Adrian Scott Counsellor Supervisor MBACP Accred

President Trump doesn’t want to directly condemn White Racists for the violence in Charlottesville. Trump says the violence was from both sides. Trump says he was waiting for the facts of the situation to be determined before commenting. Is he afraid of upsetting one of his voter bases?
There has been a long history of white Americans being intolerant of outsiders. This is an understatement. The history of the US is based on conflict between cultures & races. The American man owning his land and be prepared to fight for his family is a big part of the American psyche.

Paranoia, Conspiracy theory all add to the mix: the White American is under threat, and they have to arm themselves accordingly. We have our own version of this in the Brexit vote. Mainly white people feeling overwhelmed and disenfranchised by other races and cultures.

What Trump says seems to be said without understanding context. There is no connection between his comments and the wider understanding of race and its history. In this mind set the wider context is not seen. A lack of imagination? Concrete thinking versus abstract thinking? Pragmatism? Short term versus long term. Educated versus Less Educated? Practical versus intellectual?
Whatever this is – it is a fault line the world over. Is the difference between these two world views feeling under attack or not?

Is one world view more intrinsically valid than the other? How can both views live side by side in the same world?
Are we learning that these two world views struggle to have power over one another?
And now we are entering an era where the power of the disenfranchised is gaining power over the intellectual?

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Metamerism is the concept of colour changing under different tones of light. Ever bought something in the shop then bring it home and it doesn’t look the same colour? The light in the shop and at home is not the same. Look at the colour of a car and all the panels are different colours from each other, and from the middle to the edges.

Metamerism is the difference of the reflection curves of two colours which look the same under a given form of lighting (e.g. electric bulb light, daylight). Only colours which display the same remission curves will be perceived as the being the same colour under various light sources.

Industry tries to rid colour of its changeability to produce consistent products. The consumer wants their phone and computer to look the same as the picture and everyone else’s phone and computer.

For example you can darken the colour red by adding a black pigment, but by adding a complimentary colour like green it will make a deeper darker red.

Hella Jongerius sees herself at the vanguard of trying to challenge industry into seeing and using colour differently. Using her Colour Catchers as canvases which capture unique light. Shaped to bring in the light and to show its difference and parts she shows the watcher the depth of each colour.

We all know this in nature: the colour green has so many hues across the sight of the landscape. The artist is expert at showing light and shadow. The way industry and the artist work with colour is so different.
Industry has yet to catch up.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Sports Feelings is apparently what we all want to hear. The first thing the commentator asks the athlete after a race is what are your feelings at this moment?

It is ironic and well proven that feelings and sport don’t mix. Particularly difficult feelings. Top sports people are renowned for having cool mental states to cope with the pressure and to keep their performance ultimate. Once the race is won the athlete can release all the held back feelings, they might have had during the race.

We choose sport as a stage for entertainment because it emulates us. Our slow biological brains still work in fight and flight mode. Sport is the build up of tension then a release, a copy of fright, flight and survival. We can take part in this familiar process as athlete or spectator. Athletes even use the fight and flight reaction to improve performance.

Generally (with notable exceptions) sports people don’t have personalities which dwell on difficult feelings – quite like the rest of us. Administrators, Scientists, Medics and Corporate types are well suited to sport. These occupations are best performed with less difficult feelings. Outcome over feeling. A perfectionist streak helps. Sport is also a scientific endeavour, and it is never able to be done perfectly.

We are told that sport (and exercise) is good for us. Of course it is. The release of endorphin is a happy good feelings drug! Another explanation is that endorphins numb and cut us off from our difficult feelings. Happiness is to be numbed out.

And so does the age we live in. One of the outcomes is we have to be happy. The aim is to numb out away from difficult feelings. Eat, consume, bet, internet to numb out. Sport is a brilliant foil for numbing out. It is a big thumbs up of approval for happiness. People seek help for numbing out when the numbed out no longer works. Worn down by the difficulty of life and trauma.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Another example of mansplaining in the news this week. Possibly on the back of the BBC releasing their top stars’ income. Depending on your point of view this is another example of structural sexism, or women hating men.
mansplaining

Its easy to take situations on face value. One female radio presenter miffed at the higher incomes of men doing the same job. A reaction to the more comic sports presenter who has a more macho sense of humour.

But again context is everything. Mens’ pay is consistently higher than womens’ pay whatever the sector or business. In boardrooms and offices across the country women have subordinate roles to men. Men have a more bullish attitude to confidence over competence. Men bulls**t better which interview panels are more convinced by.
mansplaining

A big part of the male population still believes that women are less than men. But have no idea that they think like this. These men are married to women and have daughters. They can see no sexism in their behaviour but structural sexism like racism is tricky to see or identify. No one necessarily intends it but there is an outcome.

