Charles Konia, M.D.

In The Wall Street Journal article (“Liberalism: An Autopsy,” op-ed, Dec. 4) R. Emmett Tyrrell states that there has been a slow but steady decline of liberalism since the end of the Second World War and that as a political movement liberalism is dead. It is true that the usefulness of liberalism as a social philosophy came to an end after it effectively destroyed the mystical hold that Christianity had on people’s lives.  But how are we to understand that today those on the political Left are more powerful than ever and that America is fighting for its life to not be destroyed by the forces of the political left?

The short answer to this question was addressed in an article that appears in the editorial section of this web-site entitled: “Where Have All the Communists Gone?”  It has to do with the almost complete infiltration of the Democratic Party by characterological communists that started in the 1960s.  Communists accomplished this coup brilliantly by identifying themselves as true liberals without giving up in any way their total adherence to their communist ideology:  In full view of everyone, they are desperately attempting through political activism to impose their leftist ideology on the American public and to turn America into a socialist state.

An understanding of socio-political character allows one to make sense of the contradiction posed by the title of this entry:  True liberals may be on the decline but , with the help of the leftist press, pseudo-liberal/communist extremists have become part of the mainstream left.

What accounts for the success of the extreme left? From a characterological standpoint, the American public’s natural sense of fairness regarding the beliefs of others interferes with their seeing leftist extremists for the criminals that they actually are.  As a result of this naive and dangerous attitude,  pseudo-liberal/communists have become legitimized as part of American politics and the critics of the extreme left are slowly becoming marginalized.

December 13, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

Before this question can be satisfactorily answered, there must be a characterological understanding of the “cast of characters” taking part in the drama.  This is the study of socio-political characterology.

On the side of the Muslims, there are two groups, those belonging on the extreme right of the socio-political spectrum, who would like nothing better than to take over Western countries in the name of Allah.  There are other Muslims who belong on the political center; they are willing and able to adapt to Western ways of life and respect the law of their adopted land.  The former group believe that religious and secular laws are one and the same.  These Muslims are a threat to Western society, and  should be sent back to their country of origin.  The latter group believes that religion and government should be kept separate, and recognize and respect the rule of law.

On the side of the West there are also two groups.  For example, one group in England, on the extreme political left and including  government officials and law enforcement agents, believes that Shariah law should be applied to Muslims. Others, Conservatives,  want all people in the country, Muslim as well as natives, to follow the law of the land.

On both sides the central question is whether or not religious and secular law are kept separate.   Muslim integration becomes a social problem because Western Liberals are unwilling  to enforce the laws of their land. For them, laws are not absolute and can change depending on social conditions.  Muslim integration will remain controversial until characterological factors underlying people’s beliefs is understood and applied.

November 22, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

The stated reason for multiculturalism in America is that it is supposed to “celebrate cultural diversity”.   Attempts to teach blacks, Hispanics and Muslims to speak the language of society around them and dress accordingly are denounced by multiculturalists as “cultural imperialism”  if not outright “racism.”  However, the real reason behind multiculturism is that it effectively sets one group of people, who are supposedly disadvantaged, into an antagonistic relationship with the whole of society, thereby fragmenting America.  It also serves to prevent the chosen group from advancing socially and economically. Multiculturalism is socially divisive and the ideology of masked racists.  It is a political ploy that focuses on the cultural differences between people, thereby setting one group against the other.

From the standpoint of political characterology, people who support multiculturalism belong on the far left or far right of center.  Their common belief system can unite these people from both extremes and become a political force of the emotional plague.

October 21, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

On September 24, in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinijad’s anti-Israel, anti-American speech to the United Nations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a talk to the same organization condemning  Mr. Amadinijad’s anti-Semitic rants. In that same speech Mr. Ahmadinejad stated that most people believe that the U.S. government committed the 9/11 attacks. What is to be made of his tirades?

They should not be dismissed as the rantings of a crackpot.  His comments must be taken seriously as part of a well-calculated strategy to undermine the world’s opposition to the Iranian government’s legitimacy.  The comments were designed as a blow to the free world both within and outside of Iran and it resulted in an immediate victory for the cause of militant Islam for the following reasons:

1) From the reaction of the members of the General Assembly, it provided him with valuable information about the strength of the world’s opposition to the Iranian regime’s internal and expansionist policies.  Out of the entire General Assembly membership of 192 countries, only diplomats from 30 countries walked out of his speech (less than one sixth).  By not walking out, in effect, the remaining five-sixths of the members went along with him.

