Psychology of Russiagate – an adult discussion for a change

This is a fascinating interview – and not only because it is a highly respected independent journalist, Aaron Maté, interviewing his highly respected mental health expert father, Dr. Gabor Maté. It is fascinating because it is objective and adult – unlike so much of the Russiagate reporting. It is an adult discussion.

I have been shocked at how people I thought should know better got caught up in the Russiagate hysteria. This interview helps me understand the psychology behind such unthinking acceptance of what I saw from the beginning was a diversion away from the real issues and an unthinking excuse for an election result which did not conform to predictions. This whole approach has prevented liberal and democratic forces from addressing the real problems they have. It has disarmed them at a time when a more intelligent approach is needed if Trump is to be defeated in 2020.

Well, I have often said that humans are not a rational species, more a rationalising one. I should have not been surprised at the way apparently rational people ended up being emotionally driven. Dr. Gabor Maté explains how we all succumb to such approaches when facing trauma like the election of a Donal trump.

I advise readers who do not have time to watch this very important interview to read Caitlin Johnstone’s article about it – This Talk Between Aaron & Gabor Maté Is The Best Political Video I’ve Ever Seen.

Similar articles

 

10 responses to “Psychology of Russiagate – an adult discussion for a change

  1. Yes, he’s correct, which underlines the very reason his voice will be ignored in favour of the Rachel Maddows of this world.
    Pretty depressing, it also answers why its business as usual as far as climate catastrophe goes. Thats a message no one wants to hear.
    The impacts on our lives if radical change was undertaken would be altogether too much sacrifice.
    What about my stuff!!??
    My godgiven right to travel overseas every year?
    Craig Murray has a very good critique of the Mueller investigation , and how he managed to ignore any evidence that might contradict the desired outcome
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/05/the-real-muellergate-scandal/

    but whoosh

    Like

  2. lindarosarn

    Gabor Maté may have his admirers, but it is likely that none of them value science-based mental health practices.

    Like

  3. lindarosarn – I think he is on the ball with this particular analysis.

    Like

  4. Yes, I thought Murray’s critique was good. I never get over my amazement about how bad some of the highly respected reports can be. There seems to have been no serious attempt to properly check things out in this case.

    Like

  5. David Fierstien

    Apologies . . I had meant to place this comment under this blog post where it would be more relevant:

    First question to you: Did you even bother reading the Mueller Report? I hope the answer is no, which would mean you are relying on sources you choose simply because they confirm your biases. Because if the answer is yes, that means you are purposely writing deceptive opinion pieces. For what purpose? . . Good question.

    Ken, this is nuts. You are literally part of the process of trying to re-write history as it is unfolding.

    Since your comments in this post are rather vague, let’s clarify. You didn’t say it, but Mate is discussing the Mueller Report: “So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it.” . . . . “Or you can say there must be a devil somewhere behind all this, and that devil is a foreign power, and his name is Putin, and his country is Russia.”

    He is saying that the Report found no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia. That is simply a lie.

    He’s basing everything he says here on that Report . . but he knows he’s misrepresenting it because he takes the time to attack Mueller personally. Johnstone: “Maté talked about how Mueller, despite his horrible track record of supporting the WMD lie in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, has been made into a hero, . . “

    This is a guy, like you, who either never read the report or is purposely trying to misrepresent it. And then he mixes it up in a stew of bullshit pop psychology to make it sound cerebral, which it is not. It is simply a political lie.

    So let’s talk about the Report & Russiagate, since you, Johnstone, & Mate are lying about it. You are saying the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election . . . but . .

    . . The Report actually says There were two efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election. 1.) The first effort involved disinformation and social-media operations (kind of like what you’re doing here . . . and 2.) The second effort involved hacking into computers to get e-mails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organizations to gather and disseminate information.

    There’s your boogeyman, which Mate says is non-existent.

    According to the Report, the Russian government QUOTE, “perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” . . . . Moreover, the Trump Campaign QUOTE, “expected it would benefit” from stolen materials which were released through Russian efforts.

    The Report also says that Trump’s Campaign Director instructed his deputy to QUOTE, “provide Kilimnik with updates on the Trump campaign—including internal polling data.” The Report also goes on to say that, “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and with Deripaska. Gates periodically sent such polling data to Kilimnik during the campaign.”

    Ken, these were the findings of the Mueller Report which contra

    Like

  6. David Fierstien

    (comment continued) . . Ken, these are the findings of the Mueller Report . .

    . . . which contradicts the crux of everything you have written in this post, . . taken from Gabor Mate, a self-proclaimed psychology/addiction guru who isn’t widely thought of in professional circles (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat ) .

    So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.

    Like

  7. David Fierstien

    . . . contradicts the crux of everything you have written in this post, . . taken from Gabor Mate, a self-proclaimed psychology/addiction guru who isn’t widely thought of in professional circles (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-in-society/201112/the-seductive-dangerous-allure-gabor-mat ) .

    So the question remains . . have you bothered to read the report or are parroting sources that make you feel good . . because your mother didn’t breast feed you and your father drank himself to death 😉 (see . . I can do it too.) Up until this point I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your mind was closed shut, unwilling to admit you were wrong . . a symptom of old age. But I am fast approaching the point at which I may conclude you are purposely pushing a false narrative. If that is the case, the purpose of your agenda remains the key question.

    Like

  8. David, you are simply using the old bait and switch diversion when you say:

    “So let’s talk about the Report & Russiagate, since you, Johnstone, & Mate are lying about it. You are saying the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election . . . but . .

    . . The Report actually says There were two efforts by Russia to influence the 2016 election. 1.) The first effort involved disinformation and social-media operations (kind of like what you’re doing here . . . and 2.) The second effort involved hacking into computers to get e-mails from people affiliated with Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Democratic Party organizations to gather and disseminate information.”

    It is simply a fact that “the Report says there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign & Russia to influence the 2016 election.” There is no evidence of “collusion,” “coordination” etc.

    But the switch you use is the fact the Muller report does claim there was evidence of interference – quite a different issue.

    Mind you, I think the Mueller report is pathetic. It did nothing to check out the so-called evidence of interference and appears simply to rely on the evidence-free January 6 intelligence report. That is quite disgusting for an investigative body. It also relied on the Democrat-aligned Crowdstrike report. Again pathetic.

    You seem unwilling to come to grips with Gabor’s analysis. I think it is extremely good. So instead of pointing to any flaws in his analysis, you resort to a personal attack on him – using an irrelevant citation to “prove” it.

    Come on. Look at the evidence. Actually consider what Gabor says.

    Your whole approach (and that of so many who drank the Russiagate kool-aid) reminds me of someone whose marriage has suddenly broken down. They have not yet advanced to a stage enabling them to understand why (and what they contributed to the breakdown) and are desperately looking for excuses and scapegoats to avoid facing up to their own problems which caused the marriage breakdown.

    Like

  9. Yes – I have read the first part of the report and will get back to the second part soon (Had some big family issues including the birth of a beautiful great grand-daughter in the last week). I think the report demonstrates how pathetic the investigation has been. You could get some insight into the problem is you read George Papadopoulos’s book outlining his experience (remember, his entrapment was the issue which was meant to have initiated the whole Russiagate investigation). It is Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump He appears rather naive and does not have a full understanding of what has driven this whole Russiagate hysteria – but it is worth actually seeing how this thing started off.

    The book is relatively short and easy to read – much easier than the Mueller report.

    Like

  10. Stephen Cohen is also critical of the Mueller investigation. Pointing out it never did a forensic investigation of the intelligence report claims.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s