Imprint The Discovery of the Orgone Energy 1919-1939 Max Stirner Orgonomic Sociology Economics and Sex-economy
Blue Fascism Steiner's Anthroposophy, A Nazi Cult? The Mass Psychology of Buddhism Hans Hass and Energetic Functionalism



This text was written by a non-native speaker. If you have any corrections please send them to Peter Nasselstein



Peter Nasselstein


That evil appears in the form of light, charity, loyalty, reformation, that it appears in the form of historical necessity and social justice is, for the common observer, a clear corroboration of its abysmal malice. Yet it turns blind the ethical theorist.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (quoted after 43:253)


In his Mass Psychology of Fascism (68) Reich analysed the "biological miscalculation," which determines the common discussion of socio-political problems, i.e., the evasion of freedom anxiety, contactlessness, and mechanistic, machine-like attitude to life. Based on this groundwork in 1967 Elsworth F. Baker developed in Man in the Trap, followed by his students in about three dozen articles published in The Journal of Orgonomy, an independent orgonomic sociology (see Literature) which in this article is presented in outline against the background of the current situation in Germany. In particular it concerns the relationship of conservatism (tradition) and liberalism (progress).

Conservative thinking is oriented one-sidedly towards the past and the common functioning principle (CFP) of the historical development, "progressive" (left-wing) liberal thinking towards the infinite bifurcations of the future (see Orgonometry) (23). Orgonomy is at the center: on the one hand it orients itself "conservatively" at common functioning principles, on the other hand it strives progress-oriented for the overcoming of traditional structures ("armoring").



1. A Max Stirner of the Sexus

From the very beginning Reich's socio-political thinking was confronted with communism. Already in his diary of 1920 he spoke against the collectivist attitude of his communist friends. True, under their influence he sympathizes, to some degree, with the then acute vision of a socialist world revolution, but at the same time he experiences politics as rather repulsive and instead declares himself, with Max Stirner and against Hegel's "weltgeist," for individual self-realization (66:111f). (On Stirner see Max Stirner and the Children of the Future.)

Characteristic for his attitude at that time is the following entry in his diary of 1921: "Communist gibberish and egotistical reality! Look at Russia! Max Stirner, the god who saw in 1844 what we do not see today in 1921! Somehow I am growing increasingly secure in my conviction that a system of economic communism which lacks a candid acknowledgment of egotism is impossible. Man is egotistical not only in Adler's sense but also in matters of sex. Altruism is only a form of egotism, although it is of greater value than the purely subjective form of egotism. Can mankind be educated to this higher form? No! Man cannot be educated at all!" (66:158f).

Already in 1919 in one of his first publications, a communication in the Zeitschrift fuer Sexualwissenschaft, he was sceptical regarding an "enlightenment" which leaves the core of mental immaturity untouched: sexual ignorance (53). This basic idea should lead him in the following period to his political activity first within the Social Democratic and then within the Communist Party. Only by way of these organizations he had a broader access to the masses to be (sex-) educated. This "sex-economic" educational work finally reached its peak in his own "Sexpol" organization.



2. Fascist Social Democracy

Regarding the social democratic politics in Vienna, Reich had to recognize quickly that it basically was "race hygiene" (sic!) which was directed at that very "lumpenproletariat" Reich had contact with at the Psychoanalytic Out-patients Clinic and whose psychic structure he thoroughly analyzed in 1925 in his book The Impulsive Character (64). That sub-proletariat was, in complete accordance with the vulgar-Darwinist spirit of the era, written off by Social Democracy as "racial inferior," i.e., sexually unrestrained. The "impulsive life" against which the Social Democrats, among them Reich's favourite enemy Paul Federn, wanted to set a proletariat which by way of "enlightened" sexual morals and "scientific" eugenics is "racially steadfast," i.e., instinctually inhibited. A proletariat with population politics on its mind, constantly, and corresponding sexual habits (12; 17). Later on we will deal with the common basis of left and right fascism in detail: the fight against "the animal in man," the bioenergetic core.

In The Sexual Revolution Reich mentions as one of his Social Democratic opponents the son of the famous Social Democratic theoretician Karl Kautsky. Karl Kautsky jr. was head of a eugenically oriented marriage guidance council in Vienna. In the Social Democratic press he attacked Reich's "communist" sex-counselling centers because they would take away the worker's "ideals" (59:120). Kautsky jr. was worried that the "racially inferior" lumpenproletariat, because of its unrestrained sexuality, would multiply to the disadvantage of the proletariat, and the progressive part of the middle classes, and would spread more and more. Because of that the fight against the drop in the birth rate of the proletariat is one with the socialist struggle for liberation. According to Kautsky jr. a rise in population is decisive for the development of socialism. Therefore the altruistic "reproductive instinct" should be mobilized against the egotistical sexual instinct. A new will to fatherhood has to be developed which no longer should be animal but purposefully tamed by reason and a sense of responsibility (12). (Regarding the quasi "National Socialist" Social Democracy of Austria see also the remarks about Julius Tandler in Blue Fascism.)

Later Stalin, Mao, and Ceausescu should use the same arguments, but seen from Reich's perspective at the end of the 1920s it was somewhat logical that he felt attracted to the communists who in Vienna, at that time, did not represent the proletariat, becoming more and more petty bourgeois, but the unemployed sub-proletarians - at least this was, because of the circumstances in Social Democratic "Red Vienna," the political niche of the communists, their "mass basis."



3. Ultra Leftist Mouth Workers

The ideologists of the Communist Party were intellectuals who, like Reich himself, came from the bourgeoisie, i.e., they had "wrong origins" and tried to compensate their very dubious motivation with revolutionary verve. In 1933 in his Mass Psychology of Fascism, Reich denounced these typical intellectual would-be revolutionaries whose "leftist" behavior, in contrast to the proletarian, could not be explained economically but purely psychologically from the infantile revolt against the father. "When," as Reich wrote then in the Mass Psychology of Fascism, "psychoanalysts unversed in sociology try to explain social revolution as an 'infantile revolt against the father,' they have in mind the 'revolutionary,' who comes from intellectual circles. This is indeed the case there. But it does not apply to the industrial workers" (54:101; 68:65).

One year later Reich takes one step beyond this psychoanalytic explanation in his treatise on Psychic Contact and Vegetative Current, in which he exposes the "work of thinking" of the "intellectuals" as a tool for the evasion of those insights which could endanger their neurotic equilibrium. The character-analytic work had revealed to him that the intellectual activity is structured and directed in a way "that it impresses one as an extremely clever apparatus precisely for the avoidance of facts, as an activity which really detracts from reality" (56:312).

In the same year, 1934, he formulated in the writing What is Class Consciousness? his criticism of the political practice of these "intellectual revolutionaries." In "mass politics" one must not, Reich says, start from the abstract categories of the intellectuals but from the concrete needs of the mass individual (63:212). It won't do to bring class consciousness from above, "from the head," so to speak, "down into the masses," but it has to develop from the living of the masses themselves. Then "the revolutionary liberation from the joke of capital is the uniting act which arises spontaneously from the fully developed class consciousness of the masses, when the revolutionary leadership has understood the masses in all areas of life" (62:65). And the real life of the masses groups around their striving for sexual happiness.

In this sexual revolution, according to Reich's exposition in Die Sexualität im Kulturkampf of 1936, "the parsons within the revolutionary camp represent the biggest difficulty. Most of them are sexually tense intellectuals, revolutionaries out of neurotic motivations who, instead of helping with knowledge, only cause confusion" (59:250). "Never again a victorious worker's movement must tolerate that pastoral socialists, ethicizing intellectuals, compulsive brooders, and sexually disturbed women should decide on the reorganization of sexual life. One has to know that these stratums of society, driven by unconscious feelings, interfere in the debate exactly in those moments when everything demands utter clarity. So the uneducated worker usually is silenced as he, completely unjustified, concedes, out of respect for the intellectual, that the intellectual knows better" (59:262).

In his paper "Dialectical-materialistic Professional Workers versus Intellectual 'Will-o'-the-Wisps' in the Socialist Movement" of 1937 Reich laments that the revolutionary leadership did not only ignore the sexual questions but would also call anyone a reactionary who addresses these everyday problems of the working masses. "They make an antithesis between the problematic of sexuality and that of socialism. (...) Such 'principled Marxists,' with whom I am very well acquainted indeed, are in fact serious sexual neurotic cases who have simply never made the effort to immerse themselves in life itself in this respect and see this life for once without any theories. Their socialist radicalism is the outlet for a pathological rebellion against deep-seated attachments to the bourgeois family situation and bourgeois ideology; they are tortured by feelings of envy and inferiority towards the bourgeois specialist. This is so powerful within them that they continually have to prove how 'radical,' how 'socialist' they are, and just how 'Marxist.' Being neurotics, they are not in a position to talk and think calmly and factually about the problem of sexuality. It is the motive of reactionary anti-sexualism which determines their approach to these questions. (...) These ultra-radical loud mouths are far more dangerous to the movement than open reactionaries. They represent a chronic condition of dry intellectualism disguised as socialism, of dogmatism (...)" (55).

Looking back, Reich later wrote about them and especially about the Berlin Communists 1930-1933: "I talk to your masses, Little Revolutionary, I show them the misery of their small lives. They listen, full of enthusiasm and hope. They crowd into your organizations because they expect to find me there. But what do you do? You say: 'Sexuality is a petit-bourgeois invention. It is the economic factors that count'" (65:38).



4. Natural Work Democracy

Decades later, shortly before the downfall of the GDR (East Germany), in a semi-official study on Marxism and Psychoanalysis, Reich was reproached by a Marxist scholastic. By categorizing the biological basic needs into the substructure Reich had "missed the Marxist determination of the relationship between production and need." This is because for Marx "production was starting point and comprehensive element of development while consumption, as need, was the inner momentum of the productive activity itself." Reich, by his "extremely biologistic approach," had torn away sexuality from the "life-process which in the end is determined by socio-economic circumstances," and thus had tied down the human being "to a lower phylogenetic stage" (27:149f). We have here, again, the fight against "the animal in man," the bio-energetic core.

The East-German Marxist points out that already in 1932 the later President of the GDR, Wilhelm Pieck, as representative of the Central Committee of the German Communist Party KPD, had told Reich: "You start from consumption, yet we from production; therefore you are no Marxists." Upon these remarks Reich wondered "whether the needs are there for the sake of production or not rather the other way around the production serves the satisfaction of needs" (62:59). As we see from the elucidation of the Party Marxist above exactly this question pinpoints the incompatibility of the approaches of Reich and Marx.

Out of this theoretical conflict with Marxism, Reich developed a completely new concept of the "substructure;" a concept he called "work democracy." "Since all work processes are dependent upon one another; since, moreover, consumption determines production, a naturally evolved and organically functioning organization is given in the social basis" (68:313f). What for Marx was rational (class struggle determined by different economic interests), epitomized for Reich the very irrationality while that, which for Marx was irrational (to postulate common interests between the classes), became for Reich the essence of his bio-sociology: natural work democracy encompassing all classes. Class consciousness became "professional citizens consciousness" (68:xxiii [my translation, PN]) respectively "work consciousness" (65:102).

Looking back to his Marxist period, Reich writes: "The gap between the purely economic and bio-sociologic views became unbridgeable. The theory of 'class man' [led by rational economic calculations] on the one hand was set against the irrational nature of the society of the animal 'man' on the other hand" (68:xxii). Reich speaks here about the "biological miscalculation," which the Marxist mouth workers make constantly - to sidetrack from their own irrational motives. To achieve this they have, of course, also to contest the rational, namely, work democratic ("manual") fundaments of society.

Accordingly Reich lamented in 1947 in face of the constant animosity which had been directed at him from these quarters during the past 25 years: "(...) what I do not understand is how progressive people can fail to see the simple facts of human interrelations which are present and functioning everywhere, waiting eagerly to be endowed with social power" (69:388).



5. Reich and Marx

For Marxists work democracy is as intolerable as, e.g., the genital-orgastic theory for Freudians: they want to "analytically decompose" it! (Consequently the worst ones are the "Freudo-Marxists" like Herbert Marcuse and his followers.) How Marx himself would have reacted to Reich's concept of work democracy? Completely in accordance with the later Marxist critics of Reich, Marx certainly had marked him as the "most shallow and therefore most appropriate representative of vulgar-economic apologia." At any rate, with these words Marx denounced the French economist Frédéric Bastiat (45:8). The classical (i.e., right-wing) liberal Gerd Habermann writes 120 years later about Bastiat, as if he wants to describe Reich's concept of work democracy formulated meanwhile:

"Bastiat's main matter of concern is to show how, without the special intent of an organizer, by the spontaneous division of labor of the market society, provided there is freedom and competition, a mutual exchange of services takes place which levels out shortages and brings about prosperity to all. In such a society of exchange of specialized services and goods all 'legitimate' interests have to be in accord. (...) Out of this mutual exchange of services comes about - beyond of all competition - a natural common interest in the maintenance of the order, a solidarity which has not to be enforced but is elementary alive in all. A community which has to become all the more intensive the more people are tied together by specialized division of labor and the increased pleasures and amenities of life made possible by this" (20:129).

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to simply equate Reich's work democracy "vulgar-economic apologetically" with libertarian capitalism. First of all one could put forward that, although Reich declared the whole rest of Marx null and void, there is no doubt that he was to the end a follower of Marx's work value and surplus value theory. This theory, however, remained without consequence to economic science and also found no functioning place in orgonomy since it contradicts both orgonomic functionalism and the concept of work democracy flagrantly.