2) It provided him with a forum to tell millions of Muslims all over the world who have no access to the truth what he wanted them to believe.

3) It provided him with an opportunity to intimidate those in the West who are fearful of aggression and show them that he is able to mock and show contempt for the most powerful nation in the world and get away with it.  From getting away with uttering outrageous statements to getting away with atrocious deeds such as building and using nuclear weapons is but a step.  Furthermore, his tactic promulgates the myth that the Islamic conquest of the Western world is inevitable.

4) From his authoritative position as president of  Iran, he succeeded in casting doubt in the minds of those who are always looking at America’s faults on the truth of who the perpetrators actually were in the 9/11 attack.

5) And lastly, creating doubt about the perpetrators also helps to weaken opposition to building a mosque near Ground Zero.

September 29, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

This important question cannot be answered without a working knowledge of sociopolitical characterology, the manner in which individuals mold their environment through their ideas and attitudes to fit their personal requirements.

Because of their strict authoritarian upbringing, most Muslims belong on varying degrees on the right of the sociopolitical spectrum beginning with the conservative Muslim to the immediate right of center, followed by the extreme conservative, the reactionary, and finally the Islamo-fascist. As we proceed from the right of center to the extreme right, the Muslim individual’s social functioning becomes increasingly irrational. His thinking and social behavior becomes more rigid and destructive, helplessness and irresponsibility increases, and his work and sexual functioning becomes more disturbed. As a result his ability to assimilate into Western society suffers. The Islamo-fascist on the extreme right is totally intolerant of Western democratic life and this is why he is driven to destroy it.

These characterological distinctions between different sociopolitical types of Muslim must be understood before attempting to answer the question. This subject is discussed in my book, The Emotional Plague: The Root of Human Evil.

September 27, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

In his section on the emotional plague in Character Analysis, Wilhelm Reich writes:

“It is an essential characteristic of the emotional plague reaction (see glossary) that action and the reason given for it are never congruent. The real motive is always covered up and replaced by a seeming motive.”

The real motive for building Cordoba House near Ground Zero is to show the world that by building a mosque there, Islam has dealt a major blow to America.  The action is a gross provocation and an insult to America.  The seeming motive given by Muslims promoting the project is “freedom of religion.”

This tactic of the Islamists is socially destructive  and an emotional plague reaction because it has successfully divided conservative and liberal Americans along characterologically based ideological lines. While conservatives can see right through the destructiveness of the Islamist’s tactics, liberals are completely hoodwinked by it. The liberals confuse the Islamist’s seeking power over the Western way of life with religious faith. By doing so, the Islamists have succeeded in getting Americans to fight each other thereby weakening the nation from within and bringing them closer to their goal of world domination.

September 19, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 1 Comment

A rally organized by conservative TV personality, Glenn Beck, brought out hundreds of thousands of people in response to the disenchantment that many Americans feel about the current Obama adminstration.  Many people who were interviewed expressed dissatisfaction not only with the Democrats but also with traditional leadership as it is today, saying GOP candidates should not take their vote for granted.  The three-hour program featured religious and patriotic speeches, but offered few details on how to fix the country’s problems.

People are dissatisfied with political solutions but are at a loss to have something  to replace them with.  This is because there are no social or political solutions to the problems that America is faced with.  The  conflicts between the Left and the Right are themselves symptomatic of major biological differences in the ways people think and function. These differences , therefore, cannot be addressed through politics.  Since politics is not the answer, the most that we can hope for is that people vote for the less destructive candidate.  It is not a matter of a “bad” versus a “good” candidate.  It is a matter of a candidate that does the least amount of harm by voting against legislation for political solutions to social problems.

The dilemma that currently faces America is that because of the extreme left-leaning infiltration of all branches of the federal government, the political center has shifted far to the left.  This must be stopped and reversed if America as it has existed for 200 years  is to survive.  The federal government must be directed by the electorate to stay out of the business of trying to solve social problems since this is not its function.  From this perspective the future choice of the best candidate is clear.   He or she must be someone who opposes the leftist policies of know-nothing politicians that are currently directing America’s descent into socialism.  That in itself would be a monumental accomplishment for any political party.  To expect anything more from anyone in government would be a pipe dream resulting in the endless shift between political alternatives proposed by the Left and the Right.  The Left keeps coming up with the same outworn socialist nostrums and the Right keeps opposing them with its “tried and true” programs.  And so the cycle goes on and on, leading to further public disenchantment with politicians.

August 31, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment