Wie Reichs MASSENPSYCHOLOGIE DES FASCHISMUS ins Gegenteil verkehrt wird

Angesichts des Aufkommens von Marine LePen, der AFD, dem Brexit und anderer „rechtspopulistischer“ Bewegungen wird gerne auf die Aktualität von Reichs 1933 erschienenem Buch Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus verwiesen. Reich hätte damals genau das analysiert, was auch heute geschehe. Was damals Antisemitismus war, sei heute die „Ausländerfeindlichkeit“; die Mischung aus Autoritarismus und Rebellion, das nach oben Buckeln und nach unten Treten, der Appell an „einfache Lösungen“ („endlich durchgreifen“!) und das Schwarzweißdenken entspräche heute dem Rechtspopulismus.

Ich bestreite in keinster Weise, daß Reichs Analyse noch heute aktuell ist, aber man gehe damit doch bitte in Erdogans Türkei! Worum es Reich zentral ging, war, daß die Menschen gegen ihre eigenen Interessen handelten, sich ausbeuten und als Kanonenfutter mißbrauchen ließen. Wenn heute Menschen sich dagegen wehren, daß ihr Lebensglück dem persönlichen Machtinteresse einer Angela Merkel und den Visionen linker Ideologen geopfert wird – ausgerechnet gegen diese Menschen, die für ihre eigenen Interessen ein- und aufstehen, Reich ins Feld zu führen, ist schlichtweg obszön. Konkret wehren sie sich gegen die biosoziale („emotionale“) Vergiftung ihres unmittelbaren Lebensumfelds durch islamische Herrenmenschen, Zigeuner, Neger, etc., die Zerstörung des Bildungssystems und damit der Zukunftschancen unserer Kinder, die Überforderung der Sozialkassen und vor allem der wachsenden Wohnungsnot für Unter- und sogar Mittelschichtler in den Ballungsräumen. Daß sie dagegen aufstehen und für die eigenen Interessen kämpfen, mit dem Faschismus gleichzusetzen… Geht’s noch?!

Im besten Fall handelt es sich hier einfach um das mechanistische Übertragen von Reichs Analyse der autoritären Gesellschaft in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts auf die so andersgeartete antiautoritäre Gesellschaft Anfang des 21. Jahrhunderts. Im schlimmsten Fall ist es Emotionelle Pest, d.h. Ausdruck des eigenen irrationalen Antiautoritarismus der entsprechenden Autoren. Unbewußt ertragen sie das Lebensglück der anderen nicht und wollen es deshalb zerschlagen, indem sie vorgeben gegen den Faschismus (d.h. das Zerschlagen des Lebensglücks der Massen) aufzustehen. Charakterstrukturell sind sie „liberal“ und ertragen nicht die Mobilisierung der rationalen Aggression im bioenergetischen Kern. Wir können alle krepieren, damit sie sich wohlig und sicher fühlen! Weist man auf diese bioenergetischen Zusammenhänge hin, erklären einem diese „Reichianischen“ Arschlöcher frech, daß das eine groteske Entstellung der Erkenntnisse Reichs wäre bzw. keinerlei Ähnlichkeit mit Reichs Ausführungen habe, man brauche ja nur Die Massenpsychologie des Faschismus zu lesen!

Advertisements

Schlagwörter: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Antworten to “Wie Reichs MASSENPSYCHOLOGIE DES FASCHISMUS ins Gegenteil verkehrt wird”

  1. JanDavid Says:

    das nach oben Buckeln und nach unten Treten

    das gibt es in besonderem Maße bei Charakterstrukturen, die eher anti-autoritär, bzw. links sind, weil sie ja offene Aggression nicht ertragen.

    Gesamtgesellschaftlich kann das dann dazu führen, dass anti-autoritäre Verhältnisse umschlagen in solche, die – vor allem gegenüber den Schwachen – ganz besonders autoritär sind.

    Was – wie ich glaube – zurzeit geschieht.

  2. Tzindaro Says:

    Large-scale political movements and events, and how people feel about such issues as immigration, wars, crime, religion, etc., have little or nothing to do with any previously existing psychological characteristics of the individuals making up the broad public. They are driven by population pressures, economic factors, and increasingly, by very sophisticated methods of manipulating public opinion that now exist in the hands of the power brokers who are employed by the controlling elements in a society.

    Mass psychology is a failed idea that has no relationship to the real world. Instead of studying the alleged mass psychology it would be more useful to study the modern methods of propaganda and the people at the top of the social order who employ them.

    There is no scientific mass psychology and never can be. Humans do not do what they do in large numbers because of any mass psychological factors. They act as they do because of someone in power deciding what to make them think.

    • Thomas Says:

      Quote: „Fascism today is more driven by fear of physical attack ( so-called „terrorism“ )“

      Yeah, defending yourself against the rising probability of being hurt or even killed by a follower of islam. That is so fascist …. *sarcasm* *facepalm*

      • Tzindaro Says:

        I did not say anything about defending oneself from attack being fascist. I said the people who are prone to fascism today are influenced in their fascist tendencies by fears of attack by whoever the officially designated enemy may happen to be at this time in history. A comparable situation existed in Germany in the 1930s, in which Jews were the designated enemy and the public were told to blame them for economic troubles. Today, the designated enemy is Islam, and the public are told to blame Islam for terrorist attacks. It is not the real economic trouble in the one case or the real attacks in the other that are fascistic. What is fascistic is the placing of blame on the out group the opinion setters tell people to blame. In the 30s, it was the Jews. Today it is the Muslims.

        The average Jew in the 30s was not to blame for the Depression. And the average Muslim today is not to blame for any terrorist attacks. The fascism is in the sorting of people into easily identified groups and presenting easy solutions based on the assumed group identity of the individuals who commit crimes instead of doing the hard work of seeking out the ones who are really responsible.

        There are real terrorist attacks, and some of them have indeed been done by Muslims, just as some have been done by Christians and some by Hindus and some by Jews. But hardly any have been done because of a religion. They are done for political and nationalistic reasons and religion is seldom if ever a significant part of the motivation. When the American army invades Iraq or bombs Syria you do not call it „the Christian Army“, even though most of the members of that army are Christians, as are most of the people of the country that army comes from. So if some Muslim or group of them stages a terrorist attack, why do you assume they did it because of their religion and not for some secular political motive?

        Since the treaty of Westphalia in the 1600s, most serious conflicts have been between nation-states, not between religions. That is true today and it is nation-states, having armies and the police power to enforce their laws, not transnational religions or ethnic groups, that present the real problems in the modern world.

        But at least some of the news events called „terrorism“ by the officials are deliberate deception done for the purpose of turning public opinion against Muslims so when America attacks more countries in the Middle East the Europeans will not object.

        • Thomas Says:

          I have read in one of your posts that although you have been involved in „WR-related“ stuff for many years, you have never been in orgone therapy yourself and – with all due respect – it’s obvious when reading posts like the above.

          You seem to have no personal grasp whatsoever of the deep emotional issues most of mankind are dealing with and that of all religions, Islam is without a doubt the most troublesome because it leads to what Reich called emotional plague reactions like no other religion. In fact, religions like Christianity do offer mankind a significant degree of rational functioning and life quality for all, in spite of said deep emotional issues!

          Quote: „In the 30s, it was the Jews. Today it is the Muslims.“ Yeah, right …

          • Tzindaro Says:

            I have never been in therapy, but I also have never been a believer in the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim religions either. Does that mean I have no grasp of the deep emotional benefits those religions all claim to offer their believers? I have not had Scientology treatment either. The claims made for it by it’s members sound about the same as the claims made by Reichians for their chosen brand of treatment. There are many religions and many kinds of therapy. Should I try them all? If not, why should I select Reichian therapy if I decided I needed some sort of treatment for emotional issues?

            I have several serious doubts about orgone therapy. My observations of people who have had it, including many of the orgonomists, leads me to regard it as a dangerous form of brainwashing, not something I would want to get into. Subjective impressions by patients with a strong emotional investment, or therapists with a strong career investment, do not impress me. I have not seen any scientific studies done to show if orgone therapy is safe and effective or not. Until some such study is done, it remains an unproven, untested experimental procedure and it is unethical to charge money for it.

            I consider all religions equally false-to-fact. As for which is most socially harmful, in western countries at least, Christianity is the worst. It is the Christians who commit most crimes, but you do not think of most criminals from a Christian background as Christians, motivated by their Christianity, so why do you think of criminals who happen to have an Islamic background as Muslims? What does their religion have to do with their actions?

            If a man or woman from a Muslim background, in many case, not even very religious, but motivated by patriotism for their own people, or sympathy for victims of Western policies, or revenge for deaths of loved ones at the hands of Western troops or Western-sponsored dictatorships, does a terrorist act, it has nothing to do with their religion, if indeed they happen to be believers in any religion at all. Many people in the Middle East, especially young, well-educated people, do not take Islam any more seriously than most young Germans take Christianity, though they may still claim to belong to the religion of their parents if asked because it is a part of their identity.

            In fact, if you believe in the Muslim religion, suicide is forbidden, just as in Christianity and Judaism, so there cannot be any Muslim suicide bombers. That is a false narrative spread after 9/11 by the American propaganda machine to justify attacks against Muslim countries.

            The world would be better off without any religions, but there is no reason to blame any crimes by members of a religion on the religion itself. Humans act for many complex motives, political, economic, and social, not only religious ones. And a basic principal of human rights is to avoid collective punishment and treat everyone as an individual, not blame all members of a race, religion, or nationality for crimes of a few of it’s members.

            As for „Emotional Plague“ I would think spreading bigotry and inciting repressive laws would qualify as emotional plague behavior. I cannot recall Reich ever saying that emotional plague is more to be found in any one race, religion, or nationality than in any other. In fact, he said the exact opposite in Listen, Little Man, when he said „There is a British fascism, a Jewish fascism, and an American fascism, not only a German fascism“. There certainly must be some Muslim emotional plague characters, but there is no reason to think emotional plague is any more common in Islam than in any other religion. That is an idea that originated with James DeMeo, not Reich.

            • Thomas Says:

              Quote: „I consider all religions equally false-to-fact. As for which is most socially harmful, in western countries at least, Christianity is the worst. It is the Christians who commit most crimes, but you do not think of most criminals from a Christian background as Christians, motivated by their Christianity, so why do you think of criminals who happen to have an Islamic background as Muslims? What does their religion have to do with their actions?“

              Well… maybe because when strict Muslims (not even terrorists exclusively!) commit crimes, they often themselves relate to their duty to Allah or the hatred for non-believers before court.
              And when it comes to Christianity / „Christian crime comitters“? Right … not so much …

              • Tzindaro Says:

                A really „strict“ Muslim would not commit crimes since Islam requires it’s followers to obey the laws of the country they live in even if the laws are unjust, on the theory that tyranny is preferable to anarchy.

                But claiming to be following „God’s will“ is hardly limited to Muslims when they get caught. People who kill doctors for doing abortions have made the same claim. Does that mean Christianity is a Fascistic religion that preaches hate for unbelievers?

                Islam directs believers to respect Jews and Christians as „people of the book“. It does not say to „hate unbelievers“. That is a canard invented by American propaganda experts to demonize Islam so the American regime can invade Middle Eastern countries without much political opposition.

                On the other hand, if you want to see some writings that rant against unbelievers, read some of the works of Martin Luther. His writings about Jews would land him in a mental hospital today in almost any country.

                • Thomas Says:

                  Quote: „Islam directs believers to respect Jews and Christians as „people of the book“. It does not say to „hate unbelievers“. That is a canard invented by American propaganda experts to demonize Islam so the American regime can invade Middle Eastern countries without much political opposition. “

                  You mean, the one and only „Islam“ – which doesn’t actually exist because there are different interpretations?