Look at the history of how society had dealt with sexual abuse and grooming of young vulnerable women, or Stephen Lawrence. Sexism is hard to identify but its impact is clear. Another impact is men being paid more then women.
Another topical impact of structural discrimination is Grenfell. Easy to identify the macabre husk of a block of flats. Difficult to tease out the attitudes and beliefs that led to the building being dangerously clad.

Still don’t get it? Some have given up. Reni Eddo-Lodge has by writing a book called “Why I’m not Talking to White People about Race“. Things change so slowly. We only have primitive brains. We cannot change quickly.
But still sexism, discrimination and racism continue.
Mansplaining

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

mansplaining

mansplaining

mansplaining

City of Ghosts is a film about a group of people documenting what is going on in their Syrian city of Raqqa. This group calls themselves Raqqa is Being Silently Slaughtered. They have been forced to leave Raqqa, Syria, and then Turkey and now stay in Germany. They are under a constant threat of death.

They have a team of people still living in Raqqa trying to film what ISIS and the SDF are doing in their city. Murder, be headings, and torture are still going on in Raqqa. The battle for Raqqa continues, with fighting and bombing between the Syrian Democratic Forces and ISIS.

There is nothing new in the film. It brings to light and brings home the personal impact on a group of men who are trying to fight back with the power of the pen and social media. Footage of ISIS advertising their ideology in market squares is interesting in showing how the group operate on the ground. The personal pain of a homeland and city is understated, with the feelings running low with agonising high points.

The uniqueness is in the 21st Century media age where we can see footage taken at great risk from inside the City of Raqqa from the comfort of our European homes. This could not be happening in any other age, so discreetly and secretly.

But it is a well worn tale of an oppressed people, a rebellion, a vacuum, and more oppression. This tale has repeated itself many many times of the centuries. The other big common denominator is that from the outside nothing can be done to improve the situation. Are we doomed to repeat?

It seems that we are. Our existence is about power and how we deal with and express it. We all want our own power which is healthy for our existence. But sometimes it is taken too far. Countries express an insecurity about who we are and where we belong. We seem unable to express this individually so it comes out in patriotism, and nationalism. Individually we find no help or support in trying to express our feelings of insecurity healthily. So it builds up into a collective feeling which explodes into fighting and war.
City of Ghosts

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Incompetent Male Leaders are recruited because it is difficult to differentiate between confidence and incompetence. The only advantage men have over women is that men are able to show charisma and charm which is mistaken for confidence and leadership potential. Men think that they are smarter than women and therefore are perceived to be so.

Freud wrote that a group of leaderless people tend to put all their fears and anxieties onto a person that they choose as leader. These people are generally not fit to lead. They are self-centred and over confident which makes them poor leaders. The point is that we have to be responsible and own our own feelings so that they don’t get transferred or projected onto the leader.

The better leaders are generally more humble and emotionally intelligent. Women are generally more emotionally intelligent than men. So ironically don’t get chosen as leaders.

Brexit can be seen in this way. A group of disenfranchised people unaware of their feelings of vulnerability, weakness, and upset made a decision through impotence and rage. The option that they chose was lead by politicians who were narcissistic and self serving. The group chose the option that ultimately would not serve them. Ironically many perhaps would still not believe this.

It is the same in organisations. Male managers who rise to the top of organisations enable its downfall. Men who bluff their way through the interview, are exactly the type of leaders that the organisation doesn’t need to remain successful. The paradoxical implication is that the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are actually responsible for their downfall. In other words, what it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job well. As a result, too many incompetent people are promoted to management jobs, and promoted over more competent people.

This is so embedded in our culture that women who want to be leaders are expected to take on these characteristics of self centred male leaders. It seems that most leaders fail because they have been chosen for these characteristics. Has good leadership always been the exception or the norm?
Incompetent Male Leaders

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

s

Cheryl Glass was a child prodigy. She was a scholar and business woman way ahead of her time. She started racing at 9 years old. Catching Father’s bug for motor racing she had huge confidence and talent.

Today along with Lewis Hamilton she would still be attracting attention for being a woman of colour in a sport filled with men. But when she was racing in the 1970’s, 1980’s, and 1990’s she was totally alone. She also attracted love and hate along the usual line of racial bias. She was a black woman racing driver while Obama was still in High School.

Unfortunately her racing career wasn’t about winning but she was competitive. At 18 years old she survived a horrific car crash, which would have ended most drivers’ career. But she carried on. Ruthlessly driven. It was her attitude that might have set her back. Vulnerable to being disappointed in herself with very high expectations of her ability – she tried to make huge leaps up the racing divisions. That optimism would soon be replaced by dejection. She was forced to give up motor racing.

She focused on her company Cheryl Glass Designs, a custom gown and wedding dress business. She was also a model, and involved in setting up Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) education programs for inner city students.

