reviews of neither left nor right
"Spot on. Insightful, brilliantly researched and written, a book that anyone who loves this nation needs to read."
-former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
"A book that all Americans worried about the fate of this nation should read before it is too late."
-Dennis Miller
"A must read for all who value freedom."
-Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
reviews of neither left nor right
"Spot on. Insightful, brilliantly researched and written, a book that anyone who loves this nation needs to read."
-former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
"A book that all Americans worried about the fate of this nation should read before it is too late."
-Dennis Miller
"A must read for all who value freedom."
-Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America

The Anti-authoritarian Transformation From the Bio-psychiatric Perspective

The past authoritarian social order was based on the combined authority’s of the father, the enforcer of the authoritarian moral code, and the mother, the bearer of that moral code. The formation of the child’s Oedipus Complex along authoritarian lines was safeguarded in intact families by carrying out their parental responsibilities. In the past social order, respect for authority and, in particular, the authoritarian moral code of sexual repression prior to marriage, was the rule.

The anti-authoritarian transformation of American society started around 1960. Around that time, the functions of the traditional parental roles in child-rearing and the structure of the authoritarian family itself became broken. Accompanying the political agitation for the “sexual revolution” movement led by leftist ideologues, young people’s demands for greater sexual freedom was regarded as the magical solution to their yearning for sexual happiness. How this mystical state of happiness was to be realized was never discussed. The inevitable failure of their dreams was the background of the hellish social nightmare that occurred in college and university campuses throughout the nation in the ’60s and in the following decades.

At the same time, according to the new morality of sexual permissiveness, parents had to give up their right to be responsible for their children’s behavior. This resulted, in effect, in the social ostracism (castration) of the authoritarian, “sex-negative” father not only from his own home but from all areas of social life where authority was required. With the new anti-authoritarian, anything goes morality, parents were left feeling impotent while their children experienced social alienation and personal disorientation. Instead of growing up to be independent adults, young people became arrested in their adolescence. Their frustrations often led to all kinds of perverse sexual activities or dependency on illicit drugs for emotional relief (“sex, drugs and rock’n roll”). In effect, the misfiring of young people’s sexual longing into substitute activities was the tragic fate of the post-World War II children, the Baby Boomers, and the generations that followed.

Another consequence of the transformation was that the social mainstream shifted politically to the far-left of center. Today, young people’s sexual longings, frustrations and miseries are still evaded as many of them are looking for political answers from the left for their personal problems. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and many other political freedom-peddlers from the far-left, are quick to appear on the stage promising outworn (“heaven on earth”) socialist answers to attract as many of the politically gullible, young masses as they can.

As the leftist movement sweeps across the nation and the polarization between the political left and the right becomes irreversable, the demise of the two-party system in America is becoming a certainty. Far-left radicals have successfully infiltrated and taken control of the Democratic Party. With their control of that party together with the political support of many clueless young people, these combined forces are set to destroy what still remains healthy in American society .

13 Comments

  1. If America is in the process of unraveling into a chaotic, insane, and (red) fascist system, why aren’t concerned citizens doing anything about this? I don’t know what is worse, the relentless coup against Trump or the lack of action by tens of millions of conservatives? We can say that President Trump represents the self-regulation against forces that wish to control one’s mind (emotions) and behavior. Every attack against him is more than symbolic for repression, censorship, violence and lack of respect for the law, since it happens daily to other decent people who try to live and protect happiness that stems from the core.

    There are two scenarios that can reverse the present social anarchy: Martial law by Trump which won’t happen, or direct social action by millions until their needs are addressed. This has happened numerous times in history when a large percentage of the population has demonstrated against a corrupt state, and “overthrew” them. Some positive examples: Eastern Block countries and communism and South Korea whose former President received a 20 sentence for graft.

    (We also have to accept that there are negative cases where demonstrations for freedom have turned into direct fascism, but this was with peoples that could not attain freedom due to their social-character structures. Are we to say the same applies to the American conservatives?)

    Without the masses setting up a bodyguard perimeter around Trump—both for his safety and for their own need to express themselves and protect the republic, the Democratic Left will slowly suffocate any dissent and kill democracy.

    Where are the leaders or the spontaneous action from the conservatives, and why can the Left get the masses riled up so often without difficulty?

    • Your approach to the social problem that faces America is on the right track. It has to do with peoples not seeing clearly what is happening right in front of their eyes. I address this problem of people’s contactlessness in my forthcoming book, “Clueless”.

      • Dr Konia, I hope you are right about the masses being “clueless,” as then there is hope with education. If that is the case, then there are three possible scenarios which each becoming more difficult:
        1) simply revealing an unrealized logical observation, which will lead to insight to those who are more-or-less in touch with their core;
        2) information with some form of orgonomic social intervention to “loosen” the ocular block;
        3) total lack of contact with the core and insurmountable ocular block.

        If the decent people (patriot, conservative, liberal) that care about the country are either from # 1 or 2, there then are possibilities for internal change and protective social action.

        It is my opinion though, that many conservatives are aware that they are being crushed, and also know they are not able to respond freely. I think fear is the second major component to immobilization, possibly on par with cluelessness.

        • Ed
          I greatly appreciate your comments and think that there is a important link between the essence of what you are expressing and much of what I have written in comments on Dr Konia’s blog. Most likely there are a significant number of clear minded Americans (how many there are is hard to determine) who have some sense of what you have written but are rightfully fearful of repercussions in the current hostile social arena . One major reason for the fear that should not be underestimated is an inability for the observer to focus on and clearly identify the “enemy” (EP and EP characters). The enemy remains hidden because of the lack of sufficient functional knowledge by the observer.

          A few distinctions that may exist between my thoughts on developing a practical strategy for isolating and disabling the current expression of the emotional plague in the greater social realm (i.e. anti-authoritarianism) and what you have expressed are the following:
          1) The emotional plague is a real viral/bacterial deadly bio-social disease whose raison d’etre is to take up as much space in the social realm in order to minimize or kill off bio-emotional healthy life and its core expressions of love, work and knowledge in both individuals and the social arena. Truly letting this in emotionally and intellectually is no easy task for anyone. As a result the number of people willing to take up the task dwindles rapidly
          2) In addition we are dealing with a circumstance that humans have probably never faced before so traditional or historical examples most likely do not apply. The reason I believe that it is a “new” problem is based on the fact that the influence of mass communication in the greater social realm preceded the wide spread knowledge of the discovery of human armor and the resulting bio-social disease labelled the EP. As such the influence of ideas emanating from the emotional plague are now well accepted by the majority in spite of their destructive nature.
          3) We are privileged to have the access to the treasure chest of knowledge that flows from orgonomic functionalism but the knowledge needs more engaged practitioners and practice (trial and error) in the social realm to be effective
          4) Until some of the basic concepts and terms that provide meaning to the knowledge that flows from orgonomic functionalism become rooted in the greater social realm (and thus accepted by a significant percentage of the population) it is unlikely that there can be any progress made in slowing and ultimately arresting the momentum of the emotional plague. Much of battle that needs to be waged against the EP will be fought by providing clarity to the confusion that has been so cleverly and effectively sown by the instigators of the EP

          To end on a positive note (because the task can seem overwhelming at times), rational hope always comes from the strength that exists in contact with the biological core and how when appropriately focused it can overpower and contain the spread of the EP. This occurs often in micro social relationships. We need to learn how to apply it effectively in the macro.

    • Ed
      A simple and quick response (which needs more elaboration) to the important question that you pose at the end of your comment would be something like the following.

      Whether we like it or not the prevailing moral code in our society is anti-authoritarianism with its prime governing principle, political correctness. Most people have incorporated some or all aspects of PC into their M.O. in order to “get by” in the greater social realm. The left can get the masses riled up easily because they are defending the current social agreement of political correctness. Trump has shined a disapproving light on PC and thus has increased greatly people’s social anxiety and the easiest way to “calm” them and things down is to attack the one who is “attacking” their moral code.

      Those who can see the inevitable consequences of PC’s destructiveness (predominantly conservatives) have had to adopt political correctness into their M.O. to varying degrees. As a result there is no consensus that is operating in that segment of society. The old authoritarian code has been replaced by anti-authoritarianism and as Dr Konia has pointed out only functional thinking can provide a basis and framework for dealing with the current social upheaval while insuring a safeguard for the bio-emotional health that remains.

      This is why developing a language and means of communication with the rational conventional thinker is of prime importance for the functional thinker if the current outbreak of the emotional plague is to end before the loss of the bio-social freedoms enshrined in the Constitution is complete.

      Functional thinking provides the common ground for healthy life to finds its place in the greater social realm replacing anti-authoritarianism while not having to rely on the authoritarian moral code which is a distant memory or non existent for most people alive today.

      • Steve, I agree with your point on functional thinking, but not with the difficulties of finding a “common language” to implement needed change. There are some very corrosive and easily observable social programs that all conservatives can rally around without even knowing about orgonomy: Transsexual normalcy and the childhood mutilations that go with it; the homosexual agenda to destroy (genital) heterosexuality; and the lack of punishment and de-facto approval of certain races that act in a destructive form. All these are clearly visible and life-threatening, but where is the outcry, the quarantining and the pushing back?

        • Ed
          I have come across many individuals including people with high social standing like the President of the American College of Pediatricians who has given interviews about the destructiveness of transgender ideology for example. I could fill books with examples of individuals who express concern and sometimes outrage on the many facets of political correctness that infect most social institutions. I share your frustration that these “lone” voices do not have a significant place at the table in most citizens life.

        • the link below is an interview with the President of the College of American Pediatricians. One of the lone voices out there

      • Steven,

        Thank you. I couldn’t have said better.

  2. The Biological Basis of Politics

    In his article on mysticism [Konia, C. 2005. Applied Orgonometry IV: Mysticism. JO 39/2: 60-69)], dr. Conya describes Raikes definition of mysticism and adds a comment of his own:

    “‘Any natural concept which assumes an autonomy of the psychic, no matter what it calls itself, is mystical.'” [Reich, W. 1949. Ether, God and Devil. Rangeley, ME: Orgone Institute Press, page 73.] (Cited in Konia, page 60)

    “MYSTICAL THINKING ALSO OCCURS WHEN A LESS INCLUSIVE, MORE SUPERFICIAL REALM OF NATURE IS EMPLOYED TO COMPREHEND A MORE INCLUSIVE, DEEPER REALM.” (Page 62, emphasis in original)

    I often wonder whether we are being essentially mystical when we attempt to understand politics on a purely sociological or even psychological level, when according to orgonomic writings by Reich and Konia, politics is essentially “bio-politics” at the deepest level.

    Reich basically described all of psychology, physiology, and sociology as being a function of the degree of free movement or lack of free movement of orgone energy. Thus, when we are talking about psychology or physiology or sociology or politics, we are actually talking about orgone energy functions.

    So, for example, when we talk about “communism“ or the “far left,“ we are basically talking about red fascism, which is a form of authoritarianism (or a type of antiauthoritarianism which ultimately leads to authoritarianism). Authoritarianism is a social manifestation of armoring. Red (far left) and black (far right) fascism have more in common with each other than they are different from each other. The ideologies are different but the core mechanisms are the same: fear of freedom. And where does fear of freedom come from? It comes from orgasm anxiety, which is also the source of the emotional plague according to Reich. So from Reich’s perspective, fascism is a biosocial illness caused by orgasm anxiety, which is a biological illness.

    The various details of politics are just that, details. if we get lost in the details, we are drifting from the root causes which would help us to understand what is going on. That understanding has already been provided by Reich. It’s there for everyone to see in his published writings. So if we aren’t reviewing and discussing Reich’s findings, then we are evading the essential.

    The basic phenomenon of politics is biological. And I think it’s important to always keep that in mind so that when we discuss things on the political level we at least have some kind of background grasp of the fact that we are dealing with something that is very deep and that stems from the biological realm. And it’s important to understand that due to the orgone-biological nature of politics, you cannot convince your opponents with words or reason. The problem is that left and right are biological conditions. So if we are going to attempt to try to come up with solutions, we have to keep that in mind.

    Reich addressed some of this in his discussion of “the biological miscalculation in the human struggle for freedom” in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism and in other books. What he meant by that sentence is just what I’m saying here: you can’t understand what’s going on in politics without understanding its biological nature. Here are a few excerpts from Reich that demonstrate his perspective:

    [Reich, W. 1946. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Third, revised and enlarged edition. Translated by Theodore Wolfe. New York: Orgone Institute Press. chapter 10, section 2 (“The Biological Miscalculation in the Human Struggle for Freedom”), Part 3: (pages 283-297).]

    “What is meant here by freedom is the genuine freedom of personal and social development, the freedom from the fear of life, from economic suppression of any kind, from reactionary inhibitions of development; in brief, the free self-determination of life. We should not have any illusions about it: There is at work, in the masses, a reactionary, murderous, development-inhibiting force which brings to ruin again and again all the efforts made by the fighters for freedom. This reactionary force in the masses expresses itself in a general fear of responsibility and fear of freedom. These are no moral judgments. This fear is deeply rooted in the biological constitution of man of today.” (Pages 283-284, italics in original.)

    “The will to freedom and the capacity for freedom are nothing but the will and the capacity to recognize and further the development of human biological energy.” (Ibid., page 296.)

    “There is as yet no definition of the word freedom which would be in keeping with natural science. No word is more misused and misunderstood.
    To define freedom is the same as to define sexual health. BUT NOBODY WILL OPENLY ADMIT THIS…..As if to be free were a sin…” (Ibid., page 297, emphasis in original.)

    Reich, W. (1953/1956). The Murder of Christ. New York: Pocket Books:

    “…freedom can NOT be established by decree or force, because fear of freedom IS IN THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.” (Page 250, emphasis in original)

    Politics is dominated by functions of the emotional plague. As a Reich wrote in
    Character Analysis [1949, 3rd ed. Translated by Theodore P. Wolfe, M.D. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux]:

    “In this process of mastering the emotional plague, we shall encounter homo normalis at his worst; in the form of the righteous mystic and of the mechanistic human animal who run away from themselves for exactly the same reasons that forced our patient into the catatonic breakdown: the horror of the plasmatic currents…”. (1949, page 507, Italics in original)

    When I am talking to someone on the left, I have it in mind that I am talking to someone with an illness. So I know that it is pointless for me to point out all the various political details, because it’s not going to matter. It’s not going to convince them or change things one iota.

    A common complaint is, “Well, what can we do about it then?” My answer is, I’m not sure, but I’m pretty sure we can’t solve the problem unless we keep its biological nature in mind. And of course, by “biological,“ we don’t mean “biological“ in the mechanistic sense, as something that is somehow immutable. The biology is shaped by sociological phenomena and vice versa. For example, from Reich’s perspective, character is biological but is basically formed via sociological (including familial) processes. And then character in turn shapes sociological phenomena.

    So again, where and how can we intervene? We can’t fix the world one therapy patient at a time. So we need to try and see what we can do. But my point is that whatever we do, I think we have to do it while maintaining the perspective that Reich has given us. I do believe we can have an effect by writing and talking about things from this perspective. Reich himself certainly had an effect.

    So often, our discussions are so far to the orgonometric right (the functions that are determined by deeper functions to the orgonometric left–not a reference to the political right or left) that it seems to me like we are lost, wandering in the wilderness, in the dark, without a compass; a compass which is readily available to us but we don’t seem to use.

    I know that we can’t necessarily approach the public on the deepest level; we need to start at a level that they will understand and that will not frighten them away or cause them to attack us. But sometimes I feel that by making no reference whatsoever to the deepest level of things, the force and integrity of the arguments that we offer is weakened and is less exciting and therefore less likely to draw an audience. I believe there are ways to make at least some reference to the deeper functions at work without alienating people who might potentially be interested; on the contrary, I think it could enhance the interest in the work of orgonomy.

    In reference specifically to this blog and its readers: it is quite clear that the vast majority of the readers of this blog have a very significant knowledge of orgonomic writings. But it seems to me that because we are discussing functions so far to the orgonometric right without at least occasional reference to the deeper functions to the orgononetric left, even readers that have a deeper knowledge of orgonomy regularly get lost to such a great extent that commentaries can sometimes be virtually indistinguishable from anything one could find in non-orgonomic discussions; and without an orgonomic frame of reference, what actually gets accomplished? I think people can actually get more and more confused.

  3. Dr. Holbrook, we are political animals due to armoring, otherwise there would be work-democracy (I am not glamorizing or simplifying the difficulties in the modern age).
    Biology is an important component of what I am discussing, as what can be more important than freedom of speech and self-regulation without unnecessary hindrance? Without these two being politically protected, everything else is moot. The Constitution was established for these reasons.

    • Hi Ed, to be honest, I don’t really understand how your comment here is a response to my comment. That’s OK; but if you want to clarify it that would be helpful. In other words, which components of what you wrote are meant as a response to which things that I wrote; and in what way is what you wrote a reaction to what I wrote?

  4. Lots of very interesting comments here by Ed and Steven, food for thought.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Email Subscription

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 62 other subscribers