Reich points out in his profession of the Marxian value theory in People in Trouble that he supports it because only Marx would grasp the living character of the commodity work-power (63). But exactly this, a theory cannot accomplish which wants to measure "value" with time units of "average work of society." Here a (completely mystical) "quantity" determines quality (value). Yet both orgonomic functionalism and the concept of work democracy tell us it should be the other way round: I value a commodity and thus will invest a certain quantity of my personal work-power to get it. This "valuing process" as well as strength and quality of my work-power are matters of bio-psychiatric and bio-sociological investigation, thus providing the groundwork of an orgonomic economics (35). In contrast, the mechano-mystical value theory of Marx is an expression of that capitalistic and communistic machine-man mentality to which Reich had an oddly ambivalent relationship, to be discussed later (more on economics in Economics and Sex-economy).

This leads us to the second possible objection which one has to consider more seriously: The work democratic relations have grown organically and therefore are much better guaranteed by way of mutual personal commitments, as in traditional societies, than by the blind mechanism of the capitalist market which does not take into account that "organics" and, thus, can partially destroy work democracy. For example, daily care (not the treatment by highly trained specialists) of the disabled and frail is naturally a matter of mutual obligation and does not belong to the market simply because human beings and feelings (e.g., compassion) are no merchandise(1)

From Reich's very motto "love, work, and knowledge" one can see the difference to the capitalist "self-interest, calculation, concretization, and commercialization." For example, Reich remarks in the early 1940s: "Depreciation of one's competitors - a depreciation that is usually devoid of all honesty - is an essential tool of one's 'business'" (68:52). The market is, so to speak, the detachment of work democracy from its own bio-energetic basis. This detachment one sees from the fact that practically everything becomes "exchangeable" and all emotional ties ("love"), all meaningfulness ("work"), and cooperation ("knowledge") is torn apart. It is exactly the same thing which happened in the "state capitalist" socialism in the East. In this sense, and exclusively in this respect, criticism of capitalism is legitimate. While socialist criticism of capitalism, as it comes from the PDS (the continuation of the East German Communist Party) or the NPD (the continuation of Hitler's National Socialist Party), is criticism of work democracy and irrational! (35:165).(2)



6. The Three Layers Schema

At the beginning of the 1940s Reich formulated his model of the "three layers" of the human structure: core, middle layer, and facade. For example, he traced "false liberalism" back to the superficial mendacious characterological layer. In this manner, according to Reich, "the various political and ideological groupings of human society correspond to the various layers of the structure of the human character" (68:xii).

Based on the biophysical structure one can thus divide socio-political behavior roughly into four spheres: unarmored behavior which comes from the core (natural work democracy); behavior which corresponds, due to muscular armoring, to a distorted core contact (conservatism speaking about "higher values"); behavior which comes from the secondary character layer, i.e., sadistic impulses of either a mechanistic or mystical nature (red and black fascism); and finally behavior which corresponds to the social facade and goes hand in hand with a specific ocular, "intellectualized" armoring (mendacious liberalism).(3)

This leftist liberal character structure is expressed, e.g., when leftist liberals defend the red fascist: actually they defend their own "facade," because unmasking of communism would be identical to exposing their own character structure. Therefore they serve the secondary layer, thus fascism.(4) In a grotesque way this support of the gravest hostility towards life (e.g., the "resistance" against "U.S. occupation" or Israel) is accompanied by loud so-called "anti-fascism" which is, likewise, a function of the leftist liberals character structure.

Reich's concept fits the following picture drawn by the Austrian Peter Sichrovsky: "The hatred for the people of one's own country is a special mark of the anti-fascist way of thinking. Like a drop of oil the anti-fascist considers himself swimming on the sea of his native country [the facade separated from the core, PN]. Separated from evil and detached he remains eternally pure and virgin" (77:105). The native country (the bio-energetic core), the evil (the secondary layer which the anti-fascist confuses with the core) and, finally, the "anti-fascist drop of oil" detached from everything and not moistened (the facade separated from the core).

In the 1960s, likewise independent of orgonomy, the two behavioral scientists Hans Hass (see Hans Hass and Energetic Functionalism) and Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt discovered in their "Expedition to Ourselves" (i.e., observing cultures like animal species) a clear system (24:131f), which corroborates Reich's model of the three layers.

With primitive peoples they found that the emotional expressions of the face were "open and undisguised." Hass writes: "The strongest facial expressions we saw with some Shom Pen we encountered on Great Nicobar in the Bay of Bengal - probably as the first Whites. They showed expressions of such clarity and strength which overshadowed even the best actor." With these people any armoring seems absent. They are the social equivalent of the healthy unarmored core. They represent the ideal "primal work democracy."

Upwards the Bay of Bengal and the Ganges one reaches the armored area, as it is embodied by the patriarchal societies of Asia. So Hass and Eibl-Eibesfeldt saw in Benares "completely mask-like, expressionless faces in which the serious view of life of the Indian as well as the special nimbus of the holy city were manifested." Also the Japanese "showed distinctly these controlling mechanisms which suppress the normal impulses." This corresponds to the functioning basis of the conservative character that preserved some contact to the core and because of the distortions by the armor tends to mysticism. It is represented by the hard working overwhelming majority of world population carrying the actual work democracy.

Periodically it comes to eruptions of irrationality, respectively of emotional plague, e.g., in India to massacres between Hindus and Muslims which destroy work democracy. This corresponds to the secondary layer of the character structure, the area of the secondary drives which came about by the conversion of the primary drives due to armoring. Over the millennia the conservative character has tried to hold in check this evil energy, the devil. Yet today one lets it take its course in the name of (left-wing) "liberalization."

Hass and Eibl-Eibesfeldt found that in Europe the expressions were "enormously strong but not honest." This is the characterological falseness of the liberal who does no longer live authentically out of the core but is totally wrapped up on a facade which is detached. In the name of culture and "compassion" the facial features are subjected to "calculation." This character structure is compatible with the actual work democracy, too. Or rather it would be compatible if the defense against the secondary layer would not function more and more in service of the secondary layer.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt assumes that the "more critical and independent basic outlook of the European could be partly based on the fact that children are raised separated early from the mother." In this way the "primordial confidence" is diminished (24:186).

From the orgonomic point of view man is separated by this from his core and, thus, the basis of the liberal character deformity is given (see 49:79). This "miscarried biological revolution," Europe and the "Age of Reason" stand for, is the characterological genesis of both capitalism and communism. Against this bioenergetic backdrop one can explain, on the one hand, the "capitalistic" right-wing liberalism which freed man from his total social "conservative" armoring (system of guilds, feudalism, superstition, state religion, etc.) yet, as already indicated by referring to the example of the capitalist market, has also somewhat moved man away from his core(5) - which becomes already evident from the mere fact that (similarly as in socialism) the mothers are "made redundant" for the job market. (The right-wing liberals, who wanted the women for the labor market, acted likewise. Fortunately these right-wing liberals are held in check by the conservatives ["home and stove"].) On the other side leftist liberalism (socialism) has split man incomparably more radically from his "conservative" bio-energetic core ("emancipation"): "socialization of child rearing." All socialists through-out history tried to separate mother and child. She shall work and leave her child to day-care.



7. Reich's Estimate of the Conservatives

After Reich recognized the bio-energetic basis of "being liberal and left-wing" he sided more and more with the conservatives. For example he wrote in the mid-1940s in his diary: "I am building the organization for orgone biophysics in Maine, the most conservative area of the U.S.A. In the middle of the enemy camp? Nonsense! The respect with which I have been received here shows that even conservatives have truly revolutionary hearts and that they honor work and love more than many a socialist" (69:303f).

With the development of the character analysis to psychiatric orgone therapy it became increasingly clearer to Reich that armoring has a vital protective function and that it can be eliminated therefore only slowly and systematically. Otherwise it may come to a collapse of the organism and to a reactive complete armoring. The same can be said about the entire society. For this reason Reich at the beginning of the 1950s appreciated exactly those features he had always castigated before: the striving for security; a security, which is given by the conservative adherence to tradition. He writes in addition:

"This security, even if it deadens man, is essential to his existence. He would perish without it. The big noise of the lout of freedom, the freedom peddler, should not distract from this realization. The freedom lout, who out of pure ignorance and lack of responsibility clamors for freedom because he would like to do as he pleases the bad way, would, after having killed the conservative defender of the status quo, thoroughly fail in securing any social social functioning at all, and will certainly, in order to save his head, become more cruel, more rampant in the suppression of living Life than any conservative man ever would dream of" (57:64f).

For Reich socialists are "enemies of man" because socialist mentality leads inevitably to dirigism - to that extent socialism is meant serious (57:136). With that Reich not only referred to the Stalinist regime in Russia but also to the socialists in Europe and the liberals in America. Correspondingly he wrote in 1949 to Neill that socialist governments, as, e.g., in England, "represent politics and plague far worse than anything we knew before" (50:240). About the same time he wrote: "The idea that the capitalist was responsible for all misery became such an absolute concept that the politicians of the Left developed into the most reactionary and life inimical representatives of social ideology" (67:44). In 1950 a young follower confessed to Reich that he is a socialist. A quarter of a century later he reported: "Reich looked at me with a kind of pity. He shook his head and said: 'You don't know how sick it is. You'll find out.' He was right" (quoted after 28).

Reich's attitude then, one can indirectly gather from his "Response" he wrote four years later answering the injunction issued against him. There he referred to "natural law." The core of natural law, Marx only treated with contempt, is the perfectly natural right of being the owner of oneself and with that logically the right to own property (67:44). Therefore natural law is incompatible with left-wing liberalism, socialism, and the welfare state (2).



8. The Responsibility of the Little Man

In 1977 Vladimir Bukovsky, USSR dissident of the 1960s and 1970s, visited as a guest of American trade unions 14 cities in the USA. Especially the slums were shown to him so that he could experience "the whole reality" of the West. But the poverty could not shock him for he knew it well enough from his home country. What stirred him really was the psychological attitude which predominated in the slums. He himself had grown up in Russia in a slum area and he knew that honest poverty does not express itself in rag but in clothing which is mended conscientiously. Yet in the United States every detail shows that the slum-dwellers do not want to improve their quality of life. In view of the neglected houses Bukovsky felt in everything the calculated provocation and appeal: the society is to blame for these circumstances and thus has to care about these people. Bukovsky was unable to feel any compassion for neither these slum-dwellers nor for this society. The American slum-dwellers are sitting around waiting that society waits on them out of guilt feelings (8:196f).

As a conservative Bukovsky has recognized spontaneously that there is no "social problem," for it was answered long ago by capitalism, for good. There is solely a characterological problem (or, as the conservative would express it, a "moral problem"). As big as the differences in matters of sex and religion, especially in the field of child rearing,(6) might be, on that score conservatism and orgonomy harmonize completely. For example Reich believed in the 1950s that Marx' approach had become irrelevant meanwhile since the workers in America would earn sufficient income "to enable them to eventually purchase the factory themselves, if they were willing to assume the responsibility of running it. (...) The inhibiting factor was not oppression by 'capitalists' (...) but the biophysically based helplessness of the workers themselves" (22).

Reich writes about this: "We must never cease stressing the responsibility of the 'Little Man.' He must develop responsibility for his personal and social existence without running the risk of losing his livelihood. On the contrary, it can only be in the interest of large industries to promote this responsibility and to guarantee and expand the worker's participation in the fruits of production. Production can only be increased, and the present difficulties will decrease, to the extent that industrial and farm workers learn to accept their part of the responsibility for production and distribution. They will than learn from experience that it is easier to criticize the management of a company than to help bear the great responsibility. These are important elements in the continuing social revolution, and no manager who works himself will be against it. On the contrary, he knows that his responsibility will be smaller if the workers shoulder their share of it. The few people who are greedy and power-hungry will soon be silent, without the need to take any drastic measures against them" (67:70).

And those who now point to modern "turbo-capitalism" or "casino-capitalism," which is responsible for the general decay, should consider that the detachment of the streams of capital from the real production processes is not only formally reminiscent of the detachment of the facade from the core - but directly goes back to it. The free market economy of the right-wing liberals/conservatives is undermined by "socialistic" money produced by the state. Artificial money with which the state-capitalistic nations could finance their wars (against outer enemies and against poverty, unemployment, etc.) (4:99-106). This complex we consider in greater detail in Economics and Sex-economy.(7)

All economic problems are grounded in the helplessness of the masses and aggravated by the contactless "remedies" provided by left-wing liberals - who then use the catastrophe they have caused themselves as argument to initiate new leftist programs.(8) Left-wing liberals will never understand that "the social existence of the human animal is, indeed, seen bio-energetically, a small summit on the gigantic mountain of his biological existence" (61). Or, as Reich wrote in Murder of Christ: there is nothing in social life which is not determined by the character structure of man - without any exception (57:24). And therefore the left-wing liberals will never understand and handle the problems which are connected with capitalism.

Reich points out, for example: "American capitalism arose in a society of small laborers and tradesmen; it did not come about through the division of labor. The mass character of the tradesmen created it; due to the busyness and naivety of the workers it was tolerated and allowed to grow - until Morgan appeared. In this way capitalism developed out of a character structure. I first had to work my way out of all the mistakes of Freudian psychologisms and discover the loophole in Marx before I could see human character as the origin of an economic development. Character is structural history, active reproduction of history. In the U.S.A. the little man reproduces capitalism" (69:324f).