But this was nothing compared to the last years of Cheryl Glass’s life. In 1991 she was attacked and raped in her own home.There was not enough evidence to bring charges. Her life dived here fighting for justice and her own survival. In the last four years of her life she made numerous reports of incidents to the police, fights with her neighbours, arrests, and restraining orders.
Her cause of death is unknown.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

In this book the author records coming across a conspiracy of the rich (US Dark Right) to suppress democracy to enlarge their own wealth. She writes of a stealth plan of the Radical Right which was previously invisible. She describes a hidden programme to disable democracy. US Dark Right

James McGill Buchanan an economist quietly pushed his agenda of no government. No education, no public health care, or public housing. This was picked up on by the rich who funded a programme that any institution is an agent of oppression, forcing men of wealth to support the undeserving masses.

Buchanan was supported by wealthy business to develop his public choice theory. One of its tenants was the lack of incentive for the voter to vote or know how they are going to vote. The voter is ignorant of political information, has no influence on the result. So being politically knowledgeable is not worthwhile.

As an aside Buchanan was awarded a Nobel Prize for Economics in 1986! To save Capitalism from Democracy? This puts into doubt the reputation and validity of the Nobel Prize. Ex-President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Buchanan was the arbiter of stealth: never reveal your outcome. Bankrolled by billionaires like Charles Koch -academic faculties began to look like right wing think tanks. Slowly but surely they began to change the rules. Funding campaigns against public health systems by stating that radical reform is needed to save it . When in fact the aim is to destroy it. They infiltrated the Republican Party, and now the world has billionaire Trump.

Was Buchanan right? Is there a conflict between economic freedom and political liberty? Nobody would vote for freedom for billionaires so it has to be covert. Is Buchanan’s programme a prescription for totalitarian capitalism?
It seems the programme is coming to fruition.
US Dark Right

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Petrofiction is a term created by Amitav Gosh to describe the few books written about the oil relationship between the United States and the Middle East. Petrofiction has expanded its reach to include petro-modernity, petro- criticism and an energy unconscious (petro-unconscious).

It started as a negative term: but is now being researched to reveal the link between the oil industry and English Literature. Who has the oil? Who wants the Oil? and how did they get the oil? are questions which are not easily answered due to the universal use of fossil fuels and their impact on the last 60 years of global civilisation.

Cities of Salt was the first novel to be written about the oil industry from an Arabic perspective. The idea being that cities built on salt can be easily washed away by the sea. Cities that rely on the revenue of oil are cities that offer no sustainable existence. The novel is culturally specific meaning that it can be judged in terms of Arab culture not Western culture. It has an insight into Gulf Politics and Culture that is translated from the Arabic into English.
It relates what happens to a small Bedouin community when oil is discovered by the Americans in the 1930s. The upheaval that is caused by the American Colonisation. It was banned in several Middle East Countries including Saudi Arabia.
Gosh claims that global warming has frozen fiction. Where the spice trade as a global commodity inspired countless works of fiction oil has produced little.

Gosh comes to the idea that “the materialities of oil and coal have led to very different political effects in the two economies, he moves, by way of a reflection on John Updike’s 1988 New Yorker review of Abdelrahman Munif’s novel Cities of Salt, to commenting on the privileging of the individual over the collective that has occurred in the conception of the novel, both in theory and in practice. The connections are at once inevitable, surprising and dazzling, the conclusion unimpeachable: “. . . at exactly the time when it has become clear that global warming is in every sense a collective predicament, humanity finds itself in the thrall of a dominant culture in which the idea of the collective has been exiled from politics, economics and literature alike”.

The 21st Century has become so individualistic that we do not notice. It is all around. it shapes our world – pervasive and unnoticeable.Yet immensely powerful.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Never heard of Cointelpro? No? It’s just the biggest undercover operation led by the FBI to monitor dissent in the 1970s. The FBI did this through psychological warfare, planting false reports in the media, harassment and assassinations.

On December 4th 1969 a select unit of 14 Chicago Police officers, on special assignment to Cook County State’s Attorney Edward Hanrahan, led a pre-dawn raid on a west side apartment that left Illinois Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark dead. In March 1971 to try and uncover the truth the Citizen’s Commission broke into a small FBI office in Media Pennsylvania and appropriated over 1000 FBI documents exposing the operations.

Once in court, to prove the link between the FBI and its covert operations, the Judge, an ardent supporter of the FBI, exonerated the FBI and its Justice Department lawyers of any wrongdoing in suppressing the documents.This decision was then overturned by a trial judge and finally the evidence came out.

So why has nobody ever heard of it? Well it was upstaged by the Watergate Scandal. Was this planned or just taking advantage of an incredible coincidence? Or just a conspiracy theory? Media outlets all over the world bury news which they don’t want us to focus on. The fact that Watergate focused on the impeachment of a US President is more attractive and sensational. Of course it was important. But nobody was killed, and the Presidency continued. Whereas Cointelpro covertly and illegally tracked hundreds of people who were deemed to pose a threat to democracy.
As the man said: “When the press focuses on the sex lives of politicians, reach for your pocket, and see who’s pulling out your wallet…” In other words we are all trained to notice what is in front of us, but this is just a distraction from the main event.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2017
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique