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

Why are Republicans Confused about Trump?

In order to clarify the confusion about the legitimacy of Trump’s candidacy, knowledge of a person’s individual and socio-political character structure is essential.Two questions need to be answered positively:

1) Regarding the quality of his judgement, is Trump a phallic narcissistic character with an oral unsatisfied block, a manic depressive (“bi-polar”) character or an out-and-out sociopathic character? (See my blog, Apropos of Donald Trump, February 18, 2016.)

2) Regarding his political attitudes, is Trump somewhere on the conservative right of the political spectrum? The answer is definitely yes.

Satisfactorily answering these questions is essential to deal with the political destructiveness of the emotional plague that is ready to erupt and create havoc over people’s confusion regarding Trump’s candidacy. In any case, considering that the alternative to Trump is either a criminal or a socialist, the choice is not clear.

7 Comments

  1. The choice is not so obvious. By “criminal” I assume you mean Clinton. But she has not been conviced of any crime, so no matter what the media may say, calling her a criminal before she is convicted is libelous.

    By “socialist”, you mean Sanders. He calles himself that, and some of his policies do sound socialist, but most of them are not really socialist. According to the dictionary, socialism refers to a system in which the public owns the means of production. Sanders has proposed higher taxes on the rich and on corporations, but not actual nationalization of any sector of the economy. If he is elected, most businesses will go on in the same way, the only difference being higher taxes. That is not socialism. Socialism would mean outright nationalizing of at least some industries. Sanders has not proposed anything like that.

    Clinton is a sleeze and Sanders is an oportunist posing as a socialist. I would not vote for either of trhem. But Trump is no better. All of them together are proof of how broken the American electoral system is and why it needs to be replaced by some system that works better and provides some real choices.

    • I agree that the electoral system has broken down. It is going to take a lot of changes in people’s character structure before it can start working again.

    • Your statement sounds reasonable and carries the letter but not the spirit of the Clintons’ criminal activity. A conviction or no interest at all by the Justice Department is not indicative of the truth. As for Sanders, he hates financial success, blaming the “rich” for all ills; his intent to punish (and ultimately) destroy businesses is a Marxist pre-occupation.
      Speaking of libel, you have a way of insulting the host that allows for your opinion.

  2. Isn’t there a third factor: sex-economy and the emotional plague? Clinton’s war against women and truth! I refer to Roger Stone:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqYOXtXOFlY

    As to libel: the Clinton’s sue nobody for obvious reasons. About Sanders Stone says, “democratic socialist” is a “meat-eating vegetarian”. You cannot be both.

  3. The election is important but no matter who the president turns out to be, the most important matter at hand for the country is dealing with the destructiveness of political correctness.

    Obviously if one of the two democrats become president we can predict with 100% certainty that the fight against political correctness will receive no help from either of them (their political success depends upon PC and could not exist without it). Also the election of either democrat will indicate that emotional health of the general public is so “infected” and depleted that the battle against the current manifestation of the emotional plague (i.e. anti-authoritarianism / pseudo-liberalism-communism) will have little or no chance of gaining sufficient traction in the near future.

    So whether or not the republican candidate will be a positive influence regarding the fight vs PC, by simple self preserving deduction, it is important that another democrat not be the next president. All other matters are quite secondary to the bigger picture of our fight against PC.

    I am not expressing a political opinion here but rather a bio-social one about politics and the next election

    • You are right that the problem of political correctness is central. It is embedded in the thinking of today’s democrats who belong somewhere to the far left. Social orgonomy provides an understanding of the origin of the morality of political correctness. It was the result of the shift to the left in the political mainstream which, in turn, was the result of the anti-authoritarian transformation of the Western World.

  4. Quite an interesting analysis of the “unpredictable maniac” Trump:


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 44 other subscribers