"To speak of 'social misery' is," according to Reich," meaningless, actually, for in the final analysis this social misery is itself the result of a world of stultified human animals, of a world in which there is always more than enough money for wars but never enough - not even a minimal fraction of what is spent on paying the costs of one day of war - to ensure the protection of life. This is true because stultified, stiffened human beings have no understanding of what is alive; in fact, they fear it. There is no kind of social misery to equal the misery of the infants of biopathic parents" (60:391f). "It was not the 'material want' in the sense of the Marxian theorists that caused the neuroses, but the neuroses of these people robbed them of their ability to do anything sensible about their need, actually to do something about their situation, to stand the competition on the labor market, to get together with others in similar social circumstances, to keep a cool head to think things out" (58:56f).



9. Two Kinds of Liberalism

Right-wing liberalism is the classical European "economic liberalism" which since the 18th century was always in a symbiotic relationship with conservatism. Conservatism, taking care of the institutional and "moral" framework of the free, "liberal" market economy, prevented its separation, discussed above, from its own work democratic and bio-energetic basis. It is about the upkeep of those conservative "secondary virtues" which, as F.A. von Hayek said, make the spontaneous order possible, at all: politeness, personal respect, punctuality, reliability, responsibility, loyalty to a contract, respect of property, diligence, etc. Hayek says correctly that paying attention to moral conventions and traditions reduces the necessity of compulsion by the state (82:86).

Right-wing liberals and conservatives want to restrict the state to its true function, i.e., the upkeep of inner and outer security. Considering the complexity of the problems everything else should be left to the individual, the family, groups legitimized by history, local authorities, and the free market, the said "spontaneous orders." (Although, as indicated above, the free market only conditionally is a "spontaneous order" which can undermine the remaining spontaneous orders, the family, for instance.)

The English "original conservative" Edmund Burke (1729-1797) formulated classically this right-wing liberal/conservative thinking, especially in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (see 21). The American conservative author Russell Kirk writes about Burke: "Burke, rather than being an old-fashioned apologist for dying superstitions, struck through the mask of the Age of Reason to the dark complexities of human existence, so that he remains a living influence upon thought when most of his radical opponents are no more than names in a history of intellectual tendencies" (29:39). In other words: Burke penetrated the facade and hit upon the fabric of the character armor, which makes this alleged opponent of Enlightenment so interesting to this day while his "enlightened" opponents have no meaning to us.(9) Burke's works are more fresh and more of current interest than ever before. If today one reads his analysis of the French Revolution it looks meanwhile not only like a current review of the Russian Revolution and its consequences, but also like a current review of the disastrous result of the Social Democrats/Socialists in Europe and of the left-wing liberals in America (see Roland Baader's books Kreide für den Wolf [2] and Fauler Zauber [3]).

On the other side of the political spectrum the American "civil rights liberalism" is about the emancipation from spontaneous orders (e.g., family, gender roles, hierarchies, etc.pp.) while, simultaneously, making people completely dependent on artificially constructed orders: the state and ideological interest groups. In short, these "liberals" want to reorganize society following the example of their own "brain-centered" character structure. For example by ever more social security and "protective regulations," which are developed completely after the basic law of the emotional plague: the motive expressed ("social security and justice") does not fit the real motive (control, power, and destruction).

The centralistic "progressive" politics of the left-wing liberal is not oriented to the traditional, tried, and tested principles but to "thoroughly thought-out" quantifiable goals. He supports abstract equality, social security, and massive interventions of the state into the life of society. He supports the "emancipation" from traditional attachments and commitments, and he supports the artificial establishment of "freedom," "equal opportunities" as well as the guarantee of the fulfillment of all imaginable and unimaginable demands, resp. so-called "rights" for minorities in the name of alleged "primary virtues." With that, consideration is neither shown for the rational natural work democracy nor for the irrational character structure of the average citizen. Or as Burke expresses it: "This sort of people are so taken up with their theories about the rights of man, that they have totally forgot his nature" (11:64).

Well-understood the disrespect for tradition is the final "ecological," this is to say, bio-energetic disaster. As once in communism also in the West those roots, keeping our society alive, are cut off. An example is the destruction of human solidarity by the anti-social "welfare state." Why, e.g., should parents afford their children a family life (or have children, at all) since not the children but the state will care for them when they are old, gray, and are needy! This is one aspect of the destruction of traditional wisdom which is responsible for the emotional, mental, and physical decline of our children.

By his social policy the left-wing liberal has destroyed the family and sponsored "alternative models of life." In former times society with its church and private charitable institutions forced social misfits to adjust to society and to adopt "secondary virtues," but today society aligns itself to the outsider. This results in spoiled children, a stultified youth, and increasing crime rates. As result of the brilliant plan to create a "society without rule" the "new man" is narcissistic, out of touch with the realities of life, and incapable of having meaningful personal relationships. Families became miniature "welfare states" in which the children fleece their parents just as unrestrained as the parents fleece the State ("Vater Staat," "Uncle Sam"). The irresponsibility has even infected the state itself. For example the German state hopes for a European wonder, "which frees us from national efforts" (26:367).

Typically the conservative speaks about "morality," which follows custom and tradition, while the left-wing liberal always talks about a "morality," which follows "reason." While the conservative realistically stands for "check and balances," i.e., the protection against secondary drives, the idealistic left-wing liberal stands for irresponsible "freedom" (libertas). For the conservative responsibility (= making a decision) is, in the end, the same as freedom (= making a decision) while for the left-wing liberal "freedom" always means "to be free of responsibility." "Civil rights" are floating uprooted from any responsibility. Freedom becomes to be free from the obligation to make decisions. With the left-wing liberal personal responsibility becomes "self-realization," i.e., parasitism. Cancer!

In view of this menace to the very human being due to "emancipation," Hayek admonishes to be cautious with changes of traditional morals. For as little we planned our system of morals as little it is within our competence "to change it as a whole. We do not really understand how it upkeeps the orders of actions on which the coordination of the activity of millions of people depend. And since we owe our social system to a tradition of rules, we do understand only incompletely, any progress has to be based on tradition. We have to rely on tradition and can only tinker around its results" (quoted after 82:87).

Since conservatives always relate to traditions their thinking is orientated by institutions which serve the community as a whole. The left is only interested in destroying these institutions in the name of "big ideas" going back to individuals, like Marx, who were detached from all work democratic connections. More and more "liberality" is demanded and simultaneously further social programs, day-nurseries, which replace the family, "critical consciousness," and more immigration shall weaken society and its organic spontaneous orders, and thus strengthen the state!



10. Contactlessness

From the very beginning Reich had to fight a running battle with the contactless mechanistic fundamental assumptions of Marxism: if the "material substructure" determines the "ideational superstructure," how was it possible that the gap could open between "revolutionary" existence and "reactionary" consciousness, bringing fascism to power? In his Mass Psychology of Fascism of 1933 he brought the ideological effect of sexual suppression to bear, something which, as indicated, already then had discredited him once and for all from the Marxist point of view. At the same time, still dazzled by the "materialistic" zeitgeist of the left, Reich praised the progress of the "productive forces" (i.e., of machines) and the progress of consciousness coming along with it. For example he welcomed the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union (68:48) and, accordingly, in the West "the creation of gigantic industries [and with it the creation of armies of millions] of workers and officials" (68:189f).

Ten years later it had turned out to Reich in the course of "sex-economic life-research," despite the, from the sex-economic point of view, positive side effects of industrialization, that the "development of the means of production" points not only to a bright socialist future - rather the opposite, since "the mechanistic view of life has become more and more ingrained in man's biological system, continuously from generation to generation. In the process of this development, man's functioning was actually changed in a mechanical way" (68:341). The communist, socialist, and left-wing liberal embody this machine-man almost archetypically, as becomes evident, not least, by their opposition against Reich. Read their "materialistic" arguments!

Within our "mechano-mystical" civilization the functional counterpart to the leftist-liberal mechanist is the conservative with his inclination to mysticism, with which Reich deals intensively in the first half of Mass Psychology of Fascism. Reich analyzed this contrast between "mechanism," as it is represented by the left-wing liberal character, and the "mysticism" of the conservative character, in his book Ether, God and Devil. These antagonistic characterological fundamental attitudes are bioenergetically identical with anxious contraction (rightist mysticism, humility) and reactive angry expansion (leftist mechanism, hubris) (46:169). This is accompanied by distorted contact with the bioenergetic core in case of the conservative and loss of any contact with the core in case of the left-wing liberal (cf. 68:xiif).

Symptomatic for this is the disturbed relationship of the left-wing liberal machine-man to nature in general and to human "nature" in particular. For example Leo Trotsky admits frankly that in his childhood and youth there was only room for books and thinking but no feeling for nature (81:66). Also during the time of his first exile he remained cool towards the magnificent nature of Siberia. He was sorry to "waste" attention and time to it. He ignored his surroundings while books and intellectual relationships filled his time. "I studied Marx, chasing away the cockroaches from the pages of the book" (81:123). This attitude to nature of crotchety scribes later found its practical expression in the crazy delusion of feasibility and the unbelievable destruction of nature by the Bolshevists between 1917 and 1991.

As far as "inner nature" is concerned the "critical Marxist" Ira H. Cohen has shown the incompatibility of Reich and Marx (plus Freud) very clearly: "(...) the critical question is not whether there is an underlying harmony or conflict between the primary processes and social life, but whether the specific modification demanded by the reality principle promotes self-regulation or moralistic repression. In other words, the issue is not a specific conception of 'human nature' but a specific mode of social conditioning. Freud insisted that the modification of the primary processes was a social necessity. His conception of the primary processes actually paralleled Marx's conception of human nature as an embodiment of the history and structure of the social relationships within which it finds and expresses itself. While Reich's theory of character structure also was a theory of the social conditioning of human needs, desires, believes, and responses, the essential nature of this conditioning is obscured in Reich's libido theory. Instead of a historically conditioned character structure, Reich posits a naturally self-regulating libido. Self-regulation is conceived not as a human potential realizable through the processes of individual and social development, but rather as a natural law of the pleasure principle which was expressed in more natural, prehistoric societies and continued to be expressed until the emergence of class relationships. That is, in the theory of character structure self-regulation is a feature of interaction between the ego and id as they develop socially; in the theory of the libido, a feature of the instincts themselves as they strive for discharge naturally and automatically" (14:180f). For the left-wing liberal "Freudo-Marxist" mind Reich's orgasm theory is intolerably "biologistic" and quasi "mystical." Instead left-wingers, like Cohen, consider nature as something they can manipulate and "socialize" as they like.

While nature's autonomy remains completely closed to left-wing liberals, it remains, at least, reachable to conservatives, even though only distorted as "religion," as revelation from a "higher world." This is reflected in antagonistic ideological attitudes. For example at the conservative side one encounters typically (and only talking about the characteristic makes any sense here!) a moralistic but, at least, serious attitude towards sexuality, on the leftist liberal side, however, a childishly pornographic attitude prevails: "it doesn't matter." And about the communists, "these cerebral mechanists," Reich says that they hate carnal love while at the same time they are pornographers (57:379).

For conservatives the abortion problem is very important (here their core contact mingles with their hostility to sexuality) while the left-wing liberals, contactless as they are in such questions of existence, dance light-hearted above corpses. Something which is, e.g., illustrated by the euphemism "schwangerschaftsunterbrechung" ("interruption of pregnancy," sic!). The conservative is genuinely grieved and shocked about fatalities, if he is really involved. Typical for him is the "cold-hearted" question whether people of his own nation are involved in a far-away catastrophe. For the left-wing liberal such distinctions become blurred and he reacts to everything with the same superficial-sentimental "affection" even if he is not affected at all. Nothing moves him really in the inner. He is, literally, only "touched" on the surface.

Generally said the absent of any contact with one's own bio-energetic core shows itself in the complete insensitivity to exactly those social problems which stirs the conservative to the depths of his soul. The student of orgonomy and (at least partly) the conservative feels that things like pornography and cannabis and the culture connected with them are separating him from his core and therefore he fights them - even if the currently modern "rational scientific" arguments against his opinion should predominate. The left-wing liberal feels no discontent at all and brain-controlled as he is he brings ever new arguments forward which shall demonstrate the harmlessness (or even usefulness!) of these social phenomena. His structure makes him incapable to see any danger, quite to the contrary perhaps he even sees an "emancipatory potential." Characteristic for him is the saying that, contrary to alcohol, nobody ever died of hash and marihuana. This shows that the soul means nothing to him. He may speak about "spirituality" and similar things, but characterologically he remains a materialist and mechanist for whom the soul does not exist: he does not feel it neither in himself nor in others.



11. Ocular Armoring

Reich, according to Baker, "has suggested that the brain may have become so large and complex that it acts essentially as a parasite, sucking up energy from the body, particularly from the pelvis. This may account," thus Baker, "for the frequent eye block problem of intellectuals and the so-called 'intellectual look' of the 'egghead'" (5:267). His specific "intellectual" eye armoring makes the left-wing liberal the social agent of the mechanistic image of man as Reich described it in Ether, God and Devil:

"The mechanist does not understand the principle of human organization. (...) For him, there is a hierarchy of organs in the body. The brain as the 'highest' product of development, together with the nervous system in the spine, 'directs' the whole organism. Mechanistics postulates a center from which all impulses proceed to set the organs in motion. Communicated through the corresponding nerve, every muscle has its own center somewhere in the brain or midbrain. How the brain itself receives its assignments remains a riddle. The organs are the well-behaved subordinates of the brain. The nerves are the telegraph wires. Hence the coordinated movement of the organism remains nebulous and mysterious" (61:116f).

The "emancipatory" side of the mechanistic conception of the world, i.e., liberalism, leads to an aggravation of this mechanistic-authoritarian side, because the reduction of armoring in the body, which accompanies social liberalization, is counter-balanced by a dramatic reinforcement of the eye-armoring of the masses. Look, currently, e.g., in connection with AIDS, at any description of the immune system and you will search in vain for bio-energetic terms like "excitation," instead everything is explained in militaristic and machine terms which are completely inappropriate to explain what it is all about. People feel as machines, which function according to orders and obedience, and they organize the social organism accordingly - and the more they follow the slogan "Dare more democracy!" the worse it becomes.

The conservative Burke grasped clearly the basic problem of the thoroughly mechanistic left "egg heads," who are separated from the work-democratic process. They are detached from the natural feeling for life and, since clear thinking is based on unimpaired emotions, act perfectly irresponsible: "An ignorant man, who is not fool enough to meddle with his clock, is however sufficiently confident to think he can safely take to pieces, and put together at his pleasure, a moral machine of another guise, importance, and complexity, composed of far other wheels, and springs, and balances, and counter-acting and co-operating powers.... Their delusive good intention is no sort of excuse for their presumption" (quoted after 29:45).

His (core-) contactlessness, his complete separation from nature, convey to the leftist mouth worker the illusion that he could "operate" life according to the rules of his reason, that he could shape society according to preconceived plans. Not without reason was "centralization" the central term in the Communist Manifesto. Out of the illusion the mind, i.e., one mind, could grasp everything the personality cult around the central "master brain" had to develop logically (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Abimael Guzman, etc.). Already in the treatise Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie of 1844 Marx says in his typically garbled writing style that "the head" of "human emancipation" is the philosophy while its heart is the proletariat. "As philosophy finds in the proletariat its material weapons, accordingly the proletariat finds in philosophy its mental weapons ... Philosophy cannot translate itself into action without the aufhebung of the proletariat, the proletariat cannot aufheben itself without the realization of philosophy" (quoted after 26:93). The masses have, according to Marx in the Communist Manifesto, no theoretical knowledge, at all, of the requirements, the course, and the general results of their liberation.

From Karl Kautsky to Lenin all Marxists advocated the view that socialist consciousness has to be introduced from the outside into the proletariat, since spontaneously and autonomously the proletariat could not achieve anything. The mouth worker Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that the workers become a class "if they obey all orders of the leaders"! (quoted after 31:29). 30 years ago, in view of revolting high school students, calling on banners (in accordance with the spirit of a Soviet Republic) for "worker's control," German dockworkers replied: "Come again? Worker control! You want to control us!" (71:45). These dockers had in their supposed ignorance, i.e., their "professional citizen consciousness," hit the nail on the head.(10)

One also consider the manner in which Western political science dealt with the development in the Eastern bloc. Instead of asking, like Reich, "What is going on in the masses?" (see Mass Psychology of Fascism [68] and People in Trouble [63]) the leftist-liberal "specialists for the East" were fixated on the communist rulers and ignored completely what was going on in the societies of the Eastern bloc, i.e., "in the masses."

As every armoring also the specific ocular armoring of the left-wing liberal makes insensitive for the concrete, urging, and immediate and instead shifts the interest to the "visionary," remote, and distant. Accordingly the left-wing liberal feels the more "affected" the more distant the event is. For example he is indignant about the "foreign infiltration" of Tibet by the Chinese while he could not care less about the slow foreign infiltration of his own country. Or he actually promotes it. He rails against human rights abuse in far away parts of the globe, but in the past (as a German) he did not care at all about the suppression in communist East Germany, and today he shuts his eyes to the Islamism in his own country. And woe if he wants to follow his conscience and play a part - in problems and countries he has not a clue! He behaves like a schizophrenic who everywhere he sticks his oar in only leaves confusion, chaos, and destruction.

The leftist is literally of unsound mind! One only exposes oneself to the top-heaviness of figures like Lacan, Satre, Althusser, Foucault, Bloch, Dutschke, etc.pp. I would also like to point to Jean-Francois Revel's excellent book The Flight from Truth which documents the madness of Western intelligentsia meticulously. Revel presents dozens of examples "that paradoxically people for whom intellectual life is the profession are driven in their judgments and behavior patterns by all kinds of forces but not by intelligence" (70:195). The reader is referred to Reich's analysis of "intellectual defense" mentioned above.



12. The Socio-political Spectrum

Reich revealed the biophysical basis of socio-political orientations when in the middle of the 1940s he differentiated in "The Expressive Language of the Living" (56) and "The Living Orgonome" (61) between the "orgonotic system," which is centered in the belly (58:261) and the "energetic orgonome" he had just discovered (39). The difference between these two energy systems is described in The Mass Psychology of Buddhism. The first is connected with the emotions (expansion = pleasure, contraction = anxiety), the latter with the sensations.

One just pursue, for instance, the development of modern so-called "art," which addresses the emotions ever less, but more and more tries to render "sentiments" and tries to encourage "thought processes;" or look at the new religious movements and the boom of Buddhism and, then, compare it with the traditional church faith. Perhaps an understanding of the difference between these two energy systems is easiest to achieve by looking at alcohol and cannabis: while alcohol activates the solar plexus ("internal glowing"), cannabis activates the central nervous system (one becomes "high," literally). It fits also that beginning alcoholics react usually judicious if one speaks with them about their problem (although the craze has them already in its claws and will kill them), consumers of cannabis, on the other hand, typically rationalize their vice and overwhelm the critic with a tide of counterarguments - partly they even try to "proselyte." And although their dependence is in no way physical they, nevertheless, react more aggressively by far.

With the ideal genital character the two energy systems are balanced ("belly" and "brain" live in harmony) but armoring is connected with one-sided worldviews. People to the right live primarily in an emotional world and "from the gut," literally. The autonomous nerve cells in the belly comprise the bio-energetic center of the pulsating organism. The pulsatile excitation, starting from the center, has to pass through the musculature, wherefore conservatives are "muscularly armored." Leftists are rather "cerebrally" organized and "intellectually armored." Here the excitation flows mostly longitudinal via the sensory nerve strands to the brain. These differences have nothing to do with differences of intellectual capacity, but exclusive with a fundamentally different emotional life and different perception of the world. That is the biophysical basis of ideologies, i.e., the more to the "right" someone is the more emotional, mystical, and irrational he is, while the more he is to the "left," the more "heady" and (allegedly) "rational" he is, in the sense of the (alleged) "scientific world view" of Marxism (39).

On the other side the constitutional conservatism and economic liberalism of an Edmund Burke and, e.g., the thinking of a Ludwig von Mises or F.A. von Hayek mark the maximum of political rationality - of course, in the strict sense, this is a contradiction in terms but we remain within the mechano-mystical civilization, after all. By way of summarizing one can speak about an "open-minded conservative" position, i.e., the combination of conservative ("responsibility") and right-wing liberal ("liberty") elements - i.e., the remaining stock of rationality in an armored world. (On the level of individuals there might be weighty differences between the conservative and the liberal character structure but in practical life they become insignificant.)

Moving to the right these "liberal-conservatives" change into the "national liberals" and "constitutional conservatives." The extreme conservatives follow, i.e., the "national conservatives" and finally the reactionaries, from which, if they take up socialist ideas, black fascists come. This allocation according to worldviews corresponds biophysically to: 1. conservatives (relatively rational, moderately armored); 2. extreme conservatives (highly neurotic, armored); 3. Black fascists (plague, extremely armored).

On the left side, thus with humans, who are particularly determined by the energetic orgonome, we have accordingly: 1. liberals; 2. extreme liberals; 3. Red fascists. In accordance with the present-day situation, in which the belly-centered energy system is displaced increasingly by the brain-centered energy system, our social life is practically exclusively determined by this leftist character dynamics. In terms of worldview we have to deal with, in the order of their pathology, "civil-rights liberals" and "social liberals," Social Democrats and Socialist, Bakers "modern liberals" (5) and Communists. (Naturally ordering according to the worldview does not fit in each individual case the biophysical one for, e.g., humans with a conservative structure can represent a communist ideology or a leftist liberal might want to be "orgonomically correct" and, thus, express a conservative ideology. The true character does not show up in mere words but in concrete actions, in particular when decisions on a socio-political level have to be made [23].)

While with the left-wing liberal everything revolves around "civil rights," no matter how the social organism, as a result of it, disintegrates into its component parts (grotesquely enough left-wing liberal civil rights activists within the Eastern Bloc even contributed to the collapse of "conservative" communism! [34:80]), for the social democrats/socialists it is centrally all about social justice, resp. "fairness of distribution": we shall unite to a single big family (corresponding to the Swedish socialist "volksheim"). For the leftist, "justice" is something which is, grotesquely enough, identical with equality and therefore is to be assessed according to objective criteria - logically this has to lead to communism in which all own the same. Or in other words: for the leftist not "justice" is at stake but rather the alleged "just" distribution, in which he wants to be the "objective" distributor at the center.

On the other hand for the conservative justice is synonymous with "happiness": justice is reached when all are subjectively content with their fate. Correspondingly a welfare state like Germany, in which everyone always supposedly comes off worst one way or another ("gaps of justice"), is a much more unjust society than America where everyone subjectively considers himself the architect of his own future. Accordingly people feel good while welfare states are permeated with a disgruntlement which covers everything like mildew.

To the Social Democrats on the left side, with their focus on "fairness of distribution," correspond on the right side of the political spectrum the national conservatives with their focus on "national community." The difference is that the socialists want to create a "solidarity society" in an artificial way while the national conservatives go back to old structures to restore a "corporative order."

To the right of such national conservatives, a la Dollfuss, one finds the obscurantist reactionary, a la Ludendorff, who follows some mythical, national, racist, or religious ruminations, and paranoid fantasies. If this obscurantism unites with socialist ideas (and, indeed, one has to be mentally and emotionally rather deranged to adopt socialist ideas!) we are confronted with fascists and National Socialists - who therefore are no natural developmental product of conservatism.

On the left side the reactionary corresponds to those "political correct" leftist intellectuals, Baker called "modern liberals." Common ground with their reactionary counterpart is, e.g., racism: the reactionary as well as the left-wing liberal and the modern liberal are incapable to look behind the facade to the underlying common biological functions which unite all human beings. Instead they literally remain fixed to the surface and judge people according to the color of their skin. Both camps humiliate the "black" by treating him as if he is in need of protection. For the rightist a black remains stupid and dangerous even if he gets the Nobel Prize while leftists declare their solidarity even with drug dealers - as long as they are "black" asylum-seekers. People are defined by their skin color (or, e.g., by their sexual preferences)!

One can differentiate the modern liberal character only formally but not characterologically from the communist. One could call him a communist who hesitates to take the last step or a communist who reluctantly adapted to democracy (34:81). A communist, who behaves civilized to some extent a la Gregor Gysi, is a modern liberal. For example he optioned after the October Revolution for the completely un-Marxist term "People's Commissariat for Law," while the correct communist, completely in the spirit of Marx and Engels, stands openly for what it is really all about: the "People's Commissariat for Social Extermination." "Stalinism" is exactly this: it is said openly what is meant (as during the Muscovite processes). The actual modern liberal would never do that. Otherwise there are no differences between modern liberals and red fascists!(11)

Bukovsky is one of the very few who have clearly grasped the relationship of modern liberal and communist. Answering the question to what extent the communist ideology is still effective he noticed in 1998 that the two basic variations of Marxist ideology, the communist and the socialist, are barely distinguishable and that the socialists govern the world (and thus Marxism has won, after all) for we did not wind up communism in the same manner as we brought to a close nazism in Germany, and the Western socialists have not been condemned and convicted like their historical equivalent, the Vichy regime. So the socialists were the actual beneficiaries of the collapse of communism. Bukovsky continues: "The ideology of the Bolshevists has failed but already a new kind of utopists is taking their place, the Politically Correct. They take over the extreme position in the political spectrum which so far was occupied by the Bolshevists. The Political Correct proceed exactly like the communists before. They control the left - Socialists and Social Democrats - and in this manner they get through with their program" (10). These Political Correct are the modern liberals!

In Germany the "politically correct" go back to the progressives of "1968," who, in accordance with their function described by Bukovsky above always have sympathized with the communist rulers in the East, in a hidden way. Despite of all of their criticism of the East and, e.g., the refusal of entry permits from the East. How the wind blew really, despite this or that mutual animosity, becomes exemplarily recognizable when the editors Rudi Dutschke and Manfred Wilke bluster in the foreword of their 1975 anthology The Soviet Union, Solzhenitsyn, and the Left in the West with regard to the support of the reformist opposition in the Eastern Bloc: "In this we have to be aware as democratic socialists and democratic communists in the capitalists countries: that the concrete support of the reform-opposition [in the East] has to proceed primarily by way of criticism and secondarily, but imperatively, by way of a certain common anti-capitalist cooperation with the socialist-communist official parties" (quoted after 1:150). Similar things one heard five years later in support of the Marxist East-German dissident Rudolf Bahro. Out of this insolent zeitgeist of "democratic communism" grew the German Green Party!

From these remarks and tables it becomes clear immediately that when in doubt we have to search for rationality more on the right side (the conservatives) than on the left side which ideology unavoidably leads to communism. Nothing will ever satiate the leftists. One sees this, e.g., in the fact that left-wing radicalism is not brought under control by socialist governments, rather it only becomes more and more radical (by separating itself more and more from the roots [radix]). The term "moderate left" is a contradiction in terms! On the other side of the spectrum almost nothing connects the conservatives with the fascists and their "national socialism" (which we will discuss in the 14. Section more thoroughly).

From the very beginning right-wing liberal and conservative critics pointed out again and again that the Social Democrats to the left of the liberals (and thus even more contactless than liberals) would finally establish a system which later on was known as "Soviet Socialism."

Already in 1891 the German Eugen Richter, such a representative of classical right-wing liberalism, pictured in a fictitious diary, Social Democratic Future Outlooks, of an initially enthusiastic Social Democrat, the world after the final victory of Social Democracy: decay of job discipline, rationing of staple food, loss of capital, wretchedness and monotony of every-day life, terror, loss of intellectual freedom, decay of social relations, the borders have to be secured against the flight of one's own people. In all details, really, Richter foresaw the socialist future correctly, even its end: the downfall of the Social Democratic experiment in anarchy and uprising (20:205f).

What pretends to be "reasonable liberal policy in the interest of the majority of people" is, from a bio-energetic point of view, the structural compulsion of the left to destroy the core functions of love, work, and knowledge in the name of "love, work, and knowledge." Herbert Marcuse once spoke frankly about "tolerance taking sides." This is the non plus ultra of emotional plague as it grins at us daily from the Red-Green political correct public media. The social-criminal modern liberals will not rest until this world is "socialized," falls prey to complete anarchy or Islam. It does not matter: only the bio-energetic pressure must come to an end! The core functions have to be extinguished. Socialism, either Social Democracy, modern liberalism, or communism, is an illness in which the social organism out of sheer fear of life (Reich spoke about "orgasm anxiety") turns against its own core and tries everything to suffocate it.

Looking at the leftist one is reminded of cancer patients with whom the "falling anxiety" (orgasm anxiety), typical for him, is "indicative of a complete breakdown of the plasma function in the biological core of the organism" (60:345). Accordingly the suffocating freedom fear (orgasm anxiety) of the leftist is based on the fact that with him the "energetic orgonome" unfolds at the expense of the "orgonotic system" and, thus, at the expense of the core. The leftist embodies the inexorable decay into the cancer death of society (32).(12)

Considering everything for which one can reproach the conservatives, this "death instinct" is typical of the left. It is almost the major characteristic which separates it from the right. The German conservative philosopher Günter Rohrmoser points out that it characterizes the conservative person to think in categories of decadence while the leftist is structurally incapable to do so: he is literally unable to read, e.g., Bukovsky. "Who is able to regard a society or a single human being as decadent is someone of conservative blood. One of the very big difficulties in the communication with socialists is that it is impossible to reach an agreement about decadence even with the most reasonable and willing socialists. In case one is able to come to an agreement with a socialist about decadence one realizes that this socialist is really no socialist at all" (74:298).



13. The Emotional Plague

There is no doubt that reactionary and fascistic ideologies represent the emotional plague. Unfortunately hardly anybody wants to admit that also left-wing liberalism and social democracy are special forms of the emotional plague and on top of that extremely insidious ones. Especially German Social Democracy turned out to be "a plague," literally. To the end of the 19th century it exported its ideology to an ingenuous and trusting Russia - which in the 20th century brought the country to the brink of extinction. Later the marvelous Social Democratic policy of détente cemented by its support of Soviet mismanagement the old Soviet structures - which today drag Russia slowly but surely more and more into the mire. And we continue "to help," while the common people of Russia suffocate from the late fruits of the policy of détente! A policy by means of, at the end of the 20th century, the social democrats had almost succeeded in throwing the whole planet into the Red abyss.

With "the Social Democrats" I do not mean the common members and followers from the working class, who are almost without exception conservatively structured, and also I do not mean the party leaders but the party functionaries and parasitical mouth workers who have pushed forward, against the conviction of the ordinary members, after 1945 in East Germany and after 1970 in West Germany the "unity on action" and unification with the Communist Party (KPD) and later with the successor organization SED/PDS. But, well, meanwhile also the membership of the SPD is dominated by characterological communists: modern liberals.

Bukovsky has pointed out that the Social Democratic policy of détente has prolonged the existence of the Eastern bloc by at least 10 or 15 years and even enabled the terminally ill Soviet Union to expand its influence incredibly. After World War Two the Soviets could extent their system only to Cuba and North Vietnam while in the decade of "détente" they could conquer Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, South Yemen, Somalia, Mocambique, Laos, Cambodia, South Vietnam, Burma, Nicaragua, Grenada, the Cape Verde Islands, and Madagascar, and could bring under their control the "national liberation movements" of El Salvador, Guatemala, Lebanon, Namibia, Chile, etc. (9:308). Bukovsky says that if he looks back to these times and looks over the documents of the Central Committee of the CPSU there is no doubt, in his mind, that the era of détente was the most dangerous time in the history of civilization. Communism was only a half step away from achieving world domination (9:312).

When Mikhail Gorbachev's attempt to realize finally the original plan of the October Revolution to establish with the help of the Central and Western European socialists the "common house of Europe" was threatened with collapse the socialist/social democratic parties of Germany, Austria, France, Italy, and Spain labored desperately to save "Gorby." The international department of the Central Committee of the CPSU reported on June 7, 1991 that in this respect most active is the Socialist Party of France which is worried about the survival of the socialist idea in view of its crisis in Eastern Europe (quoted after 9:577).

This was anything but a Soviet misjudgment. The French historian Francois Furet points to the "abstract Bloshevization" of the French Socialist Party under Francois Mitterrand in the 1970s. This is expressed, e.g., in the language of the communiqué of a delegation of the French party, led by Mitterand, and the leadership of the Hungarian Socialist Worker's Party, which was issued in May 1976: "The delegation of the Socialist Party of France was positively impressed by the successes which the Hungarian people under the leadership of the working class and its party could achieve in the building up of socialism" (18:713).

According to Bukovsky the German Social Democrats, who in 1969 via Egon Bahr and his KGB contacts put out their feelers to the East, were a kind of "agents of influence" within NATO (9:268). To the corresponding documents of the Central Committee of the CPSU Bukovsky says that, without a doubt, it were the German Social Democrats who, in cooperation with their socialist allies in Europe, spread the lie that the stir in the West would harm the dissidents. Although the dissidents themselves had the opposite opinion. By these and other lies the Social Democrats became the "mouthpiece of the KGB" for disinformation. On top of that they hurried to report to their Soviet "partners" about their "work" (9:275). The corresponding documents are published but nobody is interested in them.

Between the end of 1982 and Summer 1989 it came to more than one hundred meetings between leading functionaries of the West German SPD (which lost its office in 1982) and the East German SED. The corresponding secret records of the SED show that the SPD official Karsten Voigt was one of the most frequent visitors in the house of the Central Committee of the SED. In the internal SED papers we read: "Repeatedly Karsten D. Voigt spoke positively about the policy of the SED. Its big merit is its programmatic clarity, its knowledge about the problems, its strength of political organization, and its unity." Everywhere in East Germany one feels, according to Voigt, "that it is going well and that the SED is the driving force." Unfortunately the SPD could not copy the SED and does not intend to do so, anyway, "but many things the communists in the GDR achieved politically and organisatorically are well done and are, like, e.g., the training system, exemplary also for his (Voigt's) party" (quoted after 83:49).

In his report on the SED files, published in the Spiegel, Rainer Zitelmann continues: "Serious is the accusation that Voigt gave pieces of advice to the SED how it could proceed most cleverly against civil rights campaigners in order to avoid public stir. At any rate, in the files one finds a 'note about confidential information by K.D. Voigt' of July 8, 1988. According to that the foreign affairs specialist of the SPD has pointed out to the Central Committee officials Manfred Uschner and Karl-Heinz Wagner that the civil rights campaigners Bärbel Bohley and Wolfgang Templin, who had left East Germany with a limited exit permit, wanted to test on August 6th the re-entry promise of the GDR leadership. Voigt added according to the file note: 'In his (Voigt's) personal opinion it would be the best solution to let them enter East Germany for the time being to arrest and deport them in the wake of illegal activities. They (the dissidents) and the secret services behind them reckon with and hope for that the security services of the GDR would hinder their entry into the country. This one intends to play off against the international security cooperation of SED and SPD'" (83:50).

Unforgotten is Egon Bahr who was already mentioned. Hermann von Berg, then negotiator of the East German government, remembers a meeting with Bahr at the beginning of the 1970s. Shortly before, Bahr had been severely attacked by the West German press because of the political, social, and economic agreements made between East and West Germany in 1970. To the completely flabbergasted Berg he said regarding the journalists: "If this would be Chicago I would order a gang to kill them." When Berg, an authority on the history of the worker's movement, spoke with his boss, the East German Prime Minister Willi Stoph, about Bahr's brutal mentality, Stoph remarked: "At least Bahr belongs to those who have a feeling for power. But you should know that the left-wing Social Democrats and we come from the same tradition" (7:173f).

That Stoph exemplified the common tradition of left-wing Social Democrats and Communists with Al Capone's "Chicago" is no accident, for socialism never was anything else than large-format organized crime ("expropriation," "redistribution"). The affinity of the Communists to criminals even on their own territory could be gauged, e.g., by the fact, concurrently described by all dissidents, that criminals,(13) as "being close to the working class," were treated comparatively good, even almost courteous, in the GULAG while the political prisoners were, as "class enemies," fair game. In 1941, with the advance of the German army, the political prisoners were shot by the KGB while the criminals were released.

The Bolshevists themselves were once nothing but a bunch of criminals making a living with bank raids. And after the downfall of the USSR they became gangsters again. Bukovsky found in the documents of the Central Committee of the CPSU pieces of evidence that Gorbachev, when the collapse of his regime became apparent, "privatized" the activity of the CPSU and called for the establishment of joint ventures, using the connections of "international aid" for the world-wide socialist movement. At first the Soviets laundered their party funds and sold underhand the wealth of the country under their control (gold, oil, metal, etc.). By now these mafia structures proliferate like cancer tumors in almost the complete "private" business of the former USSR. International trade relations confront the whole world with super syndicates which in a few years could develop to something like a "SPECTRE" of the James Bond movies (9:36).

It is like a cancerous growth which, after it has lost its cohesion, floods the body with cancer cells and in this way metastasizes unchecked (32) in a body which is already marked by the shrinking biopathy.(14)



14. Fascism

As said already Nazis and Communist separates little from each other. One only look at figures like Goebbels or the Nazi "people's judge" Freisler who both were Communists before. Or Vyshinsky and Berija who certainly had adapted to National Socialist Germany perfectly. Or the former nazi Karl Eduard von Schnitzler (the communist "Goebbels" of the GDR) whose, as a high-up state official of the GDR remembers, "anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic cynical jokes no one was able to top" (7:146). One consider how trouble-free former nazi cadres fitted into the structures of the GDR and how remarkable numbers of functionaries of the SED and the FDJ (the Communist "Hitler Youth" of the GDR) felt enthusiastic about "national socialism" after the collapse of the GDR. It comes even to a complete blending as one sees in phenomena like "National Bolshevism" in current Russia, in accordance with Goebbels' remark in his novel Michael (1929): "To be a socialist means to subordinate the Me to the You, means to sacrifice the personality to the totality" (quoted after 77:36).

One can differentiate between right-wing and left-wing fascism by considering the issue of "guilt feelings." In his practical actions guilt feelings do not play any role with the "right-winger" (it is something he deals with "privately" with "God" or a mystically conceived "nature"). He identifies himself with his origins and his "racial brothers," is proud about his own identity and fearfully excludes everything foreign, which dissolves before his eyes to an indefinable mash without individual outlines. The leftist liberal, however, live up his guilt feelings on the social scene. Pestilential behavior ("political activism") is the only option open to him of coping with his guilt. That is a consequence of his separation from the bio-energetic core: instead of identifying himself with his origin, he is in constant rebellion (the bad conscience of the subversive); because of the lacking contact to the core and the "origins" the access to "forgiveness" is blocked literally; he is never sure whether he is right or wrong, in addition produces this uncertainty in connection with subversive activity a constant feeling of insincerity and falsehood (47:207f). As only discharge of the corroding individual bad conscience remains a blending with the collective - by identification with the allegedly suppressed ones.

Of which pathological excesses left-wing liberals, as a consequence of their guilt complex, are able shows the leftist essayist Wolfgang Pohrt. In view of the East German infringements on "auslanders" in the city of Hoyerswerda he dreamt in 1991 in the left-wing extremist magazine konkret about "what justice could mean": German towns would burn like the asylum-seekers' hostels and "German vacationers in Italy end up with smashed skull in the intensive care unit" (quoted after 72:14). Continuing these thoughts the same author wrote three years later in Junge Welt, the former organ of the East German party youth organization: "And it is pretty impertinent when Germans complain about the severity of the criticism of them. They should wonder that they are allowed to exist at all. Why, they should ask themselves, one did not in 1945 put them into the camps instead of the Jews? Why the world does not consider the Germans an inferior race although between 1933 and 1945 they were one, to all appearance" (quoted after 75:140). Hitler identified his own fate with that of Germany. Pohrt's selfless identification with "the auslander" is likewise total. Both are united by their collectivism and their mortal fear of freedom and personal responsibility: of "America" (the embodiment of right-wing liberalism).(15)

Typically the leftist collectivism is about amorphous masses of "working people," while on the right side it is about "selection," specialization, delimitation, and exclusion. The perfect example is the military order of ranks which in the early days of the red armies of Russia and China was leveled off, while in black fascism everything revolved thoroughly around hierarchy. Yet, just as in communism soon the old badges of rank came through again, one should not underestimate the genuinely collectivistic-socialistic in fascism, the "comradeship."

