TALKING IS THE SAME AS ACTION:

AS IN 'THE TALKING CURE'

Psychology as Religion claims to be able to deal with these problems, and many other personal problems, by using the so-called ‘Talking Cure’. This device is another form of what was described in The Warning Comes True: whether it takes the form of group discussion, counselling, or self awareness sessions; the Talking Cure contains a potential deception; whether of ourselves or of others. Yes, of course, talking about your anxieties or sorrows to someone else can make you feel better. Nothing new about that. Families and friends have known that and have been doing it since human relationships first began. What has happened now, however, is that Psychology as Religion exploits part of our human nature in order to medicalise it and then monopolise authority over it, and through these means, to control it at the expense of our freedom.

In addition to pretending that it has something new to offer, Psychology as Religion also deceives by calling it a cure. Yes, it may help me to talk to a sympathetic friend about how I feel self-conscious because I am overweight; but however much better I may feel afterwards, I won’t have lost a single kilogram. And if I’m bullied at school because I have ginger hair, no amount of talking is going to turn my hair into golden locks.

So why are those using the Talking Cure fooled into thinking that they are 'cured', when the cause of their problem remains completely unchanged? How is it possible that, when they are still overweight, have the same body characteristics, or whatever; that they feel cured? The answer is in that word 'feel'. Truth, for Psychology as Religion, is what I feel; what I like; what I want to be true. In reality this is not truth; because truth is established by observation, testing and evidence.

Yet this issue of truth can be distorted even further than being a personal opinion based on 'feelings'. When the Psychology as Religion becomes a State Religion, then it can even be illegal to assert that the cause of personal problems are established by observation, testing and evidence.

TALKING IS THE SAME AS ACTION:

AS IN 'WE MUST SET UP A COMMITTEE'?

I don't think that what I am going to say is particularly true about female politicians compared with male ones, but it's just that I happened to have heard it in a couple of TV interviews with politicians who happened to be female . What I am referring to is people saying that they're going into politics 'to make a change' and 'to get things done'. They say that they found something wrong in society and decided that going into politics was the way to 'take action' to 'set things right'.

Yet what do politicians actually do? They talk; and they then set up formal procedures to limit what form of talking can then take place, by censoring what can be talked about using pre-emptive rules, policies, procedures, and agendas. They then use this process to create laws that tell other people what actions they must take. So those who have gone into politics to 'take action' and 'to set things right', actually do nothing. Instead, they make others do it for them.

Is this unfair to politicians? Well, if we only applied these comments to them, it would be unfair: since politicians are people in our society much like the rest of us, and like the rest of us, they are the victims of the plague of Psychology as Religion. As in the story of Ethan, they have learned since children that it is other people who have to do things for us if we are to have what we want. The idea that leaders should actually lead by going into action ahead of their followers is long gone. In England, the last ruler to die in action leading his followers in the cause that he believed in, was Richard the Third. That was over 600 years ago. In these days of Psychology as Religion, such an idea is at best regarded a undemocratic, authoritarian, autocratic, or any other description that condemns the idea of individual and responsible action.

This leads us to the theme of the Democracy Fraud , where the 'Truth is a Majority Vote’: that if a democratic majority of politicians decide that action means getting others to act; then that becomes the true meaning of the word action.

And I have left something out. I also referred to politicians as people who saw themselves as wanting to 'set things right'. The implications of this statement are much more sinister than any talk about action. 'Setting things right' implies a particular view of what 'right' means, and as in the democracy Fraud, the meaning of 'right' is what the majority says that it is. So 'action' also means imposing values on others; and as long as politics is infected with them, these are the values that Psychology as Religion has infiltrated into our social life.

More Symptoms . . .