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.
12 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Neither Left Nor Right
The Emotional Plague
Charles Konia, M.D. 
The uncomfortable and unfortunate truth that Americans will have to face in the near future, if there is to be abatement in the pseudo-liberal movement’s “terminal” effect on the health and welfare of Americans and American society, is that they are engaged in an ideological, modern day version of a civil war.
There are many who can sense that there is “something” going on but very few, if any, who can identify all of the combatants or who is on what side and how to proceed in the short and mid term before it is too late.
I would prefer not to label the social degeneration and resulting loss of freedoms that has occurred over the last 50 years an “ideological civil war” but no other label seems to fit.
The fighting, in this type of struggle, is expressed in words and concepts (i.e. political correctness, social justice, redistribution of wealth, “the rich paying their fair share, etc).
The destructive results of this kind of war take longer than the traditional type of war that involves weapons and the “death toll” is counted in the loss of freedoms.
The institutionalization of “less freedoms” leads to a reduction in the individual’s capacity for independence and self reliance and leads to more dependence on the state and so on and so forth.
It will be crucial for those who chose to face this truth and take on this fight to have at their disposal the list of tactics and methods of attack that the pseudo-liberal and their “followers” have in their arsenal.
It is reassuring to know that when confronted in an informed, functional manner, the pseudo-liberal’s ability to defend themselves, their positions and ideology are very limited.
If the conservative who functions from his third layer and the perverse or psychopathic conservative are discussed and how their pathology expresses itself in social policy then, and only then, can “less freedoms” be differentiated from rational limitation. But there doesn’t seem to be much interest in that…
The conservative have also a social façade. It was well developed in the authoritarian era with all the rules of etiquette, the lies involved in doing “business,” and, of course, in politics and diplomacy. But this social façade was thin, simple, and, therefore, functioned quite well. People could think rational to some extent. But nowadays, in the “liberal” era, the social façade hypertrophied, got overcomplicated, and can, therefore, no longer render its rational function. It’s no longer thinking but rationalization and intellectualization. The dysfunctional facade no longer is a defense against the secondary drives, the old-fashion fair play, but the façade facilitates their expression. Conservatives have become fair game. As long as it is politically correct there are no boundaries:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/27/Kathy-Griffin-Attacks-17-Year-Old-Willow-Palin-Dirty-Whore-Future-Porn-Star
I understand Reich’s argument that the conservative modified in his tertiary layer by religion is superior to the radical liberal. However, religion is no longer modifying their structure because religious community has broken down.
The Tertiary layer can’t be ‘thin’, but its content can harness the will in a direction that is more in line with core aims. However, even this has come at the cost of creating a fascist scapegoat to blame for the problems with one’d identified group.
It seems like no one has objectively studied the conservative…
Mark Levin says and expresses everything what hast to be said. Today the left is dominated by the fascist character structure of the modern pseudo-liberal who is vile and scapegoating like Goebbels – while the conservatives are civil, reasonable, and, well, intimidated.
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-rips-bravos-andy-cohen-over-kathy-griffin-calling-sarah-palins-daughter-a-dirty-whore/
I’m sorry to hear that you are all so nice and sweet and the big, mean liberals are picking on you.
This is ridiculous… how can you compare one comedian’s vulgar joke to the conservatives working up patriotic fervor by suggesting a wall be built to keep Mexicans out? How is that scapegoating or demonizing?
The truth of the matter is that rich conservatives find tax loopholes, outsource Amercian jobs, and seek to support their country as little as they can. But, because they praise America in their rhetoric, enforce sex-negative views like abortion, and blame others for failures the little conservative man can forget his lack of recognition in both his career and lack of success with women and identify with the perfection, or future perfection of his country.
Reich was against homo normalis period. It seems like you all should go back and read Listen Little Man and stop glorifying the authoritarian past.
You’re not getting it. I’m not saying that the conservatives are the ” good guys” and the liberals are the “bad guys”. In today’s antiauthoritarian era, the choice is always between the “less destructive” and the ” more destructive.” The conservatives are socially less destructive to America at the present time and the liberals are more destructive. In order to deal with the emotional plague in today’s world, you have to pick the less destructive force. It’s as simple as that. Either you can see that or you can’t.
You are saying we must choose homo normalis, and it’s better to hang onto authoritarian values then side with those who negate them.
I’m asking you to examine the deficiency in character structure in both conservative and liberal and be part of a future that goes beyond homo normalis and you’re not getting it. There is a dialectic and we should negate the negation of the anti-authoritarian, not return to the authoritarian.
The only thing I see is that you rhetorically say neither left nor right but consistently say no to the left and never examine the right.
I’ve pointed out to you several times that the courageous track of choosing a new future- a way humanity has never lived before- will require a lot of work, but you ignore this. You would rather whine about liberals and foolishly hope that homo normalis will somehow change fundamentally and recognize the genius of Reich rather than understanding that homo normalis will change only when society is re-organized.
Again, why are mechanistic and mystical thinkers who’ve fought hard to get into positions of power in university and public discourses suddenly going to say ‘yes, we are wrong and Reich is right’? Please give me an argument for this, and stop saying either you see it or you don’t as if you are the living embodiment of science and can’t be wrong about your views.
There is something I do not understand: you (TCP) say one should side with the future but you ask Dr. Konia to fight a battle which is the battle of the past: the fight against conservatism. You mention abortion as if we are living in the 1920s without contraception. You mention tax-loopholes – which closure would mean only one thing: to make it virtually impossible for small business to grow. The really rich people could not care less about taxes. And this vulgar Marxism: as if rich means “conservative” automatically. Filthy rich people like Al Gore, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, etc. You mention border control: it’s the small blue collar worker whose wages, neighborhood, social security, public schools, and health services are destroyed. People like Michael Moore who live in closed compounds with tight security and armed (!) guards could not care less.
Take California as illustration: “The state is [now] run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees” – no place for the working class!
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/27/millions-flee-california-because-of-progressive-tax-system/#ixzz226nQTFpK
TCP
I can relate to your difficulty in seeing the influence of the pseudo- liberal/communist on liberals, conservatives and more specifically on American institutions. I was blinded by pseudo-liberal indoctrination having reached my teenage years in the 1960’s. Even when I happened upon Reich and medical orgone therapy, I was not able to see what was actually going until I read and re-read (several times) Dr. Konia’s book some 40 years later.
The tactics of the pseudo-liberal movement, adopted from the Frankfurt school and their invention of critical theory (combined with armored people’s propensity to be duped by freedom, truth or salvation peddlers) make it very difficult to see what is actually happening in our society and in politics in general.
Armored expression in the social or politic arena is at the root of human destruction. The labels of liberal or conservative or whatever are just different manifestations of armored expression (i.e secondary, destructive expressions as opposed to primary, life positive unarmored expressions).
In 2012, the greatest threat to the freedoms vested in the American constitution is the pseudo-liberal movement and everyone who unwittingly supports it.
If this movement isn’t dealt with and defeated, arguments about whether the conservative also has character structure that can cause destruction will not matter that much.
This is one of the best exposés of the modern liberal façade:
Well, an exposè of the conservative façade you may find in Reich’s What is Class Consciousness? written in the early 1930s. But strikingly enough even back then Reich’s main enemy are those leftist intellectuals who want to impose „class consciousness“ unto blue collar working people.