For both camps, i.e., Marxist and Hitlerite socialism, "human emancipation" was only achieved, after Rousseau and Marx, if individual man merges completely into the "genus": socialism! Correspondingly the objective of the social policy of National Socialism, so the political scientist Klaus Hornung, approached the Soviet model of society: "Here a comprehensive, totalitarian, perfectly 'modern' welfare state, drafted and controlled by state planers should come into being. A huge state bureaucracy should not only deliver material satisfaction but also social rewards and orientation (...). All of this up to the beginnings of mass consumption with people's radio sets, people's cars ('volkswagen'), and people's housing, (...) in a command and care state for those obedient and willing to adapt (as it later returned in the Honecker era [of the GDR] with its 'unity of economic and social policy')" (26:234).

Revel points to the economist Ludwig von Mises who has shown that eight of ten of the most pressing measures, proposed by Marx in the Communist Manifesto, were implemented by Hitler (70:157). There are structural differences but in principle the national socialist economic system and GDR-socialism were similar, particularly because the National Socialists used socialist symbolism.

Is it a wonder that in the last years of the ailing GDR, and then in view of the moving in of capitalism in the 1990s, National Socialism could gain a foothold with the youth of East Germany? And one forgets all too easily that academic youth in the West at the end of the 1960s behaved the same way, out of fear of capitalist freedom, when it rebelled against the "historically out-dated achievement-oriented ideology." (The "shrinking rebellion" of cancer cells!!) Basically in 1968 it was the same graduate milieu which in 1933 had celebrated the "National Revolution."

Looking back the contemporary witness Hermann Lübbe writes how strange it was to call a generation "the critical generation" which marched, again, under Red flags and the pictures of Red fuehrers. "Older Germans, who just a few years ago had returned from emigration, which was forced upon them by the Nazis, burst into tears in view of this movement - not because they considered the generation of 1968 as neo-Nazis but because their behavior was unmistakably neo-totalitarian" (43:125).

The publicist Sebastian Haffner in the 1960s was involuntarily reminded "of my own peers, the young people of 30 years ago, who then, full of similar quickly excitable indignation, joined the Nazi Storm Troopers in droves. The same uncritical young faces, the same naive presumptuousness and arrogance (...)" (quoted after 83:32). It is forgotten all too willingly that also National Socialism was to a large degree a youth movement and all of its leaders were 30 or 40 years old (74:54).



15. Political Correctness

Lenin, a walking brain for which thinking was everything, showed only abysmal contempt for the "thoughtless masses." When in a discussion on the cruelty of the revolution Maxim Gorkij asked this mass murderer whether he loves man, Lenin replied: "I feel sorry for the bright ones. There are only a few bright people among us [Russians]" (30:131). Typical for these leftist super-humans is also the Leninist and despiser of man Ché Guevara, who wrote on the topic Socialism and Man in Cuba: "(...) the masses realize with unparalleled enthusiasm and discipline the tasks set by the government, be they of an economic, cultural, defense technical, sporting, or any other nature. The initiative comes from Fidel or from the Supreme Command of the revolution and is explained to the people who then take it on as their own" (quoted after 44).

The situation in present-day Germany is no different. One is reminded of the character assassinations committed by the "public" mass manipulators of the media, which party-line is organized by the leftist trade union Ver.di. For example in 1993 the candidate for the office of the Federal President of Germany, Steffen Heitmann, was finished by words and caricatures - as if these leftist fascists would have been working for Julius Streicher's Stürmer. What Heitmann had done? He articulated the opinion of the people (i.e., of the multitude despised by the left) and, thus, endangered occurred the efforts of the left to educate, i.e., "manipulate," the masses! He was a skeptic regarding a multi-cultural society and an European super-state, expressed positive feelings about the term "nation" and opposed taboos regarding topics such as immigrants, German history, and maternity. Thus he expressed exactly that conservative way of thinking which everybody would agree with, except a small layer of alienated mouth workers. But most people are not as courageous and straight-forward as Heitmann. One is reminded of Jean-Francois Revel's remark about corresponding events in the France of the 1970s: every time the non-communist left, which pretends to be intellectually autonomous, starts gets into polemics it adopts the vilest Stalinist tone (70:58; vgl. 37:222). The facade breaks away and the fascist secondary layer shows up!

It becomes even more perfidious and intolerable by the fact that the leftist opinion-maker constantly denounce "mechanisms of exclusion" and, at the same time, equate, in the "fight against the right-wing," everything that is positioned to the right of the SPD with National Socialism. In the big purging everything, which stands in the way of the "anti-fascist cultural left," is swept away. Characterologically they are identical with those commissars, a la Ché Guevara, who ordered between 1917 and 1989 the killing of 100 000 000 human beings.

Not by chance descriptions of the GULAG remind one fatally of the political correctness terrorizing the world of today: "Besides their huge size the Soviet camps are distinguished by the necessity to lie in order to save one's life, to lie continuously, to wear a mask for years, and never to say what one really thinks. Of course, in the Soviet Union also the 'free' are forced to lie. (...) The lie becomes the necessary requirement of self-defense. (...) Gatherings, meetings, and conversations, wall news-sheets of the prisoners - everything is governed by the mawkish official phraseology which contains not a single true word. People who grew up in the West have problems to understand what it means (...) to have to suppress in one's heart any 'illegal' thought and to know how to keep quiet. Under the enormous pressure the whole inner being of man is deformed and decays" (15:349).

Therefore there is nothing more of current interest than Courtois' Black Book: it shows the ultimate naked consequence of what any "bright" man represents today. It oozes constantly out of all media: "the mawkish official phraseology which contains not a single true word, and which drives us to suppress in our heart any 'illegal' thought and which thus deforms our own nature until it decays": political correctness (this combination of falsehood and cowardliness, bad conscience and belittling of others).

In Germany the new political class of PC commissars one can trace back directly to the progressives of 1968 who were hardly different from the Bolshevists: a minute minority which by way of its extreme vociferousness and intolerance set itself up as the majority. A minority which wanted to "politicize" the people - in order to have a comfortable life outside of "production" and to tell people what is what. They succeeded partly! Just consider the German "welfare state," from the bureaucracies growing rampant up to public television - a system which is maintained by the taxes and contributions of the blue- and white-collar workers. One should ask oneself: who profits, really, from the whole public welfare? Already around the year 1900 the Polish Socialist Waclav Makhaisky had developed his theory of the socialism of the intellectuals. According to this, socialism is "a social regime which is based on the exploitation of the workers by professional intellectuals" (quoted after 70:396).

To come to power they had promised an "unauthoritarian discourse" but when they were in power the merciless PC dictatorship was instituted. The new Stalinism came upon us. Marxism put on its head again by Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, as well as Foucault, Darrida & Co. Here the Stalinist spirit could over-winter: everything is mere ideology. There is no reality, no objectivity, but only the "class standpoint." By "deconstruction" the ideology is read into any text (38).

This is a direct expression of the left-wing liberal character structure with its contactlessness and underhandedness. Information is disseminated as if there are an infinite multitude of realities, but at the same time only one opinion is allowed, "against the right." This "freedom of speech" is the "cultural attack," the political correctness - which is carried through by an Orwellian thought police. As Rohrmoser notes: "Marxism failed as a socio-economic revolution but was triumphant as a cultural revolution" (74:169). It is Red Fascism!

Striking is the extreme precision, with which the leftist media ("critical journalism") differentiate between (left-wing) "critical minds" and (right-wing) "hard liners" - as if the media had been instructed meticulously by the Nazi ministry of propaganda. If it is said "Here the basis is further than the leadership of the [conservative] CDU" this never means that these masses are more realistic, matter-of-fact, and "conservative" but always that it is more left-wing liberal and politically correct: progress! - There is no primitive anti-fascism, but exclusively "primitive anti-communism." People with good memory are nowadays considered "cold warriors." Right-wing misdeeds are an "obscenity," left-wing misdeeds are never obscene but perhaps "deplorable." Surrender to (left-wing) marauders becomes "de-escalation;" the same tactics towards "right-wingers" is considered "surrender of the constitution." Liberty and "liberality" get a completely new sense: prohibitions regarding thoughts, expression of thoughts, and, especially regarding statistics and, on the other side, speech-codes enforced by way of sharpest restrictions.

Completely free of any directives but equipped with the right of veto, political commissars, today called "representatives" (of women, the disabled, foreigners, minorities, sects, information and communication, etc.pp.), supervise the correct consciousness in the same way once the Spanish Inquisition defended Christianity. The left dogmas are sacred and the only code, in which one is allowed to think any longer. For example it is forbidden to trace so-called "hatred of foreigners" (meant is "hostility towards immigrants," of course) back to problems of immigration and integration or, concerning East Germany, justified fears in view of the conditions in West Germany but one is only allowed to explain it with abstruse, not to say, completely absurd "fascism theories."

Those damned masses of "right-wing Babbitts" notice by way of their healthy human understanding, their (distorted) contact to the bio-energetic core and, not least, from their everyday involvement in the work democracy that the left-wing opinion-maker utter only nonsensical rubbish. Intellectually they can not cope with these left brain machines which have, by now, the entire state and media apparatus in their hands. The inevitable result of this helplessness of the masses is a stupid-dull Storm Troopers (SA) mentality. This, in turn, motivates the left-wing liberals to initiate one reeducating program after the other.

Already in 1933 Reich noted in the original version of his Mass Psychology of Fascism that National Socialism was only a secondary reaction to Bolshevism: "the resistance of a sexually as well as economically deadly sick society to the painful but resolute tendencies of Bolshevism toward sexual as well as economic freedom" (54:94). In the revised version one decade later this statement is almost identical (68:60). Yet, parallel to this, Reich observes, based on his new bio-energetic insights, something which turns the original tendency virtually into the opposite: "In the rebellion of vast numbers of abused human animals against the hollow civilities of false liberalism (not to be mistaken with genuine liberalism and genuine tolerance), it was the character layer, consisting of secondary drives, that appeared" (68:xv). Or, as he writes in another place: "We must never lose sight of the fact that Hitler always built upon the justified hate of masses of people against sham democracy and the parliamentary system - and with great success" (68:258).

According to current orgonomic theory Nazism was a just as desperate as pestilent attempt to cope with the destructive subversion of the mendacious left-wing liberal freedom peddlers (32; 33:67,73). The social immune defense overshot the mark and proved as destructive as the original pathogen. After the overcoming of the fascist attack of fever the leftist pathogen lives on the fight against the cured rightist illness. Or as Furet expresses it: "Fascism came into being from an anti-communist reaction. Communism owes its prolonged lifespan to anti-fascism" (18:39). In this manner left and right fascism are mutually dependent and in the course of this suffocate the social organism. It is similar to Reich's description of the armoring as a "fabric" of drive and defense (56:323).

Today one can regard right-wing radicalism as a pestilent defense reaction against Islam and its left-wing liberal promoters. The counter-reaction of our society to the "danger from the right"? A forced multiculturalism, which is just as neurotic! Because of this a rational discussion about Islam in Germany becomes impossible from the very beginning. Society as a whole (not only individuals) is hopelessly armored, a solution of the problems seems impossible. This is so because, naturally, one cannot submit society like an individual to "character analysis," i.e., uncover the "social contradictions" the way the truth and freedom peddler does it.

But one may try to bring the masses in contact with their contactlessness, to confront them with it (Reich's "Listen, Little Man!") so that their irrational, damaging behavior seems to them strange and ridiculous at the end. Today "enlightenment" means nothing else (37:211-213). That means doing the exact opposite than political correctness.(16)



16. Saharasia

In view of the zeitgeist talk about the end of the nation-state the population statistician Josef Schmid feels "like disciplinary transferred into the dogmatism of Marxism-Leninism where one had to believe in the death of the state. Now the running down of the national-state, resp. the belief in its insidious becoming obsolete, appears as the common denominator of a progressive attitude of mind" (76:53). As in communism also in "multiculturalism," the rescue ideology of the left abandoned by Moscow, man becomes an abstract, universalistic idea, detached from culture, ethnic group, educational style, etc. (76:91). The left has started its next experiment! We will see whether this time it takes place with less than 100 000 000 dead (15). Schmid points out that in this new century no longer states but ethnic and religious groups will attack each other. The Kosovo War was the first war of this new period of history (76:206).

Typical is how today, in the political correct "dialog with Islam," "enlightened circles" place the fundamental values of our society at disposal. Is it, e.g., nowadays possible to stage Voltaire's drama Fanatism, or The Prophet Mohammed? Rohrmoser writes about this situation: "The idea that in a multicultural society one would live together idyllic, amicably, and peacefully, is justified by no historical experience. All movements of overlapping, penetration, and migration have ended in the assertion of claim to hegemony of the strongest separate culture and religion. Also Germany, insecure of itself, as far as it is alienated from its original customs, virtues, and its belief, and dissolved into consumption oriented individuals, in all probability could not withstand a sufficient number of Muslims but would factually submit to the claim to hegemony on its culture" (73:254). Is this the unconscious goal of the putative "anti-fascist" multicultural enthusiasts?!

As in former times, when it was said, in view of the Red menace from the East, that one has to distinguish between Stalinism and the original intentions of Marxism, today it is argued that one has to distinguish between Islamic religion and fundamentalism. Sounds reasonable but the people, who state this, mostly had not a good look at Marx's complete works, resp. at the Qur'an. And concerning Islam in particular: especially the ideologues of multiculturalism are marked by an embarrassing Euro-centrism, trying to grasp Islamic "religion" with the Christian concept of religion.

Islam (literally "submission") is less a religion, but "din," i.e., "to commit oneself comprehensively." It is blind obedience: "it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter" (52, Sura 33.36). Who wants to understand Islam, even in its most extreme excesses, like the child murder of the GIA in Algeria, has to recall the central religious act of Abraham, resp. Ibrahim, who was according to the Qur'an the original Muslim, so to speak. Ibrahim proved his Islam when he obeyed Allah's order and tried to butcher his son. With stone's throws he drove away Satan who wanted to stop him from this act. Still today Mecca pilgrims stone Satan symbolically for this humanist intervention. A Muslim does not belong to himself but to God. The person who owns himself, i.e., is godless, is considered less than an animal! "Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve" (52, Sura 8.55).

Independent thinking has to be given up in favor of blind faith. In this sense Islam is radically anti-humanistic (79:25f). Instead of human rights, to say nothing of the autonomy of the individual, there are only the rights of God. "Allah is seen in Islam as father-dictator, as 'the Supreme, above His servants' (Sura 6,18), as a fine specimen of a tyrant. (...) As counterpart and counterpole to Allah the Muslim shall be, according to the Qur'an, an exemplary servant and obey the will of God in everything (Sura 6,70)" (80:99).

In his selflessness the Muslim is really the perfect, almost caricature-like, antithesis of everything Stirner and Reich stood for.(17) Regarding this the Islam expert Rolf Stolz explains that even the Sufi has the urge to extinguish his own self ("nafs"), since it separates him, the "bonded slave," from his lord and master. With the orthodox Muslims it is, anyway, so that the individual shall merge with the community ("umma") symbolized by the joint prayer in the direction of Mecca. The individual stands not alone and upright before God but prostrates himself before Allah in the religious collective; a collective in which norms he disappears completely (80:81f).

If one looks at the regulations of Islam, which apply in particular, or rather above all, to family life and, thus, sexual life, Islam proves to be the imperialistic ideology of "Saharasia." In the 1980s the geographer James DeMeo classified, according to sex-economic criteria, and projected on a map of the world, the entire accessible ethnographical data from all over the world. There appeared an extremely anti-sexual and life-hostile core which coincided geographically with the largest coherent arid area of earth: SAHara, ARab desert, the Near East and Central ASIA; accordingly DeMeo called this area between Morocco and the desert Gobi "Saharasia." He points out in detail how hostility towards sex and life in the last 6000 years spread from this central area first to the peripheral areas and then to the whole planet (16).

If one compares DeMeo's "sex-economic map" with maps, on which the spread of Islam in North Africa and West Asia is shown, one will see that they cover the same areas. It looks like a large cancer ulcer in the center of the world which sends its feelers, e.g., to Europe and black Africa and metastases form far away from the center, e.g., in the Indonesian archipelago. Compare Bali, which remained Hindu, with the remainder of Indonesia, and you will be able to estimate the disaster the propagation of Islam means from a human, cultural, economic, and, not least, sex-economic point of view. Exactly like communism: where ever Islam took hold, after only a few generations it left behind a down-managed fallow land full of highly neurotic and chronically depressed people.(18) Yet, for their misfortune they hold responsible the "enemies of Islam." For the economic fall of their nations and the political insignificance, accompanying it, "Zionists" and "Crusaders" are held responsible.

As in National Socialism women are degraded to bare breeding machines. While in the last 200 years mankind grew from 1 billion to 6 billion individuals, the Islamic population of the earth in 20th Century, thus in half of the time, grew from 150 million to 1200 million. Their proportional share doubled from 10% in the year 1900 to 20% in the year 2000 (25).

And, as mentioned, this is not the triumphal spread of a religion like Christianity but of a phenomenon European cannot grasp properly. Islam is more similar to National Socialism or Communism. With the former it has in common that specific mix of mysticism and sadism, with the latter what in Arab is called taquiya (in Turk takkye: caution, fear; synonymous with kitman = disguising). It is the systematic denying of one's convictions and the pretense of kindness. For example Mohammed advises his followers to withdraw form the discussion with the Jews, who are well versed in the Bible, as soon as the Muslims get into trouble with their argumentation, and to wait "that Allah should bring about His command" (52, Sura 2, 109). Stolz remarks about this: "With this the prophet had it in hand to come to the fore at a favorable time and to proclaim the end of forgiveness and religious peace as Allah's command" (80:124).

Taquiya is not only approved, but even demanded pestilential behavior by the religion free of pangs of conscience (80:285f). It corresponds completely to the mendacious structure of communism (the facade in service of the secondary layer), described above. Involuntarily one has to think of Reich's third "Basic Tenets on Red Fascism": "If you ask a Liberal or a Socialist or a Republican what his social beliefs are, he will tell you frankly. The red Fascist will not tell you what he is, who he is, what he wants" (63:205). The faithful Muslim is, as it were, a "green fascist." This is why each "inter-religious dialogue" is just as perfectly senseless and counter productive as once the grandiose "policy of detente." Particularly since the Qur'an explicitly forbids a peace treaty with disbelievers, anyway. Each Arab, who signs a peace treaty with Israel, is a walking dead!

Islam was, from its very beginnings, "'din' and state." There is no separation of church and state (and all the more no between state and society!). But Islam is praised as a model for multicultural tolerance - by the same circles that in times past fought for the victory of communism over the West. Always the same historical exceptions are brought forward instead of orienting oneself by the Qur'an, Mohammed's concrete actions, and the Islam existing actually. Fantasies about a "moderate Islam" or even a "Euro-Islam" are intellectual day-dreams. Islam is Islamism (islamiya) which becomes clear immediately if one looks at Mohammed's practice, the "golden age" all Muslims refer to.

When Islamists want to carry through sharia inside Muslim society, place the collective of the umma above the individual and its duties above its rights, politicize religion, and systematically destroy ancient-old traditions - they act according to original Islam, i.e., as Mohammed has taught and, above all, has acted. And when they use terrorist means they also act like Mohammed.(19)

In times, in which our children are sacrificed to confused "intercultural concepts of education," one should remember that Reich was an anti-relativistic, "anti-multiculturalistic" advocate of the one human nature only compatible with definite cultural guiding ideas, e.g., not with Islam. In The Sexual Revolution Reich notes: "There are two kinds of 'morality,' but only one kind of moralistic regulation. The 'morality,' which all people approve as self-evident (do not rape, do not murder, etc.), one can only establish on the basis of the complete satisfaction of natural needs. Yet the other 'morality,' which we negate (asceticism for children and adolescents [...], etc.), is itself pathological and produces that chaos which it wants to cope with. We will fight it relentlessly" (59:50).

Yet the left-wing liberals want to "enrich our country culturally": with veiled women and Mullahs whose concept of the enemy are Jews, blacks, and homosexuals. For some left-wing liberals in this country to wear the headscarf is even an "emancipatory act!" The same people who are annoyed about crucifixes in class rooms demand that Muslim teachers may teach while wearing headscarfs. Headscarfs which are explicitly meant as the symbol of that "other morality" about which Reich spoke above. Those who call here for "tolerance," i.e., just those who constantly speak about "emancipation," show therewith their structural sympathy for the mortal enemies of life, freedom, and - emancipation. They dare to do so because it is politically correct.

With this they correspond to those representatives of "enlightenment" about whom Max Stirner said in the mid of the 19th century that they are the secret chums of those parsons who stand by the reaction openly. "Our atheists are religious people" (78:203). But not even Stirner could have dreamt of that after the dialectic-materialist emancipation has failed the bad conscience of these "atheists," their inner lack of freedom, would drive them so far as to eventually call in Islam to Europe and to give Islam world domination, thus. Completely in accordance with the leftist political scientist and proud "68er" Claus Leggewie who writes in his book Alhambra - Islam in the West: "A certain Islamization of the Christian Occident, which after the death of God has lost the belief in its values, may not only help up the modern Muslims but help Europe, too" (quoted after 80:313).(20)

I would like to conclude with the following sentences by Stolz about the political correct left-wing liberal, the ultimate mortal enemy of freedom, of the living - and thus of orgonomy: "The necessity of an analysis of actual Islam is denied, most of all, by those fanatics of multiculturalism who scent in any criticism of Islam the sheer hostility towards all Muslims. After they have lost the ideal counter-world of East Bloc Socialism, the paradise of the working people has dissolved to a large extent by itself and with it has revealed its hellish other side, they now strive for new shores of bliss. And now comes a vision of Islam, which they have worked out quickly, just at the right time: A liberal-minded, tolerant religion (cf. the Alhambra fantasies of Claus Leggewie), an egalitarian and almost socialist society with the umma collective of believers and the scribes as indisputable learned leaders (i.e., exactly what the Western intellectuals would like to be so much and can put into effect so little!), with the jihad the permanent opportunity for campaigns and acts of violence, further an Islamic International, present at least in the beginnings and in utopian dreams, and taking up the place of failed World Communism, out of which one day shall develop the total rule of Islam over all nations of the world. Of course, this paradigm in its complete form only the more radical friends of Islam share but exactly they are backed up by their half-hearted chums from the left-wing liberal camp when from the outset they put on any criticism of Islam the verdict of making a bogeyman and of xenophobia" (80:13f).




  1. Ackermann, U.: Sündenfall der Intellektuellen, Stuttgart 2000
  2. Baader, R.: Kreide für den Wolf, Böblingen 1991
  3. Baader, R.: Fauler Zauber, Gräfelfing 1997
  4. Baader, R.: Die belogene Generation, Gräfelfing 1999
  5. Baker, E.F.: Der Mensch in der Falle, München 1980
  6. Baker, E.F.: "My Eleven Years with Wilhelm Reich", Journal of Orgonomy, 16(2), 1982
  7. Berg, H.v.: Vorbeugende Unterwerfung, München 1988
  8. Bukowski, W.: Dieser stechende Schmerz der Freiheit, Stuttgart-Degerloch 1983
  9. Bukowski, W.: Abrechnung mit Moskau, Bergisch Gladbach 1996
  10. Bukowski (Interview), W.: "Eine totgesagte Ideologie lebt weiter", Zeit-Fragen, Nr. 45 (01.03.98), Zürich
  11. Burke, E.: Reflections on the Revolution in France, New York 1993
  12. Byer, D.: Rassenhygiene und Wohlfahrtspflege, Frankfurt 1988
  13. Chavis, H.J.: "The Role of the Social Facade in Modern Life", Journal of Orgonomy, 27(2), 1993
  14. Cohen, I.H.: Ideology and Unconsciousness, New York 1982
  15. Courtois (Hrsg.), S.: Das Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus, München 1998
  16. DeMeo, J.: Saharasia, Greensprings, Oregon 1998
  17. Fallend, K.: Wilhelm Reich in Wien, Wien 1988
  18. Furet, F.: Das Ende der Illusion, München 1998
  19. Gehlen, A.: Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 7, Frankfurt 1978
  20. Habermann, G.: Der Wohlfahrtsstaat, Frankfurt 1994
  21. Harman, R.A.: "Edmund Burke and the French Revolution", Journal of Orgonomy, 30(1), 1996
  22. Harman, R.A.: "Editorial Note: Masses and State", Journal of Orgonomy, 32(2), 1998
  23. Harman, R.: "The Sociopolitical Spectrum, Part I: Ideology is a Secondary Factor in Defining the Sociopolitical Spectrum", Journal of Orgonomy, 35(1), 2001
  24. Hass, H.: Naturphilosophischen Schriften, Bd. 4, München 1987
  25. Heinsohn, G.: Söhne und Weltmacht, Zürich 2003
  26. Hornung, K.: Das totalitäre Zeitalter, Berlin 1993
  27. Kätzel, S.: Marxismus und Psychoanalyse, (Ost-) Berlin 1987
  28. Kheffe, A.R.: "The Esalen Tapes: A Review", Journal of Orgonomy, 9(2), 1975
  29. Kirk, R.: The Conservative Mind, Washington 1995
  30. Koenen, G., K. Hielscher: Die schwarze Front, Reinbek 1991
  31. Koenen, G.: Utopie der Säuberung, Berlin 1998
  32. Konia, C.: "Cancer and Communism, Part 2", Journal of Orgonomy, 20(2), 1986
  33. Konia, C.: "Orgone Therapy: The Application of Functional Thinking in Medical Practice. Part XIV: Sociopolitical Aspects. General Principles", Journal of Orgonomy, 27(1), 1993
  34. Konia, C.: "Neither Left Nor Right (Part II): The Breakdown of Social Structure", Journal of Orgonomy, 30(1), 1996
  35. Konia, C.: "Neither Left Nor Right (Part II): Sexual and Work Functions", Journal of Orgonomy, 30(2), 1996
  36. Konia, C.: "Neither Left Nor Right (Part II): The Consequences of Political Illusion", Journal of Orgonomy, 32(1), 1998
  37. Konia, C.: "Neither Left Nor Right (Part II): The Removal of Social Armor", Journal of Orgonomy, 32(2), 1998
  38. Konia, C.: "The Function of Sociopolitical Ideology", Journal of Orgonomy, 34(2), 2001
  39. Konia, C.: "The Biophysical Basis of Sociopolitical Thought", Journal of Orgonomy, 35(1), 2001
  40. Kowalski, W.: Rechtsaußen, Frankfurt 1992
  41. Löw, K.: Der Mythos Marx und seine Macher, München 1996
  42. Löw, K.: Das Rotbuch der kommunistischen Ideologie, München 1999
  43. Lübbe, H.: Freiheit statt Emanzipationszwang, Zürich 1991
  44. Mansilla, H.C.F.: Systembedürfnis und Anpassung, Frankfurt 1973
  45. Marx, K.: Das Kapital I, Frankfurt 1978
  46. Mathews, P.: "On Armor, War and Peace", Journal of Orgonomy, 5(2), 1971
  47. Mathews, P.: "The Sociopolitical Diathesis", Journal of Orgonomy, 8(2), 1974
  48. Mathews, P.: "The People's Temple: A Case Study of Fascism and the Emotional Plague", Journal of Orgonomy, 13(2), 1979
  49. Mathews, P.: "Ideology and the Will to Disbelieve", Journal of Orgonomy, 21(1), 1987
  50. Placzek (Hrsg), B.R.: Zeugnisse einer Freundschaft, Köln 1986
  51. Prisching, M.: Die McGesellschaft, Graz 1998
  52. Qur'an
  53. Reich, W.: "Zur 'Aufklärung' im Kampf gegen die Geschlechtskrankheiten - Bemerkungen zu dem Aufsatz von Kurt Finkenrath", Zeitschrift für Sexualwissenschaft, 1919
  54. Reich, W.: Massenpsychologie des Faschismus, Kopenhagen 1933 (Nachdruck: Amsterdam 1986)
  55. Reich, W.: "Dialektisch-materialistische Facharbeiter contra geistige Irrlichter der sozialistischen Bewegung", Zeitschrift für politische Psychologie und Sexualökonomie, 1937
  56. Reich, W.: Character-Analysis, New York 1949
  57. Reich, W.: Murder of Christ, Rangeley, Maine 1953
  58. Reich, W.: The Discovery of the Orgone: The Function of the Orgasm, New York 1961
  59. Reich, W.: Die sexuelle Revolution, Frankfurt 1971
  60. Reich, W.: The Discovery of the Orgone: The Cancer Biopathy, New York 1973
  61. Reich, W.: Ether, God and Devil/Cosmic Superimposition, New York 1973
  62. Reich, W.: Was ist Klassenbewußtsein?, Graz 1976
  63. Reich, W.: People in Trouble, New York 1976
  64. Reich, W.: Frühe Schriften, Köln 1977
  65. Reich, W.: Listen, Little Man!, Pelican Books, 1979
  66. Reich, W.: Passion of Youth, New York 1988
  67. Reich, W.: "The Biological Revolution from Homo Normalis to the Child of the Future", Orgonomic Functionalism, Spring 1990
  68. Reich, W.: The Mass Psychology of Fascism, New York 1995
  69. Reich, W.: American Odyssey, New York 1999
  70. Revel, J.-F.: Die Herrschaft der Lüge, Wien 1990
  71. Röhl, K.R.: Linke Lebenslügen, Frankfurt 1994
  72. Röhl, K.R.: Riesen und Wurzelzwerge, München 1999
  73. Rohrmoser, G.: Der Ernstfall, Berlin 1994
  74. Rohrmoser, G.: Nietzsche als Diagnostiker der Gegenwart, München 2000
  75. Rudorf, R.: Die vierte Gewalt, Frankfurt 1994
  76. Schmid, J.: Die Moralgesellschaft, München 1999
  77. Sichrovsky, P.: Der Antifa-Komplex, München 1999
  78. Stirner, M.: Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, Stuttgart 1981
  79. Stolz, R.: Die Mullahs am Rhein, München 1994
  80. Stolz, R.: Kommt der Islam? , München 1997
  81. Trotzki, L.: Mein Leben, Frankfurt 1961
  82. Zeitler, C.: Spontane Ordnung, Freiheit und Recht, Frankfurt 1995
  83. Zitelmann, R.: Wohin treibt unsere Republik? , Frankfurt 1994




(1) And all the more the state does not belong here. If elements of market and state economy mix, as in the dehumanized and dehumanizing compulsory nursing insurance in Germany, we are confronted with a system which corresponds to the economic empire of Heinrich Himmler: maximization of profits, selections, bureaucracy, "directions," etc. In connection with the health system of the USA Konia speaks of "corporate socialism." It is worse than "state socialism," since minimizing of cost and maximization of profit is added (36:97).

(2) A typical example is the use of the terms "alienation" and "exploitation." In the 1960s and 1970s the "capitalist system" was attacked because, just as Marx had predicted, it reduced work more and more to lopsided chores. Today, where the technological development demands from the employee more and more flexibility ("job rotation" and "job enrichment"), the very same Marxists say that the spiral of exploitation turns on and man now is squeezed out in his totality (51:26f).

(3) The facade is the realm of substitute contact: socially and "morally" (socialism, "justice") in the world of the left-wing liberal; privately and "vulgar materialistic" (striving after profit, consumption) in the world of the right-wing liberal (47:206; 13).

(4) In 1954 Reich said the following in a seminar about the (left-wing) liberal: "The liberal is one who would like to be a strong radical leftist but is incapable characterologically of being one, so he envies the one with the strongest push, the emotional plague character, and supports his destructiveness with wild rationalizations" (6). In this manner the political correct leftist-liberal and Marxist mouth worker becomes the advocate, mouthpiece, and eventually agent of absolute evil. These emancipators "defend political murderer's right of free speech, yet become furious when one calls a spade a spade, although failure to do so costs millions of lives" (67:62).

(5) Typically the conservative speaks about a strong character, which is up to the task assigned by life (tradition); the right-wing liberal of a strong personality, independent (of traditions) and leaving a good impression with the fellow men (i.e., "on the market").

(6) In no way this shall justify the leftist-liberal "anti-authoritarian education!" The leftists placed the bringing up of children under the determining guiding stars of 1. emancipation, 2. maturity, 3. self-determination, and 4. democratization - and infected, thus, the children 1. with their own irrational rebellion; which 2. fixated the children in defiant infantilism; so kept them 3. dependent; which 4. determines the subjective longing for as well as the objective necessity of authoritarian interventions. The thus emancipated constantly asks himself: "What do I really want?" This question the others shall answer, in the end the state ("Vater Staat," "Uncle Sam")..... One sees immediately how much nearer the contactful conservative, who is, due to his contatct with nature, averse to such "emancipatory" mental constructs, is to self-regulation, really.

(7) And regarding the ominous "globalization": in the 19. century the globe was much more "globalized" than today. Reich discussed in his speech Listen, Little Man! (65) the backlash of the 20. century, the era of the "national-socialist" Little Men (see 48). The same Little Men return today in the shape of left- and right-extremist "opponents of globalization." More on this in the 14. section.

(8) With the decay of society rises the anxiety level of the masses who thereupon require more "social security" (34).

(9) Kirk writes about Burke's penetration of the idealistic mask of left-wing liberalism: "Burke knew that just under the skin of modern man stirs the savage, the brute, the demon. Millennia of bitter experience have taught man how to hold his wilder nature in a precarious restraint; that dread knowledge is expressed in myth, ritual, usage, instinct, prejudice. The Church, too, always has sensed this truth (...) and has looked with suspicion upon the advance of scientific rationalism because it may unveil to modern man the hideous secrets of his brutal origin" (29:39). From this follows everything which the conservatives had done and still do to the living, especially to children: they want to protect the child from himself, from his allegedly cruel and anarchic nature. This is an expression of armor and distortion of core contact with the conservative. Currently more important is Burke's contactful indictment against the left-wing liberals, the men of the French Revolution, and their civil rights propaganda: "The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false" (quoted after 29:52). This way of thinking beyond conservatism makes Burke a functional, almost "orgonomic" philosopher, who can differentiate between "metaphysical truth" and "moral and political counter-truth" (see 21).

(10) By the way, in the 1990s the rioters of 1968 took vengeance on the German working class. Wolfgang Kowalski noted in 1992: "When in 1968 they handed out their Red leaflets the workers were not at all interested in the wisdom of the students and were stubborn. Now they get back the spurned labor of love in the form of open hostility to the German people. Out of the once idolized working class, the 'revolutionary subject,' became the 'rabble,' the 'mob,' the 'Babbitt': reactionary up to extreme right-wing, and xenophobic" (40:127). As it were: "We here above (in the brain) in crystal purity, you the disreputable, morally corrupted vermin down there."

(11) This division into Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde one even finds within one and the same person, e.g., Marx: from all the Marx volumes with their 20 000 pages full of fascist wishes of annihilation, cynicism, and repulsive language one only knows the following "humanistic" sentences which are again and again spread among the people: "I am no Marxist." "The social conditions determine the conscious attitude." "Overthrow all circumstances in which man is a degraded, a subjugated, a deserted, a despised being." "The old bourgeois society is replaced by an association in which the free unfolding of each individual is the condition for the free unfolding of all." "One has to doubt everything" (cf. 41:352). And maybe also: "To be radical means to grasp the matter at its roots. And the root of man is man himself." Or: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world but the important thing is to change it." That is it! Apart from that one finds no quotable sentences to present Marx to the public as a humanistic philanthropist. Yet this extremely thin facade is everything the general public knows of Marx!

(12) To remove ourselves from the sphere of the left death drive we have to listen to people, like Bukovsky, who were at the heart of socialist hell. Bukovsky asks himself how one can explain to people, who never lived under communism, that communism is less a political and not even a criminal system - but a mass illness, a kind of plague epidemic. And Bukovsky continues that one is not angry with the plague, one does not fall out with the plague, and one does not reconcile with the plague. One falls ill with it or one is spared by it. But it is not possible to "transform" or "reform" the plague. One has to recover from it with all one's will to live. Who has given up and has gotten listless will perish (9:127).

(13) Unforgotten is the modern liberal who in a talk show said that "Aktenzeichen XY ... ungelöst" (Germany's "Most Wanted" in the Second Channel of German Television) is a "show of denunciation"! The modern liberal identifies not with the victims of criminality but with the fascist criminals - and turns them into "victims of society"! For him, in principle, not the emotional plague is the problem but all efforts to stop it.

(14) There is a functional identity between the outside front (the fight against international fascism [communism, Islamism]) and the internal front (the fight against random and organized criminality). Roland Baader: "Millions of Americans start to realize that the same 'leftists' (over there the 'Democrats'), who during the period of the Cold War advocated their believe that the Soviet Union was neither hostile nor dangerous (but, at most, because of 'wrong treatment' compelled to aggression), now take the same approach towards the criminals and a criminality which gets out of control. The parallel comes not only to light in the apportioning of blame to the crime victims, but also in the demand for 'unilateral disarmament.' As once the USSR and its vassals should be made peaceful by American arms reduction now it is the disarming of the citizens by which one wants to transform the criminals into upright fellow citizens. With all due skepticism with regard to the exaggerations of the American infatuation with firearms, it requires a severe left-wing liberal blindness to see the damming of criminality in the complete disarming of the potential victim" (3:41). (By the way in the USA once, in glaring contradiction to the Constitution, weapon laws were issued in order to prevent that the released slaves could arm themselves and defend against the Ku Klux Klan!)

(15) In this connection it should also be mentioned that the two pestilential characters Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore for their lies, and fairy tales, slandering, and half truths earned enthusiasm from both radical left-wingers and radical right-wingers.

(16) "(...) the first bit of truth uttered and lived would draw more truth into action and so on indefinitely (...)" (57:309).

(17) Stolz quotes the Egyptian Islam expert Cherifa Magdi. She shows that in Islam the woman is considered a mere farg, an "eternally hungry slut devouring everything" who has to be civilized forcefully by the male. Magdi: "She is in steady rebellion against all restricting norms which could hinder the gratification of her sexuality. With this she rebels against the hierarchy which forms the spiritual foundation of Islam, based on the control of biology and its subjugation to an order which for the male is outlined by the male god Allah" (quoted after 79:117). Islam as the perfect embodiment of the super-ego against which the living, Satan, rebels constantly and thus has to be held in check. The veiling of women is the perfect symbol of this; it is the branding of women as farg. An unbelievable obscenity which in North Africa goes hand in hand with a literal "trimming" (circumcision).

(18) Islam is even worse than communism since Islam is not only "anti-work" (politics) but also "anti-sexuality" (religion). Both elements are inseparably intertwined into one another so that, in contrast to communism, there cannot be a core of resistance in the guise of religion.

(19) And their motives are, for sure, more noble since Mohammed with his military campaigns always had also his eye on his economic interests. So the city of Medina was terrorized and the surrounding area was systematically plundered in "holy wars." Who goes to war complying to Allah's wishes "may be successful" (Sura 5,35). "And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden" (Sura 33,27). "The promise of abundant spoils of war was," Stolz writes, "an essential instrument of motivation in early Islam. Via the Qur'an Mohammed had to defend himself against the accusation that he had embezzled a part of the war-profits (Sura 3,155)" (80:36). A further motive was Mohammed's Ego, his pride, and his "honor." Asking "Who takes revenge for me on this one and that one?" Mohammed let kill in Medina, first, single members of the Jewish tribe of Nadir and, later, drove away the whole tribe. He also ordered to fell palms and to set fire which was opposite to the Arab code of honor, to the then "Geneva Convention," so to speak. But the Qur'an justifies such terrorist means: "Whatever palm-tree you cut down or leave standing upon its roots, it is by Allah's command, and that He may abase the transgressors" (Sura 59,5). Also the rape excursions of Mohammed against caravans and oases were in conflict with all traditional sense of honor. Of the Jewish tribe Quraiza he let all 700 males line up in dug pits group after group. They were beheaded by his son-in-law Ali one after the other. The Jewish women and children were sold as slaves (79:188-190). For Muslims Mohammed is the perfect human after whose model they align their life.

(20) This death drive is going so far that the left-wing liberals cannot wait for the "plague." Rudolf Augstein, the editor of the liberal German news magazine Spiegel, recommended in 1965 in a circle of university students: "We should design with the communists the world of communism, its future, without fear of infection and what on our side is viable and fit for life could infect communism - 'infection is the watchword'" (19:285).

last update
May 202, 2007



back to the previous page home forward to the next page



Copyright © 1997 - 2007
Peter Nasselstein