not think
that Vice-President Mike
Pence is politically different from president Trump, the relevant
difference between both gentlemen is that Trump is insane, and Pence
does not appear to be.
And this is a
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 (!!).