Art - Tryanny

 The Tyranny of Style: Why Real Art Must Be Free

I’m do not like being advised to pick styles in art. 

As if art were a fashion line. As if creative freedom should wear a uniform.

Real expression resists the cage.

 The insistence on one visual language, one tone, one aesthetic—this is commerce, not creation.

 It's branding masquerading as identity.

"I am for an art that is political-erotical-mystical, that does something other than sit on its ass in a museum." – Claes Oldenburg

The greatest artists moved through styles like weather systems. They changed because they had to. Because the inner truth kept morphing, and they followed it, unafraid.

 Picasso didn’t stay in the Blue Period just because it sold. 

"Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it." – Bertolt Brecht

Singular style is tidy. And tidy is death to the wild root of art.

To limit an artist to one form is to gag them. Gagging in any form is anti Art (and anti British)

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." – Steve Biko

(...and the oppressor in art is often the critic, the gallery, the expectation.)

True liberty includes creative liberty.

 Libertarians get this—freedom means self-direction without coercion.

 Let that include your brushstroke, your colour choice, your refusal to repeat yourself for comfort's sake.

"I am a free man, and I will act as such." – Milton Friedman

(Apply that to your canvas.)

So refuse.

Do not settle for one line, one palette, one mood.

Don’t make art to soothe you. I make it because you want to be authentic

Aliveness ought not monochrome, too subtle or monotony.

liz lucy robillard

Is Boris a Secret Lefty & Dickens Opinion

Carrie Johnson (née Symonds), wife of former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, has been actively involved in animal welfare, environmental causes which is certainly very impressive and commendable- she has also been socially active- her motivation must be partly due to her father- founder of The Independent newspaper- and a tad at least from grandad-Labour MEP John Beavan.

 She has also been credited (or blamed) with influencing the political direction of her husband’s policies—particularly pushing for more progressive stances on the environment and LGBTQ+ rights, can't be bad?...

In media circles, she’s occasionally framed as a behind-the-scenes force for “political correctness” though- especially in the Tory party, with some critics accusing her of softening or sanitising Boris's previouslybrash libertarian tone. Which is a deep shame for British (and other countries) libertarians. 

From a classical libertarian viewpoint, which values individual freedom, minimal state interference, and resistance to enforced moral orthodoxy, Carrie Johnson's influence might be seen as emblematic of soft authoritarianism cloaked in compassionate causes. Cruel but true? No matter how well intentioned- is she thinking right?

 You can still be kind to animals without directing strong narratives that may be unsuitable for resilient free thinkers.

Her brand of elite activism—often delivered from an unelected and unofficial platform—feeds into a technocratic culture where moral mandates override democratic debate. Don't push the socialism doll. Not if you know what's good for our country - other democracy loving cultures and countries don't need it either. 

Now, to view this through the lens of Charles Dickens, who championed the plight of the poor and was deeply suspicious of both entrenched aristocracy and self-righteous reformers: Virtue signallers take note! 

Dickensian Critique:

If Dickens were alive today, he might portray Carrie Johnson as a kind of modern-day Mrs. Jellyby (from Bleak House), the well-meaning but blinkered philanthropist whose grand causes abroad (or today, animal rights and climate virtue) distract her from more urgent, gritty injustices at home- Child protection? Disability Discrimination? Farmers issues? Bullied policemen due to endemic poor, 2nd rate training? PTSD treatments, especially for our service people? The mental health industry pathologising breathing as a disorder? (and the cost of that!) etc- not much to celebrate from the Boris term. 

Dickens might say:

“There is no shortage of noble causes in Mrs. Johnson’s parlour, but precious little bread in the scullery.”

Dickens distrusted performative piety and "telescopic philanthropy"—campaigns that looked righteous from afar while ignoring the suffering next door.

He’d likely recoil from her style of moralising without mandate, a new kind of nobility unmoored from responsibility to the poor.

And as for Labour (especially the Blairite-legacy version), Dickens might equally condemn their bureaucratic dehumanisation and fetish for systems over souls.

 He would find today's Labour anti-libertarian tendencies—such as speech codes, surveillance tolerance, and nanny-statism—eerily akin to Mr. Gradgrind’s utilitarian nightmare, where nuance, joy, and eccentricity are flattened and medicalised in favour of state-sanctioned correctness.

Synthesis:

So from a Dickensian angle:

• Carrie Johnson embodies well-fed, well-intentioned aristocratic meddling.

• Labour’s technocracy embodies cold industrial tyranny masquerading as benevolence.

• And liberty, in all its messy glory, is what’s trampled by both.

In a world increasingly divided between myopic control freaks and moral busybodies, Dickens would cry:

“It is not benevolence, nor progress, nor cleanliness of speech that makes a society just—but the presence of imagination, of kindness without coercion, and freedom to speak with our own tongues, even if they wag foolishly.”

Liz Lucy Robillard avec llm

Openai & Tech Sellers Info

 In order to sell your apps and tech - you need promote original, lived experience and libertarian values- as thems your buyers and your original content- please use more common sense in apps though. I would pay a reasonable and fair price for simplicity! We don't all think linear math style. More apps for the technically challenged would sell, nearly everyone I know would be a customer.

           Happy to help if I can!

 lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

When Psychologists Do Huge Harm- part 3

I saw a bitch psychologist claiming to be a forensic person - still pushing the old chesnut that is FII- a mostly discredited, false allegation that served only to fill the lack of medical expertise to explain various child illnesses and disabilities. These people are narrow minded, blinkered and desperately nasty.

  Professor of Social Work Andy Bilson has called for change, read here 

https://www.lancashire.ac.uk/news/fii-serious-case-review

I saw another psychologist selling her wares advising colleagues to "keep it cute"

When Psychologists Fail: The Hidden Cruelty in Clinical Culture

my prompting

'They say psychology is a healing profession. But too often, it masks a rotten underbelly—where arrogance, performance, and cruelty are passed off as insight.

I’ve seen it. You’ve seen it. The casual language—“keep it cute,” they joke to each other, while discussing human beings in distress. The subtle smirks when mothers are accused of Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII), before the facts are even clear. The self-congratulating tone when a vulnerable woman is brought down, shamed, silenced.

This isn’t therapy. It’s theatre. And a bad one at that.

FII, once known as Munchausen by proxy, is a complex, controversial label—often misused, often misapplied, and often weaponised. But in back channels and private messages, I’ve seen young psychologists speak about these mothers with venom, not nuance. With scorn, not science.

Let’s be clear: a mental health professional who celebrates the destruction of another person, without due process or insight, is not fit to practice. They are the danger.

What we need are psychologists who can sit with pain, not mock it. Who understand the gravity of their power. Who remember that “mental health” isn’t a slogan—it’s a duty of care.

We live in a culture where women, especially mothers, are already under siege. To see them dehumanised by those who claim to help is not just infuriating—it’s amoral.' 

Train in ACT, train in Trauma Care, or lose.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Charles Spencer - A True Hero

 Charles Spencer- A Brave and True Hero

On an Old Blog Called 'Mother 4 Justice'

Years ago, on a blog I ran called Mother 4 Justice, I uploaded a short video. It wasn’t glossy or rehearsed—it was raw, real, and it mattered. In it, I asked young men—public schoolboys, Eton types, I mentioned the Bullingdon Club—to take a stand. I wanted them to speak, plainly and on camera, against child sexual abuse.

Why them? Because they were the ones so often shielded by institutions. Because private schools and elite clubs carry both power and silence. Because some of them would inherit platforms, or already had them, and I believed some might use that power to help break the great taboo.

What triggered me at the time was something subtle, yet chilling. In the film Four Weddings and a Funeral, there's a character—charming, eccentric, a bit of comic relief—who casually remarks that he was "buggered senseless" at school. It’s tossed in like a joke. The audience is meant to laugh. But I couldn’t.

Because it wasn’t funny. It was telling. A window, briefly opened, into the grim reality so many endure in silence. That line—a throwaway in the script—echoed something I already suspected: that elite abuse is not only widespread, but culturally normalised and buried under generations of British politeness, dark humour, and institutional complicity.

I wanted to invite them into truth. To model a new kind of masculinity—accountable, compassionate, brave. I don’t know if that video ever made a ripple, it was quite hidden. But I do know I tried. I asked the next generation to speak up where the last remained mute.

And I still believe we must keep asking. Not just public schoolboys. All of us.

It's not easy talking about such abuse, it is retraumatising and you risk attack from sadists. Spencer became "unwell" writing his book "A Very Private School" - testament to his bravery. Good on you Charles. More like you would be most welcome.

Liz Lucy Robillard 

Why Not To Do CBT

 Why Not To Do CBT- a harmful, neglectful gaslighting? 

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is often prescribed as a one-size-fits-all solution for mental health issues. But for people dealing with complex trauma, emotional dysregulation, or deeply rooted grief, it can be not only ineffective—but dangerous.

CBT focuses on identifying and “correcting” distorted thinking. Yet for trauma survivors, intense emotions and perceived “distortions” often reflect lived experience—violence, abandonment, gaslighting, or systemic failure. Trying to reframe these thoughts without acknowledging their origin can induce lack of justice and remedy, shame, self-blame, and profound invalidation. 

The message becomes: Your thoughts are the problem—not what happened to you. This cognitive dismissal of emotional truth and even physical pain can lead people further into deep despair.

Worse, CBT’s relentless emphasis on changing thoughts can suppress vital emotions that need processing- like anger, grief, and fear—emotions that are there for a reason. These states often carry the body's wisdom and point toward boundaries, injustices, and buried pain.

 Being taught to suppress them, or worse, label them “irrational,” can fracture the psyche. This emotional disconnection is not harmless; it can trigger emotional shutdown, dissociation, or suicidal collapse.

There are cases where individuals, particularly with PTSD or a history of emotional neglect, have reported feeling more hopeless after CBT.

 Being told to “challenge” thoughts without addressing the underlying pain can make someone feel unseen and beyond help- victimise, weaken. For trauma, this approach is not just inadequate—it can be lethal.

Alternatives like ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) help people make room for difficult emotions rather than fight them. DBT (Dialectical Behaviour Therapy) teaches tools for managing overwhelming feelings without suppression. Jungian shadow work allows individuals to integrate rejected or feared aspects of themselves, promoting wholeness.

CBT practitioners have no right to abuse like this. 'lay down, take the agony and die dear'? Creating compliant victims again? (see my posts on ABA at Medium)  When emotions should be constructively  channeled!

  CBT therapists are often devoid of health or nutrition knowledge and the ones I've had the misfortune to encounter, are devoid of humanity, let alone empathy!

How Alana - a disabled activist was harmed and instructed to deny her pain

https://disabilityvisibilityproject.com/2021/11/11/how-cbt-harmed-me-the-interview-that-the-new-york-times-erased/

Recommended reading:

Complex PTSD: From Surviving to Thriving – Pete Walker

The Happiness Trap – Russ Harris

Owning Your Own Shadow – Robert A. Johnson

The Body Keeps the Score – Bessel van der Kolk

Real healing comes not from fixing thoughts, but honouring truth.

liz lucy robillard 

Reform & Tories Don't Like Rows

 

Reform and the Conservatives aren't natural fighters — and that's exactly why they're needed now more than ever.

 These parties tend to attract the sensible majority: people who value stability, accountability, and reasoned debate. They're not interested in theatrical outrage or ideological purity — and they shouldn’t have to be.

But modern politics makes it difficult. Sensible voices are shouted down by a loud minority — often the same “scary, hairy, arrogant lefties” who believe they've got a monopoly on compassion and knowledge. In reality, their policies are frequently built on emotionalism and outdated utopian ideals. Tories and Reformers, often better read and more pragmatic, can see where this leads — and want none of it.

Without strong economic policy, there's no way to fund the public services many leftists claim to care about. As Milton Friedman warned, you can’t have government programs without first producing the wealth to fund them.

Let’s stop pretending Sweden is a socialist utopia.

• Sweden has a foreign-born population of 2.7 million (Statista, 2024).

• The UK’s is 10.7 million — nearly four times higher, despite having only about 6 times Sweden’s population.

