Charles Konia, M.D.

Homosexual relationships can be legally recognized as partnerships without using the term “marriage” and all that it has implied for thousands of years in human history.

Marriage is a bio-social institution based on different biological functions of men and women, the most important of which is procreation, the perpetuation of the human race.  A partnership is a more superficial relationship than a marriage since it originates not from the biological realm but from the social realm. It is a social institution with already existing legal rights that can take place between any two humans regardless of their gender. The  legal advantages that heterosexual relationships now posses in the institution of marriage can extend to all individuals and therefore, there is no legitimate reason to legalize “gay marriages.”  Measures to legalize same-sex relationships function to obfuscate the crucial distinction between a partnership and a marriage. They can and will be used by some people to develop into an expression of the emotional plague (see glossary).

August 15, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

In response to the 2oo8 economic crisis, Congress has taken steps toward the most extensive remapping of financial regulation since the 1930s.  Among other things, the bill gives regulators power to constrain the activities of banks and if these buffers don’t work, the government would have power to seize and liquidate a failing company that poses a threat to the broader economy.

This knee-jerk response of politicians to the current economic crisis was entirely predictable. Having no understanding of its underlying causes, their symptomatic approach was to institute another layer of regulations on an already over-regulated economy.  When self-regulation of the free market economy on the local, private level breaks down, compulsive regulation on the Federal level must take over bringing with it another layer of economic armor in the form of greater regulation.

The real source of the crisis lies outside the province of politicians. It has to do with the pathological, destructive  behavior of ordinary armored human beings manifested as greed, irresponsibility, feelings of entitlement and corrupt business transactions bordering on quasi-criminal activities that are expressed on a daily basis in the economic realm. Unless this manifestation of the emotional plague is recognized and addressed, this endless cycle of sick economic behavior of armored people followed by more governmental control will continue and take its toll on people’s economic and personal lives.

August 8, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 1 Comment

It is easy to understand why Islamists want to build a mosque near Ground Zero. But why do American Leftists want a mosque there? To understand how  pseudo-liberals can allow a mosque to be constructed next to Ground Zero it is necessary to know the differences in the bio-physical structure between Islamic fanatics and  pseudo-liberals. The Islamists are in a holy war dedicated to the destruction of the Western World. They are driven by distorted impulses from their biological core that pass through the destructive middle layer and are expressed  at the surface.

Pseudo-liberals like Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama, on the other hand, live entirely in the superficial layer and use their intellectual faculties to defend themselves from awareness of their own and others destructive impulses. Moreover, they are completely out of touch with the biological core and, therefore,  cannot see that there is a religious war going on.  For them, Islamist terrorists are simply criminals, not religious fanatics. Nor can they see that allowing a mosque to be built next to Ground Zero represents a major victory to the perpetrators of the September 11, attack: a mosque is being built on American  land that was destroyed by Islam in the holy war.

Since there is no objective benefit to them, the question is what personal satisfaction do liberals get from the building of a mosque next to Ground Zero? Construction of the mosque at that site provides liberals with a pathological feeling of self worth. Liberals have enormous amounts of unconscious guilt that requires expiation on a daily basis. This is done by getting involved in political causes. Forgiving the terrorists for their crime of September 11, 2001 by making a political statement in favor of the mosque not only atones them of their personal guilt but it also places them on a higher moral plane not only in relation to the perpetrators but also in relation to all those Americans who are “opposed to the project because they are prejudiced against Muslims”.

August 6, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 6 Comments

Some of the most important events in history have happened without anyone taking notice of them. One such example was the abrupt transformation and degradation of American society from authoritarian to anti-authoritarian that occurred around the middle of the 20th century, an event that has had catastrophic effects on Western Society..

There is a fundamental difference in the way that the transformation is regarded by people who belong on the political Left and the Right.  While those on the Left have no sense at all of what has happened, those on the Right are aware of bits and pieces of it such as the breakdown of the traditional family, the rise in human destructiveness in all areas of social life and so on, but are unable to have a comprehensive picture of it and why it occurred.  Their typical response is to decry what has happened and to pine for “the good old days” when authorities existed and the authoritarian order was intact.  A good example is the article, “Youth Has Outlived Its Usefulness” by Peggy Noonan in the July 17-18 edition of The Wall Street Journal, in which the author laments the fact that there no longer exist elder statesmen in today’s world to advise and guide the inexperienced, young politicians on the political stage today on how to govern.

