In today’s divisive political atmosphere, there is a central irreconcilable difference in the thinking of the left and right as to how they view the American people. Leftist ideologues (pseudo-liberal/communists) live entirely from their superficial layer or facade. They, therefore, advocate multiculturalism and stress the superficial differences of American people as Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Muslims and so on. They also emphasize class differences based on people’s poverty level (the “rich”, the “disadvantaged”) whenever possible. From a functional perspective, these racist and separatist tactics have a destructive effect on the social fabric by further polarizing and alienating Americans against each other and by doing so they also mobilize the targeted group to vote for the Leftists who are in power in the upcoming presidential election. The is a political strategy that has the consequence of weakening and ultimately destroying America as a nation as it was before. Lenin understood that before a communist takeover could occur in a country people first had to be mobilized through political and social activism. This is exactly how, in the name of progress, today’s leftist ideologues are imperceptibly carrying out their political agenda for America.
By contrast, those on the Right of center have varying degrees of contact with the biological core. They view America as a melting pot and regard all of its citizens similarly as Americans first and foremost; as Black Americans, White Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans and so on. They view America as an “equal opportunity” country where all Americans regardless of their background and circumstances can satisfy their core needs if they are willing to work for it. This is a positive, tolerant and inclusive view of people that has the effect of preserving the integrity of American democracy.
6 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Neither Left Nor Right
The Emotional Plague
Charles Konia, M.D. 
This is a quite good illustration of what Dr. Konia said:
Your reference to Lenin brings to mind how much things have changed in the public discourse since Obama became president.
Here is a brief list of some of the potentially positive changes:
1) Many noted and respected Americans can now state openly that the progressive left (i.e. pseudo-liberal / communist) agenda is to transform the U.S. into a socialist state. Prior to 2008, this notion would have been relegated to a few “fringe loonies”.
In less than four years this idea has gained some acceptance and credibility.
2) The words, actions and policies of this president prompted the respected economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell, to write an article entitled “Obama: Socialist or Fascist?
It is one thing to label the president a fascist but to have an author of this calibre write an article clearly defining the ways in which he is a fascist has much more clout and introduces to public the idea that pseudo-liberalism/communism and fascism are closely linked.
3) The predictable emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood into the mainstream of Egyptian politics following the “Arab Spring” combined with recent accusations by members of Congress that there are people within the Obama administration who have close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood provides a current example of one of the important topics you cover in your book in the chapter on “Functional Perspectives on Current Social Problems”: The mutually convenient attraction that forms between the fascist on the political right and the fascist on the political left.
“Obama: Socialist or Fascist?” See James Burnham’s theory from the early 1940s.
Somewhat off topic: A sex-economic view at the Marxist revolutionary queer Mr. Obama:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/occidental-activist-i-thought-obama-was-gay/
Dr Konia, when you write “By contrast those on the right of center” I think that it might be implied but this would include both conservatives and the certain liberals who now find themselves on the right of center because the center has moved so far to the left from where it previously existed.
Yesterday, I read an article by Bruce Thornton of Stanford University’s Hoover Institute (the link to the article is below). It is entitled “Time for Liberals and Progressives to get new Labels”.
The last sentence is the following:
“We may never know why this contradiction inhabits the lib/prog mind, but one thing we do know: it’s not liberal and it’s not progressive in any meaningful sense of those words. So anyone have a suggestion for what we should call it?”
I know where he can find the answer to that question.
How can the gap be bridged so that the “suggestion” (i.e. the accurate bio-social term) can be provided to influential writers in a way that can be mutually beneficial to the ACO and people, like Bruce Thornton, who are unfamiliar with the term pseudo-liberal?
There are many decent, intelligent people of significant stature that are searching for these types of answers today after almost 4 years of a pseudo-liberal presidency.
In my lifetime (sooner than later), I hope they get hear or read the answer to the question posed by Thornton. If they are able to “tolerate” and digest the term “pseudo-liberal” sufficiently, the construction of the bridge over the wide gap will have begun.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton081712.html
Without prior knowledge of socio-political characterology and the emotional plague I do not know how it is possible for people to understand what is happening. A basic course in social orgonomy is required.