The Big Lie at the root of therapy

The big lie of therapy is that you are at the mercy of your ‘unconscious’.

This alleged dependency on the unseen and uncontrollable forces ‘in your unconscious’ is the reason given why you ‘need a therapist’. The therapist positions himself as the mediator between you and your unconscious. He is more expert about you than you. (As the maverick psychiatrist R. D Laing explained; you need a lawyer to mediate with the law, an accountant to mediate with the Inland Revenue – and a therapist to mediate with your unconscious. A bourgeois outlook beyond par).

The actual purpose of this ideological position is to create and justify and maintain the dependency on the therapist: “at the mercy of your unconscious” translates to “you need a therapist”.

This in turn translates into income, wealth, status and power for the therapist. All at the expense of the client.

Psychotherapists are parasites. They pick off weaker members of society (look at the text of the ads.; they are always looking for the weak and vulnerable) and insert themselves into these peoples’ lives on a parasitical basis. The aim is to prolong the pointless ‘treatment’ for years. Each client is worth perhaps £1500.00 p.a for the therapist. They only need about 20 to make a very comfortable living.

The truth is that you can change yourself by reason, self-discipline and effort. This is an approach which is founded in reason and humanism. Therapy operates at the level of hocus-pocus, charlatans, and magic.



The lies of the elite on terrorism

In the 1990s at the time the Western war machine was justifying its intervention in Somalia to its ‘democratic’ populations we could not sleep without hearing the mantra used to justify the intervention: “failed states breed terrorism”.

This mantra has been much less in evidence recently.

This may be because it is evident to everyone that the West is now involved in creating failed states. Iraq was destroyed by the 2003 invasion. Libya – where there are now 3 rival governments – was destroyed by the 2011 NATO campaign. And Syria is a work in progress.

It is from these countries – all failed states – that terrorism comes which results in the deaths of civilians in European cities. This is why the elites have gone quiet on the “failed states breed terrorism” line. The line now is that ISIS/Al Qaeda “hate our values” or they are “death cults”. The population is expected to swallow the idea that these people have dropped down from outer space, full of hate for “our values”, and have launched their campaign against the West as a first cause.

This is a whopping great lie. It is really an evil lie. We know that. Because we know that “failed states breed terrorism”. British intelligence knows that and has told the political classes that – specifically in connection with Iraq. [1] When Michael Fallon tries to twist Corbyn’s words on this specific point he is lying. He is playing games with the lives of children.  As is May, who did the same thing. (If you listen carefully to the audio in the video on this page you can note how May’s voice rises a notch when she says that Corbyn said the attack in Manchester was “our fault”. She is lying. She would fail a voice based lie detector test). These are the kind of evil people who put themselves up for election in this country.


1. Guardian. MI5 on Iraq war and terrorism

Guardian. British intelligence warned before Iraq war that it would lead to uptick in terrorism

Meddling in the democratic political processes of another country

The Russian state may have hacked the computers of the Democratic party and released information which was harmful to the Democratic Presidential candidate.

The information in support of this which is viewable in the public domain is circumstantial at best.

Let’s say the Russian state did this and let’s avoid the question of whether it could have been done by Russian actors who are tolerated by the Russian state so long as they do not harm the Russian state but who do not act under the direction of the Russian state.

Then at least let’s put the discussion on a balanced footing.

The US continually interferes in the political processes of other countries. (Leaving aside the obvious point that it regularly simply invades countries to get them to bend to their will, in reality, an altogether more serious matter than playing about with some emails). On Russia; the US funds Radio Liberty – which publishes and broadcasts propaganda into Russia which is precisely designed to undermine the confidence of the Russian people in their government. Very much like the West accuses RT and Sputnik of doing.

This is the Radio Liberty site in English. And this is the Russian language version. There are also versions aimed at individual Russian republics such as the Republic of Tatarstan.

And in terms of direct meddling. Here is video carried on a Russian news outlet (not in fact owned by the state) (and likely shot by Russian intelligence services) showing a meeting between US officials and a Russian opposition party.  Imagine the furore in the British press if Labour party figures had been meeting with people from the Russian Foreign Affairs ministry. Indeed we can see the fuss around contacts between Trump’s team and the Russian Embassy.

IF the Kremlin was behind the hack of the DNC then it is quite likely that they just take the view that they are not doing anything which the US doesn’t do to them. (Putin has very clearly denied that the Russian state was involved – though this version still leaves open the possibility of non-state Russian actors).


More anti-Russia propaganda in the Guardian

It is hard work keeping up with the endless stream of dishonest anti-Russia articles in the Guardian.

This one is fairly typical fare. Actually it is credited to AFP (a media outlet part-owned by the French government).

It is about an apparent protest and some arrests in Moscow. Typically, the main source for the article appears to be a special interest group. The paper does not appear to have checked the story with the Moscow authorities despite having at least one (possibly more) journalists based in Moscow.


i. Faking it 

The headline talks about a “monitor” as the source of the story. That sounds credible. Who do they mean? A UN body perhaps? No – it turns out they mean a Russian web site dedicated to tracking arrests during protests. (Incidentally that such web sites exist is not particularly consistent with the narrative line about the “Kremlin controlled media environment in Russia”. But anyway). I.e the sole source for the story is a pressure group.

ii. Claims become real

This is absolutely normal for this kind of propaganda:

Dadin, 35, was jailed in December 2015 for the supposed crime of holding repeated peaceful demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin’s rule without official permission.

In a letter to his wife smuggled out from prison in November, Dadin alleged he had been tortured behind bars, as well as threatened with rape and murder.

His allegations exploded into the public eye, shining a spotlight on abuse that forced the Kremlin to pay attention.

Ildar Dadin did indeed claim that he had been abused in custody. Notice however that in this text the Guardian simply claims that the abuse took place. A claim by an opposition figure is immediately elevated to the level of truth. Russian media reports that a prison service investigation into these claims found them to be not true. [1]

iii. Shameless lying:

Dadin, 35, was jailed in December 2015 for the supposed crime of holding repeated peaceful demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin’s rule without official permission.

No such crime exists on the statute book in Russia and Ildar Dadin was not prosecuted for this. He could not have been. This is made up. There are laws in Russia which require that public rallies be authorised. In this case Mr Dadin was imprisoned for repeatedly breaking these rules (under a law which permits imprisonment in cases of repeat offences). [2] The Guardian is simply making up a story here. The offence was not “supposed”. It is a real offense on the statute books in Russia. And it has nothing to do with the content of the demonstrations (“against Putin”); the offence concerns unsanctioned rallies. The Guardian can certainly criticize these laws from its liberal perspective. But this account is just fiction.

iv. One law for them

In the UK there are very draconian powers which control what people can do in public spaces known as Public Space Protection Orders. [3] Different countries have different laws. The Guardian’s obsession with criticizing the situation in Russia far more than it does the situation in the UK is strange. For example the Guardian writes:

In 2014 Russia controversially introduced criminal charges for those who breach rules at protest rallies twice or more in a period of 180 days.

That is indeed the law under which Mr Dadin was jailed. But who decides it is “controversial”? Again; this strange spectre of the Western liberal class assuming it has the right to criticise what happens in Russia. A right they hold as fast to as they hold to the idea that if Russia comments on what happens in the West that is an outrageous example of “interference” etc.

What lies at the base of this distorted narrative on Russia – indeed this cheap hatred of Russia? It seems that they hate Russia (a hatred they personalise onto “Putin”) because it is not like them. But this betrays some strange kind of insecurity about their own values. Are they really the democrats they claim to be? If they were they might admit that Putin is democratically elected and is widely popular in Russia. It looks like the Guardian cannot admit that democracy can ever produce anything other than the liberal, hedonistic, materialistic values they hold so dear. But this means that they aren’t in the end really democrats at all.


1. RT

2. Amnesty International

3. Manifesto Club

Can the “free” press be trusted to allow a debate on public ownership?

This is an interview with Cat Hobbs who is the Director of “We Own It” – a campaign group based in Oxford which campaigns for public ownership.

What is striking about this interview is how entirely ideologically committed to privatisation the interviewer is. (His commitment to privatisation goes far beyond what might be regarded as asking challenging questions).

His ideological commitment is such that he makes the following questionable statement [2.37]:

“Since privatisation the railways are now more or less paying for themselves”. This is not true. The railway companies receive £ billions in public support and subsidy. [1]

This sort of interview is also relevant to the whole sham discourse about the “free press” in the West. Western media is usually presented as “free” in contrast to (typically) Russian state media. The Russian state media certainly tends to favour the line taken by the Russian government on most issues. But then, as we see here, the “free” press in the West does something similar and at the same time much more insidious. Sky, the broadcaster here, for example, is a publicly traded company. That is; it is owned by finance capital. Here we see it, in the guise of fulfilling the role of a “free press”, working as hard as it can including using factually questionable statements in order to promote the interests of its owners – finance capital. Who, we can be assured, love the idea of a publicly subsidised ‘free-market’ in the railways.

The interview does not deviate from the ideological free-market line. There is no sense here of “journalistic balance”. Even in terms of conventional classical economics there are arguments for and against privatisation but in this interview only one side is considered by the interviewer. For example note the way he argues as if it were an ideologically free point that privatisation is good because passengers pay for their travel rather than the taxpayer. This is in fact not the kind of neutral point the interviewer presents it as, but is one side of the argument. The other side of this argument is that a nationally owned rail network with prices maintained at an affordable level a) is fairer – which is a value in its own right which is simply discounted by market economics and b) also has economic benefits in that it allows more people to consider jobs which they cannot afford to travel to in a for-profit system – and this has wider benefits for the economy. We can see in the interviewer’s question a radical and ideological position masquerading as “common sense”. This is not an attempt to “stimulate democratic debate” but an attempt to close it off.

To be clear; it is one thing for a journalist to put the other side of the argument to an interviewee in order to challenge them. But what we see here is something somewhat different. Here one side of the argument is offered as straight fact. This is an ideological position.

Ms Hobbs does a fantastic job up against this example of the “free press”.