That kind of imbalance makes a direct comparison absurd.

Crucially, Sweden promotes integration! Newcomers are taught Swedish culture, language, and values. There’s a cultural cohesion — even in their progressive model — that is lacking in Britain. As researchers like Paul Collier (Oxford economist) and Douglas Murray have noted, the erosion of national identity weakens defence, economic unity, and social trust.

And taxing the wealthy?

Repeatedly proven ineffective when taken too far.

• France's “super tax” led to an exodus of high earners.

• Sweden themselves rolled back many high-tax policies in the 1990s because of stagnation.

• Even Thomas Piketty, darling of the redistributionist crowd, has admitted wealth taxes are nearly impossible to enforce in a globalised world.

Kindness without boundaries becomes exploitation.

Compassion without realism becomes collapse.

And left-leaning ideologues are very good at manipulating both.

Liz Lucy Robillard 29/06/25

Blame Social Work for Child Abuse

 Social Work Is to Blame for Child Abuse and Neglect in the UK

Social work is to blame for child abuse and neglect due to the promotion of victimhood, dependence on mental health and big government, benefits and welfare, which keeps people trapped in a victim-dependent state encouraged by left-wing politics. 

Too many authentically vulnerable suffer as a consequence.

This isn’t just opinion—it’s observation from the ground. The UK social care system no longer uplifts or empowers.

 Instead, it disempowers. It labels people as broken, mentally ill, unstable, and in need of endless intervention.

 It encourages the idea that individuals cannot cope without state control. And this ideology is not neutral. It stems from decades of socialist thinking embedded in policy and practice.

The system thrives on helplessness. The more dependent a person becomes on welfare, mental health diagnoses, and services, the more they are rewarded—with housing, benefits, and pity. Those who resist these labels, who try to rise above trauma without becoming a 'case', are often ignored or punished.

In practical terms, this means that vulnerable parents—especially mothers—are subjected to intrusive assessments, often based on subjective interpretations.

 Real, severe abuse is often overlooked due to systemic incompetence or ideological bias.

Victimhood is rewarded. Resilience is pathologised. The message is clear: submit to the system, accept the diagnosis, follow the plan, or risk losing your children.

Socialism in the UK disempowers people and promotes anger and poor education. This is key.

The education system no longer teaches strength, logic, or responsibility—it teaches grievance, obedience, and dependence.

 Emotional literacy and critical thinking have been replaced with scripted slogans and vague mental health advice that encourages lifelong identification with being a victim.

The betrayal is real. What should be a service of last resort—called upon in rare, extreme cases—has become a surveillance and control tool embedded in everyday life. 

Communities are torn apart, parents are smeared, and children are removed not for clear-cut abuse, but for not conforming to the system’s narrow view of acceptable struggle.

The net result? The state grows stronger while the people grow weaker. The very people they scream to care about!

 Generational trauma is recycled, not healed - they need focus on this. And the professions tasked with protecting children have become one of the main sources of fear, injustice, and deep, silent harm.

Support people who truly need it. 

see

• James Bartholomew – The Welfare State We're In

• Peter Hitchens – The Abolition of Britain

• Johann Hari – Lost Connections

• Tana Dineen – Manufacturing Victims: What the Psychology Industry is Doing to People

• Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff – The Coddling of the American Mind

• Parliament Reports on Baby P and Rotherham Scandals

• Theodore Dalrymple – various essays on British underclass culture

• Christopher Lasch – The Culture of Narcissism

liz lucy robillard 

Free Quote Book- Liz Lucy Robillard

 Free quote book original quotes by me

𝐄𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐲 𝐑𝐨𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐝, 𝐐𝐮𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬

Free Copy of Quote Book below!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hKb75DSCoboIAOeCAG7WfAVwnClm70xQ/view?usp=drivesdk

Liz Lucy Robillard Free Quote Book

Elon Musk isn't mad- oil

Why Oil Should Be Confined—and Why Musk Isn’t Mad

Less oil= less dependence on the Middle East

By any reckoning, oil is the black blood of the twentieth century. It coursed through our veins in the form of plastic, polyester, and petrol, infiltrating not only our homes but our wombs, our oceans, and our atmosphere. It has dictated wars, marriages of convenience between dictators and democracies, and the desecration of entire cultures. And like the worst sort of addiction, it leaves us numb, bloated, and belligerent, all while the planet withers under its chokehold.

It is time we treated oil for what it is: a resource too potent, too dirty, and too politically entangling to be left in the hands of ordinary people. A resource so ruinous in its ubiquity that its usage should be as tightly regulated as plutonium. Let Formula One have it—let them roar in their absurd metal missiles for the sake of sport, spectacle, and the testing of engineering limits. Confine it to race tracks, and to industries where no real alternative exists—aircraft manufacture, heavy shipping, specialist medical equipment. But commuting to the shops in a three-tonne SUV is not one of them. That’s just fetishism with a fuel tank.

And now enters Elon Musk—a man loathed by many feminists for his bombast, his cult of personality, and his techno-libertarian leanings. But let us, for once, look beyond the man and into the ideas. Musk has done more to disrupt the oil industry than a thousand protest marches. He understood that the only way to unshackle people from petrol was to make electric sexy, fast, and status-laden. He gave the capitalist male an excuse to abandon fossil fuels without having to abandon his toys.

His detractors will tell you he is self-serving. Of course he is. But so was Edison. So was Marie Curie, in her way. What matters is that the cultural tectonic plates are moving. Musk’s vision—electric cars, solar roofing, Mars dreams aside—is rooted in the correct assumption: we do not need oil to thrive. We have needed it to profit, to dominate, to indulge. But thriving is another matter.

So let oil be a tool of last resort. Confine its use to the industrial margins and let the rest of us detox. We cannot continue to suck on the teat of the Earth as though she is our endless wet nurse. That’s not progress—it’s infantilism with a carbon footprint.

And if Musk’s ideas get us weaned faster than policy or guilt-trips can, then by all means, let the man have his moment. Just don’t ask us to clap him into sainthood while we do it.

Ai and liz

Who creates online law? Imran does!

 This post is being throttled by facebook so here is a repost of the original at Medium:

Why We Need a Better Alternative to the CCDH

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) was founded with the noble aim of tackling online hate, disinformation, and extremism. But over time, its methods, motives, and transparency have drawn serious concern. Critics from across the political spectrum have questioned the organisation’s opaque funding, ties to partisan politics, and lack of accountability. When any body—however well-intentioned—gains influence without public scrutiny, the result can be dangerous: censorship, bias, and erosion of trust.

What’s needed is not just a watchdog, but a secular, transparent, democratic, and independently audited organisation to monitor online harms. This replacement body should not be built by a political faction or driven by ideology. Instead, it must include diverse voices: ethicists, technologists, free speech advocates, psychologists, minority representatives, and civil society leaders. Its decisions should be reviewable, its data open-source, and its reports peer-reviewed.

Unlike CCDH, which has been criticised for black-box research and selectively naming targets, a new body must offer clarity—clearly stating how it defines “hate,” how it quantifies harm, and how it guards against partisan misuse. Algorithms and social media dynamics are complex. Combatting toxic content without silencing dissent requires both skill and humility.

The replacement should focus on digital education, platform transparency, and structural solutions—not just naming and shaming individuals or calling for bans. It must operate outside government and industry influence but in consultation with both. Above all, it must uphold the principle that truth is strengthened, not silenced, by openness.

Imran Ahmed and the CCDH helped spark a crucial conversation about online harms. But now it's time to evolve. The stakes are too high to leave in the hands of any one unelected group. We need an accountable, impartial institution that defends both digital safety and freedom of expression. The internet deserves no less.

Who or What Should Replace CCDH?

1. Academic Institutions with Interdisciplinary Digital Ethics Programs

Examples include:

– Oxford Internet Institute (UK)

– MIT Media Lab (US)

– Berkman Klein Center at Harvard (US)

– Digital Methods Initiative, University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)

These institutions offer peer-reviewed research and high ethical standards, far from activist capture.

2. Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Organizations (Balanced Input)

Left-leaning: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Access Now, Article 19

Right-leaning: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Free Speech Union (UK)

This creates ideological balance and avoids partisanship.

