What Do Obama Supporters Have In Common?

Obama supporters belong in varying degrees somewhere on the left of the socio-political spectrum.There are two characteristics that all Obama supporters have in common and they generally fall into two groups.  The first group identifies with Obama as the underdog. Looking upon Obama mystically as a modern-day savior, this group includes most Blacks, the majority of Jewish voters, Feminists, homosexuals and all those who emotionally see themselves as “disadvantaged.”  The second group sympathizes with the downtrodden out of unconscious feelings of guilt and pity.  This group includes the majority of well-intentioned, well-heeled, white liberal intellectuals.  They see Obama as the one best qualified to mete out  the social and political justice for those who are targeted to qualify as “underprivileged.”

The first group’s support of Obama originates from a defense against unexpressed feelings of revenge, resentment and contempt of people who are labelled by the leftist media as being better off than they are.  This group is the underdog and Obama is its imagined ally against this “privileged” class.  Out of their neurotic helplessness and sense of entitlement, they expect Obama to “redistribute” the wealth from the ” haves” by providing them to the ” have nots.”  The second group’s support of Obama originates from feelings of guilt and pity of people whom they imagine are less fortunate.  These feelings are displaced from their personal lives to the social and political arenas.  Their guilt and good intentions hide their emotionally based  intolerance of  people they regard as top dogs, the authoritarian moguls of our society that they subversively tear down.

From a biophysical perspective, both groups cannot directly and openly express feelings of aggression and hate  from their core and their destructive middle layer.  As a result, they see Obama through rose colored glasses as the person who somehow will make the world a better place for everyone, a role  that Obama is only too willing to assume to promote  his own destructive political agenda.  Both groups of Obama supporters play directly into his hands which is to covertly agitate for a class struggle by pitting one group of Americans against another for purposes of weakening and ultimately destroying America as a unified nation.

Fomenting class warfare has always been a typical tool of leftist radicles to destabilize a country.  It matters not a whit whether Obama or his supporters are aware or not of what they are doing.  Nor does it matter what their intentions are.  What matters is that the effect of their actions is divisive and highly destructive to the American nation.

July 28, 2012
Categories: character structure, emotional plague, Politics, Social Sciences, socio-political character . Tags: , , , , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 12 Comments

The Colorado Shooting Could Have Been Prevented If…

The shooting that occurred on July 20, 2012 in Aurora Colorado could have been prevented if the significance of seemingly isolated prior events were recognized and integrated into a whole picture beforehand.

Firstly, from a general description of the shooter as a shy, introverted loner it could have been conjectured that there was a possibility that he was some type of schizophrenic character.  Secondly, from the fact that shortly after starting graduate school he dropped out for no apparent reason, it could have been surmised that he was undergoing a psychotic breakdown at that time.  Although these observations were presumptive evidence that the individual was having a psychotic break, they gave no indication that he was homicidal.  However, a third observation made by his neighbors was a strong indication that he actually was potentially a homicidal paranoid schizophrenic: Shortly before the shooting, he covered the windows of his apartment with newspapers. To a trained psychiatrist, the emotional significance  of this act was a telltale sign that he was in a state of acute psychotic panic and that, as a result, he was suffering from persecutory delusions.  From his perspective, he was in mortal danger for at least two months prior to the shootings and this is why he had to arm himself to the hilt offensively and defensively in every way possible in order to protect himself from harm. From this perspective, it was irrelevant whether he bought a thousand rounds or ten thousand of ammunition. By playing the Joker, the murders were a psychotic attempt to defend himself from his inner terror by projecting the source of the danger to his life onto the outside world.

If the emotional significance of his suddenly covering the windows was correctly understood by those around him as a bizarrely psychotic act, it could have been possible to prevent this and other similar tragic events from happening. (Remember that the Oslo mass murderer also covered his windows just prior to the killings.) It is possible with knowledge that is currently available to educate the public to be aware of the behavioral signs and symptoms in people that lead them to commit homicidal acts.

July 23, 2012
Categories: character structure, Social Sciences, socio-political character . Tags: , , , , , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 15 Comments

Why Liberals Must Vote For Obama In 2012

The primary determinants of political belief and action are based on the individual’s socio-political character structure.  Belonging on the political left, the liberal character functions  mainly from his superficial layer or facade because the morality and the ideology of the political left originate from this layer.  It’s function is to defend against the liberal individual’s perceiving impulses from his core and destructive middle layers.  This perceptual distortion is why the liberal cannot act forcefully when physical aggression is required and it is why because of his guilt that he is quick to identify with America’s enemies whenever there is an international dispute.  Despite his lack of aggression and free floating guilt, however, the true liberal has always been a loyal American and a supporter of her democratic ideals.

Then around 2007, a colossal hoax was perpetrated on the American public.  Seemingly out of nowhere and with little known of his past history, Barack Obama, an individual with an entirely different (pseudo-liberal/communist) character structure was introduced to the American public as a member of the political mainstream, as a no nonsense, honest to goodness, legitimate liberal member of the Democratic Party.  This was a brilliant coup that was accomplished, in part, by effectively concealing his past association with leftist radicals and, in part, by his being actively promoted by the mainstream media for what he was not.

Most liberal characters were unable to see this coup because they live almost entirely from their superficial layer.  Living from their intellect prevented them from seeing and feeling  what was happening in front of their eyes and in their depths.  This is why it was a simple matter for Obama to pass himself off as one of them.  All he had to do was feed them the liberal’s idealistic slogans that they love hearing enough times to sound convincing to them (“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”) etc.  This he successfully did in his 2008 presidential campaign.

However, the similarity between the true liberal and Barack Obama is delusory. In contrast to the liberal, Obama merely pretends to be defended against the expression of his destructive middle layer.  Cut off from his biological core, Obama’s superficial layer is entirely in the service of expressing his destructive middle layer against America. He expresses his contempt and hatred of the tradition of independence, resourcefulness and individual responsibility that is characteristic of  Americans whenever possible, something that is impossible for the liberal to recognize. No other Democratic American president no matter how liberal from Roosevelt to Clinton has been as disdainful of America and Americans as Obama. Because of the seeming similarity in their structures, liberals must vote for Obama even if Obama’s economic and social policies actually run counter to their own interests.

July 22, 2012
Categories: character structure, emotional plague, Politics, Social Sciences, socio-political character . Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 7 Comments

The Origin Of Armored Morality

Natural morality originates from the biological core and is directly expressed through the surface undistorted by armor from the destructive middle layer.

The differences in the armored morality of the political right and the left has to do with how each group deals with their destructive middle layer and also with the anti-authoritarian transformation of Western society.  During the authoritarian era (prior to around 1960) the predominant form of morality was authoritarian: From a biophysical standpoint, impulses originating from people’s biological core passed through their destructive middle layer and were expressed through the superficial layer.  The amount of destructive middle layer that was contained in the moral impulse was proportional to how far the individual was to the political right of the socio-political spectrum.  Because impulses passed from the core through the destructive middle layer, most people in those days were in contact with both layers and, as a result, the distinction between good and evil was easily discernible to them; Good and evil, right and wrong were moral absolutes.  Americans were more united in seeing the good and the greatness of their country.  They saw the evilness of both red and black fascism and the need to fight  when necessary to preserve their freedom.  In today’s anti-authoritarian era, these people belong somewhere to the right flank of the political spectrum.

With the anti-authoritarian transformation of society, an entirely different kind of morality has developed.  Called political correctness, this morality is the result of a change in the functional relationship between the superficial and destructive middle layers in people’s bio-psychic structure.  Now, the superficial layer including the  intellect, is not in the service of expressing impulses from the core and middle layers as in the case of authoritarian morality but in defending against the perception of impulses from the core and destructive middle layers.

 This change in the bio-psychic structure of armored humans accounts for the morality of  political correctness.  It is the morality of those belonging on the political left: For them, all moral thinking originates from the social surface since contact with the  core and destructive middle layers is lost.  They distance themselves from having contact with the deeper layers by their defensive use of intellectualism and by having contempt for core feelings.  Morality that originates from the superficial layer becomes a relative principle. For example, a person’s intentions which originate from the superficial layer is the ever changing yardstick which is used to measure what is valued as good or bad.  Moral relativism means that nothing is intrinsically good and nothing is intrinsically bad.  Thus, for example,  in the case of the  green “save the earth” movement, people who are involved in it are the good “morally superior” ones.  They are the progressive ones on the wave of the future compared to others who are not involved in this noble quest.

A new kind of collective morality is set in place to replace the old, individually based, authoritarian form.  This new morality is an attempt to eliminate the problem of the destructive secondary layer by pulling energy up into the head and thereby cutting off contact not only with the secondary layers but also with the biological core.  In doing so, it  throws out the baby with the bath water. By getting rid of the biological core from where the emotions originate, this new morality helps to bring about the de-humanization of the human race.

July 14, 2012
Categories: emotional plague, Politics, Social Sciences, socio-political character . Tags: , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 19 Comments

Is Obama Really A Socialist?

In his article, Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close (New York Times, July 12 2012), Academy Awards winner Milos Forman compares Barack Obama’s political agenda with the Soviet Socialist system and concludes that the president cannot be a socialist because his policies are nothing like those of former Communist countries.

What Mr. Forman doesn’t recognize is that socialism is a process of social degradation. He is comparing America with Soviet Socialism. These social systems represent two different stages in this degenerative process and this is why they appear to be different: America is in the early stages of degeneration and the Soviet system was in the end stage. He hears the word “socialist” being passed around by people like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. If these people made this distinction between different stages in social degeneration then their describing Obama as a socialist would be more convincing.

To follow up on the musical analogy in Mr. Forman’s article, it would be more accurate to describe Mr. Obama as the Pied Piper who is playing his tune and leading a gullible America down the path of social degeneration into socialism.

July 12, 2012
Categories: emotional plague, Politics, Social Sciences, socio-political character . Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 20 Comments

Why Can’t Some People See Barack Obama’s Threat To America?

The answer is simply that these people literally cannot see what is right in front of their eyes.  As if that was not bad enough they do not perceive that they can’t see.  Instead of using their eyes to see the outside world as it really is, they rely on their inner emotions and sensations as a substitute, replacing personal belief about Obama for reality.  On the other hand, typical of any pseudo-liberal/communist ideologue, Obama is highly skilled at pretending to be a loyal American, someone who he is not.

In my clinical work as a medical and social orgonomist, I have found that these substitute internally generated positive feelings about Barack Obama originate from two sources:

They are either the result of a fear of recognizing the hatred and feelings of revenge that Obama harbors toward  America and the American way of life or they are the result of a wish or a hope that some kind of government handout will be given to them.  (Remember that Obama panders to the public’s longing for “freedom” and “hope”).  These are defensive attitudes  on the public’s part that leaves it  feeling complacent and with a false sense of security about social conditions.  Then there is a third group of people, mostly Black Americans, who identify with Obama’s blackness and mindlessly support him simply because of his skin color.

The reason that people cannot see  evil when it is right in front of their eyes is because their eyes do not function the way nature intended them to.  Very early in most people’s lives, as a result of their upbringing, their eyes have been traumatized in one way or another, either by emotional or by physical insults.  Their eyes have become armored and this is why they cannot see things in the world as they are and why they must distort reality.

The consequences of these early ocular insults on both the individual and on society can be disastrous.  This is once more the case, as in 2008 of the relationship between Barack Obama and the voting public that is about to play out in November 2012.

Ocular armor is a poorly recognized, prevalent medical condition induced by harmful environmental practices on children such as poor emotional contact between mother and infant, noxious  chemicals being placed in the infant’s eyes at birth, harsh mechanical stimuli bombarding the infants senses and so on.  In addition to destructive effects on the individual’s personal life, ocular armor has serious environmental consequences as well. The widespread social and political irrationality that is constantly upon us is only one example of people’s ocular armor.

July 8, 2012
Categories: emotional plague, Medical Sciences, Politics, Social Sciences . Tags: , . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 1 Comment

  • 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