The Left’s Systematic Plan to Destroy the American Nation

Through having undistorted, continuing contact with their past, the lives of healthy people and nations grow and prosper.

Destroy the people’s past and you’ll have them eating out of your hand. There are two ways that armored people can lose contact with the memory of their nation’s past which depend on differences in their socio-political character structure. Those on the political right preserve the past but distort it by mystifying and glorifying it. The effect of this method is that it allows people to retain some level of emotional contact with themselves and their nation’s past. The result is that social tradition and the continuation of society is secured. By contrast, those on the political left destroy people’s emotional contact with their nation’s past and eliminate the memory of it in every way possible. Some examples of this anti-authoritarian tactic of social repression include the following: Rewriting history books to fit pre-existing leftist ideological beliefs; destroying public statues and monuments that represent great historical figures; indoctrinating college students to question the value of past traditions and of historical leaders; destroying the American Constitution and replacing it with their personal interpretation of it; eliminating the traditional role of police authority; destroying people’s emotional feelings of patriotism for their nation, etc. These are examples of a highly perfected communist tactic that has been repeatedly and successfully used by leftist ideologues for over a century. This is the typical way that the emotional plague from the political left always operates.

The final effect of erasing past history and tradition is to destroy whatever emotional contact people have with themselves and their identity as Americans. The next step is that people can easily be turned into helpless, mindless automatons who then will be at the mercy of highly organized, American communist ideologues directing their lives as they please and, by so doing, will bring about the complete destruction of the American nation.

This was predicted by the Communist leader Nikita Krushchev in 1959 who said: “Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we will keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We will not have to fight you; We will weaken your economy until you will fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” ” The democracy will cease when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”


  1. So clear, so spot on! Thanks. Judy

    • You’re welcome.


    In the initial general report it was also stated that “…the world is virtually at war – an atypical kind of war, which is being waged by international communism and suffered by the democracies. In this sense, it is undeniable that the Marxist dialectic has changed the saying of Clausewitz that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’; to the assertion that ‘peace is only the continuation of war by other means’.”

    In a speech delivered January 6, 1961, Khrushchev pointed out three kinds of war: “world wars, local wars, and wars of liberation or popular insurrections.” He said that this classification made it “necessary to devise tactics that are correct for each of these types of wars.” With respect to world war, he declared that “Communists are the strongest opponents of such wars” and that “we can prevent the conflagration of a world war.” He said that it was possible that in the future local wars could flare up, but that they would be extinguished “because they might turn into wars with thermonuclear missiles.”

    With respect to the “war of liberation” or “popular uprising,” he said “they will come about as long as imperialism exists … such wars are not only acceptable but inevitable…. We accept such wars. We are supporting and we will support the peoples in their struggle for independence’ Khrushchev then continued by asking and answering a series of questions about this kind of war. “Can wars of this kind break out in the future? Yes; they can. Can there be this kind of uprising? There can be…. In other words, can conditions be created that will stir a people to lose patience and take up arms? Yes; they can be. What is the Marxist position on these uprisings? It is one of strongest support….” Then, after a description of the horrors of thermonuclear war, Khrushchev came to a very significant conclusion: “The victory of communism throughout the world is close at hand,” but “war among states is not necessary to gain this victory.” Thus, the leader of communism declares that a world war is dangerous as a means of spreading his doctrine, but at the same time maintains the threat of a thermonuclear war as a means of intimidation and a type of blackmail to keep the free world from resisting Communist invasion. What Khrushchev describes as a “war of liberation” or “popular uprising” is really hidden aggression: subversion.

    • Peter, I think you search for “Aha!” moments to nail people and feel justified doing so. You go on and on, attempting to prove your point. It is actually somewhat sickening to read some of your posts.

      My grandma would have said to you:

      Go play in traffic
      You should be fed with a long-handled spoon
      Run around the block and holler “FIRE”.

      There are so many people who are as unhappy and toxic like you seem to be. You are exhibiting the emotional plague in so many of your comments and responses to many of Dr. Konia’s posts on his blog. It is ugly reading what you write. You have huge problems with authority. Dr. Konia is an example of “good authority”.

      Please bring something positive and creative to this blog, if it exists within you.
      Also, consider starting your own blog.