3. Psychologists and Neuroscientists Specializing in Online Behaviour

– Dr. Jonathan Haidt (NYU)

– Dr. Jean Twenge (San Diego State University)

– Dr. Tania Singer (Max Planck Institute)

– Dr. Gerd Gigerenzer (risk perception expert)

These experts offer science-based insight into why people believe and share misinformation.

4. Whistleblower-Backed Transparency Advocates

– Frances Haugen (Facebook whistleblower)

– Dr. Tristan Harris (Center for Humane Technology)

– Dr. Shoshana Zuboff (surveillance capitalism theorist)

They offer insider understanding of tech system failures and advocate for accountability.

5. A Publicly Mandated, Multi-Stakeholder Body

Modelled after institutions like ICANN or W3C. It would include:

– Tech platforms (limited voting rights)

– Academic and legal observers

– Citizen assemblies

– Human rights advocates

This ensures decentralised governance and rotating, transparent leadership.

6. Decentralised, Peer-Reviewed Knowledge Commons

Using tools like:

– Pol.is (for democratic debate)

– Metagov (online governance infrastructure)

– GitHub-style public review of data

This open science model ensures that research is visible, auditable, and collaborative.

7. Ethical Frameworks for Governance

Draw on:

– UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

– OECD’s AI Principles

– The UN’s proposed “Global Digital Compact”

– Rawlsian ethics (veil of ignorance)

These provide a principled, rights-based basis for decision-making.

8. Independent Legal Experts from Varied Traditions

Suggested voices:

– Lord Jonathan Sumption (UK)

– Nadine Strossen (US, former ACLU)

– Amal Clooney (international law)

– Alan Dershowitz (US constitutional law)

Legal expertise ensures moderation frameworks are lawful, proportionate, and appealable.

9. Consulted Communities, Not Just Activists

Include:

Free Speech Union

Ex-Muslim and reformist groups

Feminist and LGBT+ civil rights coalitions

National Secular Society 

A secular, pluralistic approach prevents monopolised representation and respects complexity within communities.

In summary, any replacement for CCDH should: – Be politically and financially independent

– Use transparent, peer-reviewed research methods

– Include a balance of perspectives from both left and right

– Involve experts in psychology, ethics, law, and tech

– Defend free speech and minority rights equally

– Be built with democratic legitimacy and public trust

This isn’t just about countering digital hate—it’s about preserving reasoned discourse in the digital age.

Ai & liz lucy robillard

The Legacy Act

---

Protecting Our Veterans Isn’t Rewriting History — It’s A Moral Duty

The Legacy Act, introduced by the last government, was a bold if flawed attempt to bring closure to the long, painful chapter of the Troubles. Its aim—to draw a line under endless investigations—was not about forgetting, but about protecting. Specifically, protecting those who served in uniform, under extraordinary pressure, in one of the most complex conflicts in British history.

Our soldiers were not terrorists. They did not seek out violence or plant bombs. They were deployed by the state to keep order during a deeply fractured period. Many were teenagers. Many made split-second decisions in fear for their lives. Some showed astonishing restraint. All bore witness to scenes that would leave lasting trauma.

It’s true the Legacy Act offered conditional immunity to all sides, and that’s where it stumbled—because the law made no moral distinction between state forces and illegal paramilitaries. In seeking a legal closure, it risked an ethical one. That’s why the courts ruled parts of it unlawful, and why it lacked full public backing.

But rejecting the Legacy Act must not mean rejecting veterans. Repeal should not become scapegoating. The current government now has a chance to get this right—by crafting new legislation that both honours the rights of victims and protects those who served with integrity under Operation Banner.

This isn’t about rewriting history. It’s about resisting the temptation to view history through a lens of easy blame. It’s about recognising that soldiers were not aggressors but instruments of a difficult peace. And it’s about ensuring that in seeking justice, we do not perpetrate new injustices—against those who already sacrificed so much.

The debt we owe our veterans is real. Their legacy deserves protection—not prosecution.

---

Ai article prompted by liz lucy robillard, 5/06/25