                  Let’s put it this way: How many preachers („holy persons“) are there in each religion that preach to disrespect & hate other religions and their followers? The highscore in this category is held by islamic preachers for sure … unless of course, these preachers are all products of American propaganda …

  3. Robert (Berlin) Says:

    Hier ein typisches Beispiel, wie Reichs Massenpsychologie ins Gegenteil verkehrt wird. Die Illustration spricht Bände.

    http://andreas-peglau-psychoanalyse.de/psyche-und-rechtsruck-tarek-al-ubaidi-und-andreas-peglau-im-gespraech/

    • Peter Nasselstein Says:

      [ein Buch von Peglau,] das 2017 erscheinen wird.
      Der (Arbeits-)Titel lautet:

      „Rechtsruck“ im 21. Jahrhundert. Wilhelm Reichs Massenpsychologie des Faschismus als Erklärungsansatz

      In diesem Buch [hat Peglau] den Versuch unternommen, wesentliche Erkenntnisse Wilhelm Reichs aus dessen 1933 veröffentlichter Massenpsychologie des Faschismus auf unsere gegenwärtige politische Situation anzuwenden.

  4. Tzindaro Says:

    The essential insight of Reich on the reasons for the attraction of fascism for working class people, especially young people, in an industrialized society have little to do with the attraction of fascistic ideas today for middle class people, especially those on the conservative end of the political spectrum, and more likely middle aged and older people at that. Fascism today is more driven by fear of physical attack ( so-called „terrorism“ ) or future economic losses due to immigration of competitors for jobs, not by resentment of past defeats or current economic suffering, as in Germany of the 1930s.

    Reich’s insights focused on the role of the patriarchal family and adolescent sex-starvation in setting young people up to identify with their nation-state, religion, and culture of origin to the exclusion of fellow workers who did not conform to those parameters. He considered that role more important a factor than the content of propaganda and that to be a success propaganda had to exploit these prior emotional states. That was true at that time, but no longer. Today, after 75 years of intensive scientific research into motivating large numbers of people, modern scientific methods of propaganda are so sophisticated that the background of any given individual hardly matters. Any normal person, regardless of any personal psychological predisposition, will be influenced to a statistically predictable degree in the direction the masters of public opinion control desire.

    Any theory of mass psychology is now obsolete. The shift toward fascism in America, as illustrated by the popularity of Trump and the general movement to the right in politics over the past 30 years, and in Europe, as shown by the rise of right-wing anti-immigrant parties, which are funded by the CIA, is being caused by deliberate propaganda by the US government or European national security forces closely allied with it, in order to justify further American military conquest of the Middle East. It has no connection with how people were raised or what their emotional health may be. It is a product of the capitalist ruling class in the service of expanding their empire, not of mass psychological forces as was true in Reich’s time.

  5. Peter Nasselstein Says:

    Der vollständige Wahnsinn. Weiße organisieren sich, um gegen „Rassismus“ vorzugehen, d.h. „Rassismus“ von Weißen gegen „Farbige“. Keine andere „Rasse“ würde das jemals tun. ZUmal spricht das von rassistischem Größenwahnsinn. So als wenn alle anderen minderwertig wären und geschützt werden müßten. Was für eine Herablassung. Es ist purer Faschismus auf so vielen Ebenen. Dieses Pack glaubt aber allen Ernstes es würde Reichs MASSENPSYCHOLOGIE DES FASCHISMUS in die Tat umsetzen.

    http://www.showingupforracialjustice.org/

    Das ist alles so abgrundtief krank.

  6. Peter Nasselstein Says:

    Sehr gutes Video. Erklärt, warum es so schwachsinnig ist, heute Reichs Faschismusanalyse auf die „Neue Rechte“ anzuwenden:

  7. Robert (Berlin) Says:

    Gerhard Wisnewski: Links oder rechts: Wer sind eigentlich die Nazis?

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s


%d Bloggern gefällt das: