What Rush Limbaugh Needs to Know

This week, Rush Limbaugh had an article in The Wall Street Journal in which he defended himself against attacks by the political Left of promoting violence. The Left is able to accuse those who oppose their socialist agenda of playing the “violence card” of “right wing extremism” by not making a distinction between natural, healthy aggression and sick, neurotic aggression.

They also confuse all forms of emotional expression as pathological, so that they can place “reason” above it, thus legitimizing their defensive intellectualism in pursuing their political ends.

It must be recognized by everyone that generating confusion and stirring up political agitation is a favorite tactic of the emotional plague used by leftist ideologues. To learn more, see my book, The Emotional Plague, The Root of All Evil.

The Origin of the Conflict Between Left and Right

The conflict between the Left and the Right originates from the basic contradiction in the structure of all armored (see glossary) humans: the longing for freedom on the one hand and the fear of freedom on the other. The ideology of the true liberal is determined by and is an expression of the underlying human hope for the promise of freedom, happiness and a desire for social improvement while the ideology of the true conservative is determined by a belief that these desired states of being if not realistic are, at the very least, not practically attainable beyond what people in America actually have. Thus, the ideology of the liberal is far more popular and attractive to the majority of people and why left of center presidents such as Wilson, Kennedy and Obama have always enjoyed so much appeal.The condition of human armor is the source of people’s problems and no kind of political activism can remedy that.

Why Brain Training Exercises Do Not Work.

A recent article published in the journal Nature found no evidence that training people to perform mental tasks improved cognitive functioning. The studies are based on the false premise that the source of mental activity is exclusively in the brain. This premise is not based on clinical observation which finds that the source of mental activity originates not only from the brain but from sensory and emotional input from the entire body.This is why performing computer-based brain training exercises do not work. In fact, it has been clinically demonstrated that when emotional blocks (armor) are removed through medical orgone therapy the patient’s emotional and cognitive functioning often improves dramatically.

Is there anything wrong with giving pacifiers to children?

Yes. Pacifiers provide substitute contact and are often used in a contactless, mechanical way (the current “fashion”) and/or to keep children quiet. They interfere with the child’s ability to learn how to regulate oral needs, leaving a chronic sense of oral dissatisfaction. This may contribute significantly to laying the foundation for eating disorders and possibly obesity in later life.

The practice of providing substitute contact often continues in older children. Like pacifiers, television and video and computer games become substitutes for normal play, activities which are necessary for the child’s overall development, especially the work function.

Perhaps if parents were in better contact with their children, pacifiers would not be necessary.

Is there a deep-rooted need in humans, especially males, to be violent?

There is no deep-rooted, intrinsic need in humans, male or female, to be violent. The origin of violent behavior is found in early infantile and childhood development when natural emotional needs, which are benign and non-destructive, are not met and are instead chronically frustrated and thwarted by people in the environment, especially the parents. The reaching out, the emotions of the infant and child, turn into rage which manifests as disordered behavior and violence. Although the form of violence is often different in men and women, the violence of males is typically physical whereas the violence of females is typically emotional, the destructive effect is the same.

Children whose emotional needs are met during their development, from birth through adolescence, will not become violence-prone no matter how much violence they are exposed to. Conversely, children whose emotional needs are frustrated during their development will always be prone to destructive behavior in one form or another, even if they have never been exposed to violent scenes in the media. Their destructive behavior will be passed on to their own offspring through the same kind of emotional abuse that was visited upon them. This is how human destructiveness perpetuates itself from generation to generation.

This material is discussed in detail in my book The Emotional Plague: The Root of Human Evil.

Can shows like “Hannah Montana” be a bad influence on younger children?

A lot of moms do not allow their kids to watch, for example, “Hannah Montana” or “High School Musical” or see “Spider Man” or “Harry Potter” because they feel they condone violence/bad values (such as talking back to your parents, lying, cheating, etc.). Can watching these shows/movies be a bad influence on younger children (under 10) and hurt their development and play a factor in how they will deal with society as they grow older?

The problem is not this or that TV show or movie. Children need a role model, and if the parents and other significant adults in the child’s world (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) do not have genuine emotional contact with the child, then he or she will necessarily resort to substitute measures such as television programs, movies, the internet and video games for learning modes of behavior. A healthy relationship, however, between the child and parent, or parent substitute, provides the means for children to differentiate what is shown on TV and elsewhere and what is considered appropriate behavior in the real world. Certainly, viewing gratuitous violence, bad values and obscenity is not desirable, but in many instances these depictions can provide a contactful opening to discuss issues that the child is wondering about and give the parent an opportunity to explain why the anti-social behavior is not acceptable.

Why is America increasingly hated?

Increasing hatred of America coincided with the transformation of society from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian, which occurred during the late 1950s and 1960s. This transformation was intensified by the so- called “sexual revolution” when the younger generation, biophysically unprepared for a truly healthy sexual life, demanded greater sexual freedom.

American pseudo-liberals quickly took advantage of this highly volatile social situation by identifying their leftist political agenda (based on their hatred of authority) with the sexual longing of young people. This politicized the movement, thereby turning it into an organized form of the emotional plague. The younger generation’s frustration and anger was directed toward authoritarian figures in America, who were perceived as being opposed to their sexual demands. Everyone in authority in the social mainstream (all law enforcement, college professors, leaders in business and the military) was viewed with hostility and suspicion, and with this there was a shift of the political center to the left. As a result, many people in government who had been considered liberal-minded in the past were labeled as “conservative” or “right-wing extremists.”

With the fall of the Soviet Union, America became the only super power. Since power is equated with the hated authority figure in the minds of the easily-influenced masses, fueled by the liberal media and entertainment industry, America easily became the targeted object of their hatred. This hatred of America by Americans has infected many countries in the free world, particularly in Western Europe.

What is a psychopath and how do they originate?

A psychopath or sociopath (the terms can be used interchangeably) is an individual, male or female, who behaves impulsively with little or no sense of what is right and wrong. Since he can be readily identified by his behavior, diagnostic tests are usually not necessary. The origin of the psychopathic character is found in early childhood development. In these cases there is a marked difference in the degree of parental frustration imposed on the young child. One parent is harsh and cruel while the other is permissive and loving. This contradictory way of upbringing, simultaneous parental repression and indulgence of the child’s wishes, results in a child with poor impulse control leading to psychopathic behavior in later life.

Prior to around 1960, child-rearing practices were fairly consistent in America. The family was intact and people had generally accepted forms of social behavior. Social life was primarily organized around the family. Sexual repression was the rule. Sexual matters were never publicly discussed and, according to tradition, sexual activity was confined to marriage. There was a general consensus as to what was right and wrong. Social destructiveness was held in check by individual and social restraints, by accepted codes of behavior and by statutory laws.

Then suddenly, in the span of a few short years during the early 1960s, partly as a result of the so-called “sexual revolution,” destructive impulses broke through in full force from within those of the younger generation. Family traditions were undermined and American society as a whole underwent a transformation from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian. With the eruptions of these destructive forces, almost every kind of socially pathological behavior came to be tolerated, if not accepted outright. “Sex, drugs and rock and roll” became the mantra of the 1970s. People were completely unprepared to deal with what was happening as the authoritarian family structure weakened or, in some cases, ceased to exist. In today’s anti-authoritarian society, permitting the child’s every wish combined with an absence of parental guidance has replaced old-fashioned authoritarian repression. This has led to aimlessness in children, an inability of the young person to take charge of his or her life, and anxious, chaotic behavior on the part of the younger generation.

Today, in our anti-authoritarian society, psychopathic behavior is becoming alarmingly more widespread. Some current examples of psychopathic behavior are: dishonest, greedy CEOs of large corporations committing corporate fraud, the entertainment industries’ romanticizing and glorifying criminals and psychopathic characters and turning them into heroes, and the increased incidence of all kinds of criminal behavior including, in particular, drug use in the past several decades.

There is no treatment for the true psychopath. In fact, clinical experience reveals that conventional forms of treatment such as psychotherapy result in their mental and/or physical deterioration. The psychopath is highly adept at using any form of therapeutic intervention in the service of his psychopathic tendencies.

What is wrong with legalizing gay marriage?

It is not possible to effectively answer the question the way it is asked. In fact, the way it is posed, the question can only lead to endless debate “for” or “against” the issue. More fundamentally, the question itself is indicative of armored thinking, which is characterized by mixing different realms and depths of functioning. In this case the right of individuals and a social relationship are not only separate functions but one, the “right,” is in the narrower social realm, while the other, “marriage,” is in a deeper realm, one that has developed out of a biological function.

Seen in this way, from the perspective of functional thought, we can look at how each side of the “question” is “partly right.” Removing the debate from its usual moralistic context, we can say that homosexual marriage is neither “right” nor “wrong” and that homosexual relationships can be legally recognized without using the term “marriage” and all it implies and has implied for thousands of years. In this way the legal and economic advantages that heterosexual unions now have can be rationally extended while still keeping intact the deeper biological function.

Employing this resolution takes any emotional plague, from either those on the right or the left, out of the equation. By doing so, the plague’s efforts to create confusion and obscure the central biological role of heterosexual sexuality in social life is defeated, and the rights of all citizens can be secured regardless of sexual preference.

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

    Join 139 other subscribers
  • Follow Charles Konia, M.D.’s Tweets on Twitter

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Amazon

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Facebook

  • American College of Orgonomy