Traditional religions are losing their hold on the masses of people – another one of the consequences of the transformation of Western Society’s from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian. One function of the ideology of traditional religion was to anchor peoples personal feelings of guilt in it. The result of the breakdown of religious institutions is that people’s feelings of guilt – mostly unconscious – contained in their armor have become free-floating. Having no religion to ground them, young people are driven to find ways to relieve themselves of their guilt feelings socially through virtuous thoughts and causes of every kind. Examples abound in todays society in people’s getting swept up in socialist movements provided by the far left.
These leftist ideologues onto the social scene are quick to inject their hatred contained in their anti-American ideology into any social issue, present or past, that they can use to blame America for being responsible for past wrong-doings such as the institution of slavery and present-day injustices such as not allowing hoards of out of control migrants free entry into America.
The younger generation’s free-floating guilt is an unrecognized powerful social motivating force that is being mobilized to control people. The masses of today’s clueless masses of youths are raw material that are being manipulated politically as weapons through political action programs by their “guiltless”, Holier-than-thou, far-left radical leaders.
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Neither Left Nor Right
The Emotional Plague
Charles Konia, M.D. 
Dr. Konia, you write about the guilt-ridden liberal masses and their “guiltless” far-left masters. Does this imply that in general towards both ends of the sociopolitical spectrum guilt becomes character-structurally less important? Is this connected with the increase of ocular armoring towards both extremes of left and right? And what has this (structural “politicization”, guilt, and ocular armor) to do with “cluelessness”?
Dear Peter,
You are right. Ocular armor increases at both extremes. Contactlessness (“cluelessness”) increases and people on the extremes act out their secondary layer in different ways. The left does it through intellectual rationalizations and the right does it through emotional rationalizations.
Is the following correct?
Emotional rationalization is based on distorted contact with the core, so basically it is expressed in egotism (“me”, capitalism), family (regionalism, nationalism), and religion (race mysticism, fundamentalism). This leads to an emphasis on local authority (distorted contact) which is basically an extension of the family and its values. Biophysically one operates from the “belly” and through the musculature (“Goliath”, the idiot “Homer Simpson”). The world “pulsates” on the spot (emotion: pleasure, anxiety, and (muscular) aggression. “Meta-politically” everything is based on the concept of space (“Lebensraum”, “build the wall”) [the past = structure = determinism = authoritarism, responsibility]. Since the conservative does not use his intellect defensively he can think quite rational. One only have to look at the social media where the only defense of the liberals is censorship.
Intellectual rationalization is based on having no contact to the core at all, so basically it is expressed in altruism (“we”, socialism), “idealism” (internationalism), and atheism (“metaphysically” the world is an “antiauthoritarian” plain field without any hierarchies of importance). This mechanistic world calls for “engineering”, which leads to an emphasis on central authority (lack of contact), overriding any natural and traditional structures. Biophysically one operates from the brain (“the top”) and through the brain (“David”, the smart creators of “The Simpsons”). The world “moves on” (intellectual “vision” of a “better future”, “open borders”). “Meta-politically” everything is based on the concept of time (progress) [the future = “change” = freedom = freedom peddling, irresponsibility]. The appeal of the leftist is based on his “emotional freedom”, i.e., he has no prejudices (his emotions are not “fixed” [“emotional defense”], e.g., on the color of your skin) and is, thus, surrounded by an aura of (fake) expansion and “emotional openness”. This can be quite appealing. Again look at social media where the conservative always looks bad when it comes to emotions. “Don’t you love all humans?”
Dear Peter,
You are right. Liberals and conservatives perceive the world in different ways that are irreconcilable, the result in differences in their perceptual apparatus. Steven Diab has proposed a way that these differences may possibly be reconcilable.
Who is Steven Diab? I couldn’t find him on the Internet or on Amazon.
Never mind, I found the name, he commented on your 6/15 post.
Please condense your ideas into a few, brief sentences.
You are correct