      • Judy,
        I have to come to Peter’s defense and disagree with your very unfair and harsh attack on him. First, he has been with Dr Konia’s blog since the beginning and contributed much over the years. I also find his knowledge about Reich exemplar, and his unusual interpretations are very creative and refreshing. I have no idea how he could be labeled an EP character from what he wrote on this post or anytime before–this was a very unfortunate use of words by you.

      • I agree very strongly with Ed, Judy. I happen to know from multiple conversations with Dr. Konia that he likes and respects Peter quite a lot, and as far as I understand he does not have a problem with Peter’s posts. I myself like Peter a tremendous amount; we are good Facebook Messenger friends for a few years now. I know him better than anyone else on this blog or in the orgonomy world. I thank God that I met him because he is so brilliant and creative, and I have benefited tremendously from my friendship with him. He is an absolutely brilliant and thoroughly decent, loyal, and trustworthy person. His knowledge of the orgonomic literature and history is greater than anyone alive. He is not an orgonomist and does not aspire to be one. He knows his “place.” True, he is “feisty,” but he is harmless and you couldn’t ask for a more loyal and dependable and decent human being. I know from conversations with Dr. Konia that he has the same impression and also respects Peter’s knowledge. Do we always agree with everything Peter comes up with? No. But he definitely has a major contribution to make and I’m glad he is a contributor to this blog. Your screed against him is uncalled for, misinformed, harmful, and perhaps most disturbing: based on a superficial understanding of this valuable friend of orgonomy and the ACO.

      • In a word, he’s a “gorgeous” human being, and certainly no plague character. For example, he would never say to anyone what you have written in this public space about someone you have at best only very superficial knowledge of. Lastly, Peter is deep, a treasured quality which is rare in this world and so often overlooked and under-appreciated.

    • You are missing the point, completely! Khrushchev did not say it, period. And I presented an alternative, proving Dr. Konia’s point. It is the ultimate disloyalty not to say truth to authority.

      Orgonomy is a science not a cult.

      OK, it makes no logical sense that Khrushchev wanted to weaken America’s economy by introducing socialism because he was a true believer in Soviet style Marxism. To his mind socialism would have strengthened America.

      But perhaps I am so out of touch that I do not understand the function of comments on blogs.

  3. Thank you Dr. Konia, for this and your consistent attention to these important social phenomena. We are witnesses to history being made before our eyes.

    In George Orwell’s book 1984, the “Minister of Information” stated “Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future.” Exactly what you are addressing, but without the deeper understanding of the Emotional Plague that you are providing.

    More recently, Black Lives Matter leader Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York, warned that his activist organization “will burn down and replace this system” if the country “doesn’t give us what we want.” It seems sometimes the emotional plague is “subtle” or confusing in its presentation and destructiveness, and in other cases it hits you right in the face with a 2 x 4 board. And yet, even then so few see it.

    Thank you for helping me see it more clearly.

    • Dr. Apple, thanks for mentioning Orwell’s “1984” which I read years ago. Orwell was very powerful and stirring. I actually just found a book entitled THE MINISTER OF TRUTH on Amazon which I downloaded into my Kindle collection. It is about Orwell.

  4. It’s not only the left! One should never forget that not only „Moscow,“ i.e., red fascism, was Reich’s enemy, as explained b him in his “conspiracy volumes,” but just as well “Rockefeller,” i.e., the globalist, deeply anti-American black fascist “elite”! And the situation Reich encountered, say, in 1956 is all the same in 2020 with the most important election in the history of America if not of mankind:

    May God Bless President Trump!!!

  5. Peter, I apologize for my outburst yesterday which landed on you. Sincerely, Judy

    • Judy, apparently we are both extremely excited by Dr. Konia’s blog and express our excitation in, well, quite different ways. But our deep appreciation for his work we have in common. Everyone, without any exception, who is loyal to orgonomy, Reich, Baker et al. is my friend. Therefore no need to apologize, no big affaire, but rather we all have work to do: to get more people reading Dr. Konia’s blog, his books, and the JOURNAL he edits.

  6. Dear David Holbrook, I already apologized to Peter. Sincerely, Judy

    • Judy, the time stamps on Dr. Konia’s blog can be very confusing. Also, sometimes comments seem to appear, then disappear, then appear again. Just so you know, I wrote both my responses at around 9p last night to your original comment to Peter. Then the second of my comments seemed to disappear overnight and reappear this morning. Not sure when you wrote your apology to Peter, but I did not see it last night and apparently it appeared this morning.

  7. Dear Peter,

    Thank you for your thoughtful and kind message.

    Orgonomy is very important to me.

    I wish you a wonderful weekend.

    If you ever want to exchange messages, here is my email address: It might be better to be in direct contact than to post messages on Dr. Konia’s blog. I would enjoy yakking with you. I think perhaps you may have a good sense of humor.

    With best personal regards to you I am


  8. I hesitate to post these thoughts, but after battling within myself, I’ll go ahead. This topic, I felt was “too close to home” and thus hesitated to bring in uncomfortable issues, but the adage of “learning from our experiences” won.

    A few days ago, one blog member unjustly attacked a poster in a vicious way, and I personally felt “wronged” at this action. I wanted to clear this up twofold—to protect the person’s freedom of speech, and protect the integrity of the blog from an EP infiltration. I wrote my rebuttal, and soon another member was sparked into adding his similar criticism. Now it was not a lone voice, but a “movement”. The parallels of the mini and the macro world (as Steven likes to call it), were right here, especially salient as Dr Konia’s blog has become almost exclusively about the machinations of the EP. The outcome of my intervention was positive, as all parties made amends and the blog continued to function unimpeded by any latent hostile feelings.

    What is the purpose of this post? Over the years, I felt there were two basic schools on how to fight the plague—the first was with education, and the second was with some type of aggressive action. What is aggression? It is a focused outward charge with the intent of changing a behavior in the more immediate moment. True, education can also be aggressive, but within the confines of the armored world, the time frame is much longer. The example of my action, lends credence to the necessity of specific actions that must be taken to interrupt the steamroller of socialist destruction. I do not think that “general” statements about the EP are enough to win the battle. There are countless destructive acts occurring now, that all normal persons see as “sick”, and thus already know instinctively the EP. The problem is that just a very miniscule amount of citizens take any aggressive action to fight back. When David joined in, we had a “movement” that could not be stopped, especially since the truth was objectified. In the larger social world, where truth is sometimes upside down, a larger number of people must join together to fortify reality.

    My advice is that whenever there is a person willing to fight back, “all hands must be on deck” to support them, as they are helping to open each persons social armor, and this improved functioning must not be wasted.

    • Another way to address to the plague is to learn to put your responses in the form of questions, not in the form of statements. This can take some effort on the part of the responder.

    • Peter
      I really wanted to commend you on taking the time to explain your response in defense of Peter (obviously Peter is very capable of defending himself but it is important that straight direct contactful words be expressed as often as possible in the current state of greater social realm).
      I had always assumed that you and I had a similar take on how healthy life could effectively take on the an EP outbreak like we are witnessing today and your comment confirmed my assumption.

      If there had been more healthy human resources available to the ACO since its creation I have no doubt that there would have been a branch of the College that could have focused more energy and attention on second of “your two basic schools”. What has been accomplished under Dr. Konia’s guidance with regards to the all important subject of the EP is remarkable and a testament to the ACO’s, ability under dire circumstances, to keep the science of orgonomy undistorted and true to the method of functional thinking that emerged from Reich’s discoveries.

      Below is a link to the Trump National Dialogue on School Re-opening (at 3hr and 33 minute mark a parent speaks right after KellyAnne Conway for about 6 minutes and expresses what most likely represents the majority of rational thinking people’s view on school re-opening.

      If President Trump had a functional thinking adviser he would receive the following counsel. Instead of solely relying on tweets to take quick shots at the EP and their supporters (aggression), you need to have 10 minute daily presentations via youtube or another social media platform to inform the public of the irrationality of continuing the lockdown.

      The purpose of the daily 10 minute presentations would be to educate the population. The president has the best platform but lacks sound advice with respect to containing and quarantining today’s version of the EP.
      Under the circumstances he is trying his best and I hope that it is enough but it is really sad that knowledge of the EP is available but not put to full use in dealing with the this outbreak for the sake of the country and healthy life in general.

      • I just realized that I meant to write and address Ed (not Peter)

      • Steve,
        I agree with your “Trump Presentation” ideas, I think it would be tremendously helpful, and if he would articulate some of the countertruth issues, he would “hit a home run.”

  9. Yes., Dr. Konia. And thank you for the guidance. I certainly learned from it. Judy

    • You’re welcome.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s