What Ms. Noonan does not recognize is that we live in an anti-authoritarian social order.  As a result, the traditional role of males, especially older males, as authority figures worthy of respect, trust and loyalty has been completely thrown by the wayside.  It has been replaced by the glorification and blind faith in the powers of youth to save the world.  The biologically-based psychological origins of these social events are discussed in my forthcoming book, Neither Left Nor Right.

July 19, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

In her article, “The Town Hall Revolt, One Year Later” (July 10-11 issue of The Wall Street Journal), Peggy Noonan writes about the increasing public resistance to the social and economic policies of the Obama administration as expressed in the town hall revolts throughout the nation.  She correctly concludes that just because the public is dissatisfied with the policies of the political Left, it does not mean that the political Right is worthy of a possible election-day victory in November 2010.

However, the answer she provides is still within the framework of political solutions when she asks, are Republicans capable of having serious and open debate?  Like all those whether on the political Left and Right, she is unable to step outside of this rationalistic paradigm. What is typically missing in this approach is any understanding of the underlying, biologically determined, differences in the ways that people think, which stand in the way of their arriving at genuinely constructive answers to social and economic problems.  What is also missing is an understanding of the operation of the emotional plague that is certain to step in and add to the destructiveness. This being the case, the failure of the political Right, when it is their turn to be victorious in November 2010, is a foregone conclusion.

And so it goes from Left to Right and back again. Nothing is learned from past mistakes and American society is in a worse state than it was before. This is the subject matter of my forthcoming book, Neither Left Nor Right.

July 12, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: Leave a comment

In his recent book, The Flight of the Intellectuals,Paul Berman  argues that Islamism is a modern, instead of an ancient political tendency, which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists in Europe in the 1930s and ’40s, and that Nazi inspirations have visibly taken root among present-day Islamists.  He further states that reviews in Foreign Affairs, the National Interest and the New Yorker have all denied that there is an alliance between radical Muslim groups and Naziism.

Mr. Berman’s understanding of the relationship between Islamism and Naziism, as well as the harsh resistance his  book has received in the liberal press would have been greatly simplified if he had knowledge of socio-political characterology which tells us that an individual’s character is the primary determinant in social behavior.  Both radical Islamists and Nazi’s are emotional plague characters belonging on the extreme right of the socio-political spectrum and they are therefore politically attracted to each other.  Liberal columnists and writers function exclusively from the superficial layer of their character structure.  They are incapable of recognizing the common bond that Islamists and Nazis have with each other because they are not in touch with their own biological depths.  All attempts at convincing them of the close relationship and the destructiveness resulting from the association of the two groups must thus fall on deaf ears.  These subjects are covered in my book, The Emotional Plague, The Root of Human Evil.

July 11, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 2 Comments

In his Obama’s Foreign Policy Success article  (The Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2010), James Rubin writes that “the Obama administration has restored strained alliances and friendships around the world, while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavis in Venezuala…with [Obama’s] call for partnership, respect for international rules on prisoners, and acceptance of the responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back into an  indespensable leader in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.”

The responses to Mr Rubin’s article in the Letters To The Editor column with the heading We Can’t Afford Too Many Successes Like These, unanimously disagreed with his assessment of  President Obama’s performance.

Why do people on the political Left and Right view the same reality completely differently?  Without a satisfactory answer to this question there can be no hope of a resolution to the perpetual ideological conflicts between the Left and Right.  In my forthcoming book, Neither Left Nor Right, I provide clinical and experimental evidence showing that with an understanding of a person’s character armor (see glossary) it is possible to predict how an individual will function in social and in political life.  Armed with this knowledge it would have been possible to recognize Mr. Obama as a pseudo-liberal character and to be able to predict his destructive ideological thinking long before he was elected to public office.

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

To understand the purpose of a person’s actions one must look at their consequences, or effects.  The effects of Mr. Obama’s domestic policies are to weaken America’s economy. The effects of his international policies are to embolden America’s adversaries and to unnerve its allies and therefore to weaken its preeminence as a world leader. This will increase  the risk of international conflict which will drain America’s power even more.

A weakened America will bring Mr. Obama closer to his ultimate desired goal, to render this country equal in stature to every other country in the world and place it under the control of the United Nations.  This unstated goal of Mr. Obama is identical to the stated goal of old-time communists – international communism under the control of the Soviet Union. This is another example showing that  Mr. Obama is not a liberal at all but a pseudo-liberal, and that he and the communist are one and the same from a characterological point of view. His entry into the mainstream of the American Left and identify as a true liberal allows him free reign to carry out his destructive socio-political agenda.

June 9, 2010
Categories: Politics, Social Sciences . . Author: Charles Konia, M.D. . Comments: 1 Comment