Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election

Its no secret that the 2016 Presidential election has become a joke and a farce.  Here are some of my thoughts on it (of course, since this is politics everything I say can be proven wrong):


Everyone seems to focus on the candidates themselves but I have always felt that people are leaving out a big player in all this:

The media!

I tend to feel that media is largely responsible for turning this election into a big joke.  In fact, I feel that THE MEDIA, AS A WHOLE, SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY FOR TURNING THIS ELECTION INTO A FARCE.  The reason for this is simple:  this is a Presidential election.  It seems, to me, that this makes this a serious and critical issue . . . and not some joke.  This isn’t like reporting how some movie star was busted for drugs yet that is exactly how they have treated it.  We need the media to report things accurately and in an unbiased way, which they have not done.  The media has failed miserably.

Some of the ways the media has turned this election into a joke include:

  • They have primarily focused on small and trivial details . . . anything that causes a scandal.  This has been most of what I have seen.  It seems like it has all been about nonsense about what someone says or did that has no bearing on anything the President does.  The only news that the media deems important enough to report is what can cause a scandal, not what’s important or relevant.  I see little, if any, evidence of that in this election.
  • There seems a neglect of pertinent and serious issues.  I’ve hardly seen any mention of the important issues.  I should point out that I am not a person who actively seeks the news as I tend to view the media as something that distorts news (and this situation has proven this to be true).  As a result, most of the news I have seen is “casually observed”.  That is to say, I happen to see the newspaper headlines, or the headlines on the internet, or I see the news as I walk by people who are watching it, or hear it from what people say.  In other words, I see news “as it appears” at the time not as something I deliberately seek .  Seeing news this way, during this whole election, I could probably count the amount of times I heard any pertinent and serious issues on one hand!  This means that what the news is reporting is all hype-stuff.  A person has to deliberately seek the issues to discover what they are.  This is what I ended up doing.
  • They have displayed biased viewpoints, interpretations, and opinions to endorse their views.  Many people in the news have used the media to endorse their viewpoints.  In so doing they have distorted things to their way of thinking.  I know one paper, for example, that actually endorsed one of the candidates.  It was in big letters on the front page!  A newspaper telling people who to vote for?  Wow!
  • There appears to have been many false fabrications and deliberate distortions of things.   For example, I was stunned how an article would say something like “Trump makes a racist remark” and, when I read the article, I see no association between what he said and the supposed “racist” remark.  More than once have I said, “where are they getting this stuff from?” or “how are they making this association?”  I’ve even talked with other people who have made similar observations.  I often would joke, “if Trump was passing some people and his arm rubbed against some ladies breast the media would say it was another ‘groping incident’ and have a half hour special on it!”  They probably would too.
  • Being that the media is liberal-oriented in this country, it almost seems as if there has been a “campaign” to discredit Trump and, sometimes, to glorify Clinton.  I have been appalled how the media has done almost everything in their power to make Trump look bad.  Its sickening.  I’m not the only person to say that the media is “against” Trump.
  • The media has taken Trumps poor ability at public speaking and turned it into a joke.  I have been nothing but at appalled by this.  Trump is not the best public speaker.  I have never held that against him as most people aren’t and that’s not a measure of how well they will do either.  But the way the media has used this to turn this whole thing into a circus is completely unacceptable!  Its as if his poor ability just gave them something they could mock and ridicule and report in the news, to create more hype and maybe another scandal . . . all to increase sales, huh?

The way the media has acted in this election has devastated my belief and faith in the media.  Before, I looked at the media as just “distorted” . . . now I don’t think I can trust it at all.  I used to jokingly call newspapers the “propaganda sheets” . . . now I know it is.  I’ve even started to call the news the “comics”, meaning that you can’t take it seriously.  When someone says they “heard it from the new” I, for years, have replied, “that’s the worst place to get the news” . . . that’s definitely true now.

The circus-like nature the media created was so powerful that even the candidates began to follow the lead of the media and, in so doing, began to turn it even more into a circus.  Its as if the ridiculous attitude of the media began to infect everything.  For example, I couldn’t believe that a trivial and nonsensical issue such as Trump calling a girl “overweight” could even get into a Presidential debate as a “legitimate argument”.  How could something like that even get into the debate?  I can’t believe it.  And, as expected, the media blew it out of proportion.  I saw a news report about this debate and couldn’t believe how the media portrayed it.  Of the whole report it seems that a third to almost half was directed to this issue alone!  In other words, the media apparently saw this as one of the “big issues” of this debate.  Can you believe it?  Not only that, they had a side-line story over the girl that was called “overweight”.  Are you kidding?!

Good going media!

I don’t see how any descent person could ever trust the media after nonsense like this.

Its because of this that I think that THE MEDIA SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ITS ACTIONS.  How that is to be done I don’t know but I think its about time that the media be held accountable for how it portrays, and interprets, the news.  This whole thing has gone far enough.  I’ve even started to call the people in the media the “hype-masters”.  They probably take classes on how to turn things into hype.

The media has so destroyed this election that I have even said that we should declare a “miselection”, much like a mistrial, and start all over again.  You can’t believe anything from this election, nor what the media says about it.  I’ve already accepted that, whatever happens, this election has been “botched” and, therefore, invalid.


As I look at it closer, though, it seems to me that the media actually brought out deeper social and historical issue in the U.S. today.  In other words, the media didn’t just “cause” on its own.  It actually touched a sensitive nerve in the population.  This is because the media, by its influence of popular opinion and exposure to the masses, has much power and influence.  In fact, the media has been the “power” in this election which is why it has been so impactful and why its behavior has been so critical.  Because of this power, the media circus brought at deeper issues that were in the population, of a deep unconscious worry, uncertainty, and fear that people are not overtly aware of.  In other words, the real issue behind this Presidential election is not the Presidency at all.  This election became, with especial prompting from the media circus, an avenue for these feelings.  To put it another way, the Presidential election was a “doorway” that opened and exposed these deeper feelings and issues.

Not only that, these are issues that the President has no power over.  In fact, in many cases, they have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency at all.  In this way, this Presidential election went beyond the Presidential election and touched upon far greater issues.  In my opinion, these issues are more interesting than anything involving the President, as they are concerns over the times we live in.

These feelings tends to be unconscious, not acknowledged, and unexpressed which is one reason why they come out through “some other means” like the Presidential election.  In some respects, these feelings have become “bottled up” through the years and neglected.  The circus of the Presidential election has become a means for them to come out.  Despite this, they will probably never be acknowledged for what they are and what they mean.

Overall, these feelings have caused what can be described as a “general sense of helplessness, discontent, and worry“, reflective of the times, that permeates much of the election and which people are wanting relief.  I tend to feel that the deeper issues include themes such as:

The awareness that the U.S. is in decline

As it appears to me, the U.S. is in decline.  The U.S. has had its time . . . its glory time is over.  The U.S. is no longer the “great” nation it was.  In addition, many Americans no longer feel that they are the “great” nation anymore.  The glory time of the U.S. appears to be WWII to the end of the Cold War (about 1990).  In many ways, the end of the Cold War was the end of America’s glory time.  This shows that what made America “great” was not really achievement, business, and such but the unity that WWII and the Cold War created.  Once these disappeared the unity disappeared and, along with it, the “greatness” of America.

Many Americans, though, won’t admit that America is in decline (but many people know it as I hear people mention it all the time).  If one looks at the behavior of Americans one can see that there are great attempts at trying to “regain America’s greatness”.  This is even stated in Trump’s slogan:  “Make America great again”.  It appears in many ways.  Oftentimes it appears in ways such as a persistent arrogance and over-glorification.  Other people take on a quality of a “living in the past” quality, as if they are still living in the glory time.  In political matters, the U.S. tends to remain in a “stuck in the 70’s” orientation as a way to maintain its greatness.  In so doing, it refuses to see existing conditions and problems (such as that the U.S. is in serious debt) and, accordingly, not doing anything about it.

This desire to regain American “greatness” is probably reflected in the choosing of the candidates:

  • Clinton is chosen because she’s a female.  This emphasizes the “greatness” of America, of how “anyone can become President”.  Since they just had a black President, a female is the next best representative of this idea.  This attitude fits well into the mentality of the Democrats.  I always joke that, with the ridiculous mentality of this country today, the next President will HAVE TO BE someone who’s gay and the one after that a transgender person.  This is what will get them voted . . . not whether they are qualified or not.
  • Trump is chosen because he is a successful businessman.  Remember that much of the “greatness” of America is based in business success and making money.  For the Republicans, especially, this is something that especially matters (not if they are a minority or female as with the Democrats) which is probably why he had so much appeal.

If these are true then it would mean that they were chosen not because of their political qualifications but who they were, that they reflected the “greatness” of the American system in one way or another.  This may be a good example that shows how America has become “desperate” to regain their former “greatness”.  In many ways, this election may show that the U.S. has become a little bit too desperate and is having a hard time admitting that the glory days are over.

Interestingly, many of the few relevant issues I’ve heard, from either candidate, tend to revolve around this idea of regaining “greatness” in some way or another.  I’m particularly worried about the extent either candidate is willing to go to achieve this.  It seems that, if many are implanted, they may undermine us even more.  It seems, to me, that America needs to accept that the glory days are over and not try to regain the “greatness” but deal with the problems we are now in.

The growing feeling of being detached and disconnected

All the social media, technology, and such has created a strong feeling of being detached and disconnected in life.  This causes feelings of anxiety, being unfulfilled, frustration, unhappiness, and such.  It seems, to me, that all the stuff which seems to impress everyone, has another side to it, the “other effects” of what they cause and which have largely gone unconscious.  In other words, they have created two reactions:

  1. Being “technologically dazzled”.  This tends to be conscious and one is aware of it.  This is what people talk about and thinks great.
  2. Being “technologically detached and disconnected”.  This is largely unconscious and one is not overtly aware of its effects.

In other words, though a person may find these things “wonderful” it tends to leave a detached and disconnected sense deep down.  For many people it sits there and simmers like a pot of stew.   In this way, it casts something like a “shadow” over their life which they often can’t “pinpoint”.  Ironically, the thing they think is helping them is working against them but in another way.

It seems, to me, that these feelings of being detached and disconnected have come out in this Presidential election.  It has contributed to a general sense of being unhappy and a discontentment that motivates many peoples opinions and points of view.

Worry over the future and the awareness that we are now in a “new world”

Because of the world situation there is great worry over the future, I’ve found.  With the world economy, technology, and such we are walking into uncharted territory . . . the world is walking into uncharted territory.  Despite how many people think this uncharted territory is “great”, and all that, my observation is that it has caused great worry in much of the people.  No one knows what to expect or where things are headed.  For most people, it seems, the question of “where the world is headed” is more of a worrisome concern than anything else.  In short, there is a growing awareness that we are moving into a “new world”.  In other words, the world is not what it was and people perceive that this century is going to be different.  I jokingly call this the “new world blues” as it creates feelings such as

  • No one knows what to expect.
  • There’s no direction.
  • There’s no certainty.
  • No one knows where they are going to stand in the scheme of themes.

In short, the “new world” is actually causing more worry than hope or optimism.  I don’t think people are pessimistic but they are “concerned” which causes a “worry”.  This worry, it seems to me, plays a great role in this election.

The lack of anything to believe in

In general, people have nothing to believe in nowadays.  There are many ways that the lack of anything to believe in appears:

The effect of these is that people are just “sitting there” and “alone” creating feelings such as:

  • There is nothing to hope for.
  • There is absence of support.

Some of the reactions to this include:

  • A “longing” or “wishing” for something.
  • A sense of discontent and unhappiness.
  • A feeling of being alone or helpless.

Overall, one could say it creates a sense of “emptiness”.  A lot of people will spend their lives trying to fill this up, in some way, but never succeed.  Many people are seeking relief from these feelings in this election.  Really, people just want something to believe in.  Some people think the President will offer this.

Excessive and out-dated liberalism

I tend to feel that the effects of all the liberal nonsense, particularly since the 1970’s, has played a far more critical role than it may at first seem.  It tends to create a generalized disgust in the population, I’ve found.  I see people refer to it all the time.  I say “refer” as I do not get the impression that people know what they are disgusted about.  Usually, people get disgusted with some event but very few people realize, I think, that what they are actually disgusted with is liberalism and its effects.

Many liberal policies now infests our daily lives and affects us whether we like or not.  It has infested the political system, the legal system, work, and even into our private lives.  Much of this liberalism originates from the 1970’s and is part of the reaction to the Vietnam War and “hippi movement” (see my article “Thoughts on liberalism, with remarks about “70’s liberalism”“).  Being based in an event from about 45 years ago it is now out-dated.  But it has become firmly entrenched in the society and system and continues to play a part in things.

Since it has origin in the Vietnam War, which is a product of the Cold War, the liberalism from the 1970’s has maniacal qualities as the Cold War created a hysterical panic type of quality beginning in the late 1950’s.  This mania escalated during the Vietnam War creating its own type of liberalism.  It would be very much associated with hippi’s and “peace and love” and all that.

One of the effects of this mania is that it created points of view that are absurd and ridiculous, which have defined much of liberalism.  In this way, it has infested our lives, public and private, with absurd and ridiculous things.  Its created a whole world which has qualities like:

  • Unrealistic fears (such as, “people hate other people because their skin color is different”).
  • Fantasized abuse (such as, everything violates my rights).
  • Blind accusation and blame (such as, the male oppresses the female).
  • Self-righteous cause (such as, our cause is going to “save the world”).
  • Using the U.S. Constitution as justification for everything (such as, “my Constitutional rights have been violated because a white person was hired”).
  • The creation of a controlled world (such as, you can’t spank your kids).

Many of these themes can be seen in the media circus of this election.

A lot of people have felt the effects of liberalism in their lives, which have created a general sense of disgust.  In fact, I would say that there has developed a generalized “liberalism-disgust” in this country, though no one seems to be overtly aware of it.  This is because one of the problems of liberalism is that no one can fully define what it is.  Its an attitude and point of view not an organized philosophy.  In addition, it uses national ideals, as well as the Constitution, as justification for what it does.  This makes it hard to localize and attack.  As a result of this inability to define it, this “liberalism-disgust” has not developed a “voice” to express opposition or even express itself.  It seems that this lack of “voice” figures in this election.  The fact is that a lot of people out there don’t want liberalism dictating their lives.

The ‘failed sex’ – the females loss of identity and value

Over the past several hundred years the female has lost her identity and value in society.  This has caused a lot of problems for the American female (though it began in England).  Its for this reason that I call the American female the ‘failed sex’.  I have mentioned much of the origin of this in previous articles such as “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“.  To put it simply, my inquiry has shown that a significant part of this is that the females began to undermine their identity and social value in the early-mid 1800’s, and it has gotten progressively worse since.  Its almost as if a big snowball was created that got bigger and bigger over the years.  The origin of this snowball?  Trying to be like a noble lady.  In short, the common English female abandoned all their previous identity, with all its social value, and “play acted” a noble lady.  In so doing, they took up a false, and shallow, identity which had little actual social value and which did not really reflect them.  This got progressively worse by the late 1800’s and, soon, females were having mental problems as a result (such as neurosis) and the began to develop really poor and bad views of the female.  As time went on the female identity was eroded and their social value dwindled, among other things.

The effect of this problem has appeared in many ways, such as:

  • A common one, and one which figures prominently in this election, is what I call the ‘female-as-victim’.  Basically, they tend to become particularly preoccupied with the female being a victim in some way or another.  I’ve seen this so bad that they see victimizing in everything and are all-to-eager to see themselves as victims.  Trump says one small word, for example, and the females are on it playing the “victim”.
  • They develop a really bad view of the female.  I was often stunned how bad females viewed the female.  In fact, I had to start defending the female at one point (see my article “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“).  This bad view of the female is at the base of a lot of what they do and feel.
  • They try to be like men.  This is really a “cover-up” for their female identity problem.  They will even use politics to justify it by using words like “equality”.
  • Another common theme is accusation and blame.  They basically accuse and blame other people for their problems.  The male, especially, has been quite a target.  In fact, I have been nothing but appalled how the male has been blamed for all their problems.

One of the reactions to the ‘failed sex’, in the 1800’s, was the development of a ridiculous and oddball philosophy called ‘feminism’ (see my article “More thoughts on that destructive philosophy called feminism – my overall impression after almost three decades of observation“).   The claims these people have said have been almost unreal and still rank as some of the most absurd I’ve ever heard (see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists” and “On how I was insulted by a statement by Hillary Clinton – feminist egocentrism – feminist equality“).  Typically, the basic premise of the ‘feminists’ is a political version of the ‘female-as-victim’, as well as accusation and blame, often amounting to “the female is a victim of the oppressive tyrant male who enslaves and oppresses them”.  That’s ridiculous!  And what’s even more ridiculous is that they seem to think that using political theory somehow makes their claims right.  In actuality, their actual problem is with the female identity, which is a problem THEY have.

The problems associated with the ‘failed sex’ have appeared a little bit too much in this election.  This has mostly appeared in the ‘female-as-victim’ point of view.  I’ve seen many females turn Trump into the “oppressive male tyrant”, for example, over the stupidest of reasons.  My personal favorite is his so-called “war on women” which are mostly statements of how he doesn’t like this person or that person, that a female is “overweight”, or “looks like a pig”, and such.  A “war on women”?  You got to be kidding.  This is just another example of the all-so-familiar feminist paranoia as, according to many of them, the male has conspired to oppress them since the beginning of time (see my article on the absurd claims of feminists above).  No doubt the fact that there is a female as one of the candidates that has helped to promote, and exaggerate, these feelings in this election.  This is a good example of another deeper issue that really has nothing to do with the Presidency but figures prominently in it.


What a lot of this reveals is that people have a mistaken view of the President.   Its as if, in atheist America, the President is being given the role similar to God.  That is, that the President has these qualities:

  • Immense power to do anything.
  • Can solve all the problems.

The President has neither, in actuality.  Many of these ideas originate from Kingship which assumes all this power that isn’t there (see my article “Thoughts on the stages of kingship“).  It originates from the idea that the King is half-man, half-god.  This was very prevalent in Western Europe and in England.  Its basic premise would carry over into the government and was passed over here to the U.S. (see my article “Thoughts on the myth of the ‘mysterious and miraculous power of the government’“).  Its because of this that I always found it comical how Americans profess democracy, people rule, and the importance of the individual but unknowingly persist in the idea that the President (the “American King”) is like a half-god, who can do miraculous things.

Manifestations of this belief in the power of the President include:

  • That he can solve all the problems.  Many people are looking for the President to end all their worries, discontent, and unhappiness in life (such as the deeper issues described above).  There is this belief that the President will wave his magic wand and it will all end.
  • That the President, once elected, will have all this power to do miraculous things.  Some people anticipate the good side of this imagined power, that it will be beneficial (which usually means the President reflects their point of view).  Other people are worried over the bad side of this imagined power, that it will harm them or create problems for them (which usually means the President will not reflect their point of view).  In short, they overestimate the power of the President and either anticipate or worry over what he can do.
  • Because of the imagined power of the President anything that goes wrong will be blamed on him, whether he is the cause of it or not.  I’ve often jokingly said that the “main purpose of the President is to be the scapegoat for the countries problems”.  There is some truth to this.  No matter what happens, the President is viewed as the cause.

In short, then, a lot of the feelings in this Presidential election are over a mistaken belief that the President has all this power.  In actuality, the President does not have this type of power, has no magic wand, and can do little or nothing about many things (see my article “Thoughts on the myth of the power of the U.S. President – government stagnation, the “tyranny of blame”, and other things“).  The fact is that the President is not half-god, nor a King.


I tend to feel that, when its all said and done, this election will be a “much ado about nothing”.  In ten years we will probably being saying, “remember that election in 2016 that everyone was so concerned about? . . .”  That, I think, is the most likely scenario.  It will probably be no different than any other Presidency, having good and bad qualities (depending on where you stand, of course).

But I do think that there are things to worry about that make this Presidency different.  First of all, both candidates have a “point to prove”.  This is particularly so because of the circus that this election has become.  In fact, its made it all the more important.  I see several concerns:

  • The idea that they must “make their mark” and make their Presidency something special.  This means they may put forth special effort to endorse their special viewpoints, whether good or bad.  More than likely, they will probably be more dramatic than usual.
  • They are trying to make America great again.  In this way, they are going to “force” a condition to happen that isn’t there.  This may lead to great problems.

Because of these, its possible that there is a greater probability that they may cause something that may become adverse and not in the best interests of the country.

In addition, they are dealing with a country with a lot of problems.  I am getting this impression that American politicians, in general, are not fully aware of this problem and are not intent on solving it at this time.  The belief of the “American invulnerability” is still too strong in politics.  As a result, there will probably be more of a tendency to neglect this issue which means nothing will be solved or dealt with.  In this way, either candidate will probably actually do little to solve the actual problems of the US which may sink us further into problems.

If Clinton gets into office I am worried about the liberal and feminist reaction.  They may use her as a “platform” to promote their agenda’s.  Both of these (liberalism and feminism) have been destructive to this country, in my opinion.  We don’t need more of it shoved down our throats at this time.  This is a worry.

Despite these worries, which may or may not become an issue, I’m more inclined to think that this election is more likely to be a lot of commotion over nothing.  As I said above, I tend to feel that a lot of this commotion is really over deeper issues that the President has no control over and which do not involve him.

That’s how it appears to me at this time.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Current affairs and events, Government and politics, Historical stuff, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on attention and “hyper” problems – the dilemma of being too “image-focused” and other things

Here’s a thought I had:

I’ve noticed that many boys, especially, have attention problems and “hyper” problems.

Attention problems – easily distracted, can’t concentrate

“Hyper” problems – they have difficulty sitting still or being in a single position for long periods of time

Both of these problems are related and, it seems to me, reflects the same condition in different ways.


At this time, I’m under the impression that these problems are caused by living too much in a world of images.  These images originate primarily from things like TV, video games, cell phones, and the like.  In other words, the image generally originates from some form of a screen.  In this way, we could speak of these problems as a form of “screen sickness”.  The prevalence of screens, nowadays, has caused a tendency of living a life where the screen plays a critical role.   We could speak of this condition as being “image-focused”.

I should point out that though I emphasize the “image” there are other sensations that play a role but they typically tend to take on a subsidiary role to the image.  A good example is sound.  The “image”, as I’m using it, refers to a condition where one is focused on a specific sensory point (in this case, the “image”) and all other senses tend to follow this sensory point.  We could call this the “sensory point orientation”.  It has these characteristics:

  • Single sensory stimulation and focus.  That is to say, there is a “primary sense”.  This is the sense that is focused upon.
  • The other senses are subsidiary to it.  That is to say, all other senses are “subsidiary senses”.  These senses tend to “follow along” after the “primary sense” and are not focused upon by the mind.

The tendency of focusing on the “primary sense” creates a tendency of :

  • Compulsive focusing.  This more or less says that there is a tendency where the mind must focus on the “primary sense”.  In some sense it has the quality of looking through a tube.  If this is done long enough it becomes habit as well as a generalized attitude.
  • Distorted reaction.  Since there is a “primary sense” all the other senses are not as “open” or “digested” effectively.  The effect of this is that the reaction tends to be somewhat distorted because the whole mind is not being used . . . the mind is primarily reacting to the “primary sense”.  In addition, the reaction tends to only be in relation to the “primary sense” and what it offers.  The other sensations that are not related with the “primary sense” can be used minimally or not at all.  The overall effect is one of distortion to sensory stimuli.

As a result, we cans see that the “sensory point orientation” tends to cause problems in reacting and association with the world.  This can become particularly prevalent as a result of things such as these:

  • Intense concentration.
  • Doing “sensory point orientation” for too long a period of time.
  • It becomes habit.

I should point out that “sensory point orientation” is commonly seen in everyday life but in mild levels and sporadically.  It “comes and goes” with the affairs of life and does not make a lasting impression.  When there is a problem is when there is too much “sensory point orientation” and it becomes too dominant. Most of normal life one experiences can be described as “generalized sensory orientation”.   It has these characteristics:

  • All the senses are “open” and receiving stimuli.  That is, it uses “generalized sense receptivity”.
  • Any stimuli is exposed to all of the senses, not just a few.  That is, it utilizes a “generalized sensory reaction”. 

This more general orientation allows the overall mind to give us an overall reaction to the stimuli that encompasses more of our self and capabilities.  In this way, it is more holistic.  The “sensory point orientation”, on the other hand, is focuses on the “primary sense” and, accordingly, is not holistic in orientation. The “image”, primarily through the means of a screen, tends to lead to a “sensory point orientation” typically.  This is because of the more singular and focused nature of the “image” or screen which makes this orientation more inevitable.  The continual use of the “image”, or screen, reinforces this orientation over time and makes a habit out it.  This can make the “sensory point orientation” very dominant and influential in a persons life to the point that it causes problems.

There are several forms of being “image-focused”:

  • Passive.  A good example is watching TV.  Generally, the self and body does no great reaction to what’s on the screen.  One is primarily “watching” much like watching a play.  Oftentimes, one is only “sensing” the program and the mind follows along casually.  This often makes watching TV relaxing.  Because of this, the passive form tends to have minimal impact.  The problem with the passive form primarily seems to be an issue of if it is excessive or not.  If its excessive then it can cause problems, such as apathy, daydreaming, and such.
  • Active.  The best example of this is computer games but it could also entail things like cell phones.  This is where the real problems arise as one is now actively responding/reacting to what is on the screen.  As a result, the senses, mind, and body become particularly focused creating a strong “sensory point orientation”.

The active element shows that the ‘screen sickness’ is not actually rooted in looking at a screen but when one is actively participating with what is on the screen.  It does this by the fact that the “image” becomes mesmerizing and dominates the senses and the mind.  The “image” creates a “primary sense”.  The self gets absorbed by it and the body follows suit.  Everything, then, ones whole being, tries to maintain this condition of being “image-focused”.  Things like computer games seem to do this the most. We could say that an active “image-focused” condition creates what can be described as an “image reality”.  That is to say, a false world is created in ones mind that is based on the condition created by the “image”.  One develops attitudes and orientations that are primarily reacting to this “image reality”.  For some people, I believe, this “image world” becomes a particularly strong form of “reality”, one that can displace the actual reality of the world.

I should point out that when I say “image reality” I do not mean that in the respect of something like a psychosis where people are living in a fantasy world.  What happens in the “image reality” is that the senses, mind, self, and body become “accustomed” to the “image reality” world.  Its not that they “live in a fantasy world” but that they have become “accustomed to a false world”.  The false world, of course, is the “image reality” created by being “image-focused”.


So we see that the condition of being “image-focused” establishes a pattern in regard to the self:

  1. The senses focus on the “image” or screen – the “primary sense”.  This is when one is aware of images, and such, that is on the screen.
  2. The mind focuses on the “image” or screen.  This is when one makes sense of what is going on.  One understands the story, can make sense of the characters, etc.
  3. The person focuses on the screen.  This is one gets “involved” with the image (plot, story, etc.).  It gets interesting, tense, etc.  One “feels a part of it”.
  4. The body follows the above actions.  This is the bodies reaction to the above, such as relaxing, getting tense, working a joystick, etc.

What we see is a movement from senses to mind to person to body.  And this process is initiated by the focusing on an “image”.  In other words, the “image” is what comes first, everything else responds to it.  To put it another way, the mind is so focused on the “image” (the “primary sense”) that it is unable to give an overall generalized reaction.  In this way, we see that it effects the whole person:

  1. The senses.
  2. The mind.
  3. The person.
  4. The body.

We can see that the “image reality” is not just a “mental reaction” but something that has impact on ones entire being and person.  One effect of this is that it creates a constraining effect on the self.  It deprives one of the overall experience of the self and, subsequently, the world.  This is because the world is experienced through the self . . . the self is the window in which a person experiences life.  This is why this it can have such a dramatic effect.  As a result of this, the “image reality” only effects a small aspect of a persons self.  One could say that it has minimal effect compared to the “real world”.  In this way, one could say that it tends to develop a “narrowed self”.  That is to say, its a self that is only using a small part of its makeup and capabilities.  This makes it so that the self is only “half used”.  When the “narrowed self” becomes a dominant makeup in ones self it creates a self that is incomplete and insufficient.  Relating with the “real world” can be awkward and even difficult to the point they avoid it. This narrowing of the self is seldom known and the person is unaware that it has taken place.  This is because there are two different aspects of the self:

  1. A sense of a self.  This is a sense of ones self, of ones existence and what one is.
  2. The behaving self.  This is the self as it actually behaves and does.

These are two separate and distinct things that can become disassociated.  In other words, a person may have a sense a self but not a sense of the behaving self.  That is, a person is not aware of what they are doing even though they feel a sense of a self (they feel a “complete person”).  This shows some interesting things about the self:

  • That the self assumes that the self is complete (that one is a “complete person”).
  • That the self assumes an entirety of ones makeup will be used (that ones “whole being” will be used).

In other words, the sense of self makes one “assume” that certain things will be there.  This shows that the sense of self is an already “pre-wired” aspect of ones makeup that makes one feel complete and whole, as a single entity, regardless of the conditions or whether its true or not.

Typically, experience with the “real world” tends to do things like:

  • It unifies the sense of self and behaving self.
  • It “harnesses” the whole self.
  • It develops many aspects of ones self, mind, and capabilities.

In short, the “real world” tends to develop the whole person.  It as if creates a complex that uses all aspects of our being, such as:

  • Awareness
  • Senses
  • Movement
  • Space
  • Participation
  • A world sense
  • An overall unified experience

In these ways, it shows that the “real world” as if harnesses and disciplines ones whole self and capabilities.  It gives them all these qualities and capabilities a place and a purposeBeing “imagefocused” only uses part of the self.  In this way, it makes it so that a person is as if “living through a tube”.  This more or less says that the “real world” fosters growth and development of a person.   The “image reality”, on the other hand, only develops a small aspect of ones self and, as a result, actually hinders growth and development of the person.  This is simply because growth and development of a person requires ones whole self, not parts of it.  In this way, the “narrowed self” is a self that has become limited in its manifestations and lacks growth and development.

The “real world” is also made up of many sensations, situations, impulses, reactions, and such that one must adapt to, manage, and deal with.  In the “image reality” there is an absence of these varying qualities of the “real world” which make it so that there are no distractions or altering qualities to contend with and adapt to.  In other words, it creates something like a “pure sensation” . . . the “image” is all there is.  One effect of this is that it creates a more intense and impactful experience because of things like these:

  • The mind is particularly focused.
  • Being “pure experience” it is very intense.
  • A tendency of an atrophy, neglect, or lack of consideration of everything else.

This causes a tendency of something like looking through a tube.   The mind gets accustomed to this condition and only learns this condition and becomes adapted to it.  As a result, when they are in the “real world” their mind and body are always trying to change its orientation to recreate the “image-focused” condition.  We could speak of this as the “narrow self jerk reflex”.  That is to say, their “narrow self” keeps trying to “jerk” itself back to the original “image reality” condition.  It seems, to me, that this jerk reflex plays a big part in attention problems and “hyper” problems.

The tendency to the “narrow self jerk reflex” seems to show that there has been a number of qualities created by the “image reality” on the person:

  • That it is excessive.  That is, there’s too much of it.
  • That it is intense.  Its sensory element is overwhelming and draws them into it.
  • That it is impactful on the person.   Many boys, in particular, are greatly impacted by this (see below).  In many ways, the impact on the person may be its greatest danger.

Because of these, it has had great influence on the person.  In some ways, one could say that these sucks a person into the “image reality” and makes them stay there.


 When the “image reality” becomes dominant it creates things like these:

  • They can’t seem to control themselves (mentally and/or physically).
  • They don’t care how they look or behave.
  • They have difficult with the loudness of their voice.
  • They have bad or no manners.
  • They tend to be concerned only with themselves often with no regard, or even awareness, of other peoples concerns.
  • They are over-reactive to conflict (they may get mad easily, are rebellious, confrontational, argumentive, etc.).
  • They have no interest in things that normally interest people at their age (such as dating or getting a job).
  • They can’t seem to concentrate on things or bounce around erratically.
  • They have difficulty sitting still and seem fidgety and nervous.

These problems show a tendency of things like these:

  • Of being too preoccupied with some other condition (not the “real world” condition they are in).
  • Of an inability to deal with the variable conditions of life.
  • A lack of personal discipline.

In other words, the “image reality” condition causes a tendency of being unable to associate (respond/react) with the “real world” and with themselves.  They have become “conditioned” to the “image reality” and are always expecting the world to replicate it wherever they go and whatever they do.  If the “image reality” condition does not appear then the “narrow self jerk reflex” as if forces them back to that condition causing them to develop odd reactions, such as the above.  This is the “image reality replication”.  In this replication they are actually reacting to a condition that is not there but in which their mind expects to be thereIts like a drunk trying to drive as if he were sober but continually swerving across the road due to his altered sensation and motor reactions.  In many ways, it is a similar situation.  In some respects this shows that this problem has taken on the qualities of a habit or an addiction and can probably even be considered a form of them.

The examples above show that there are many manifestations of “image reality replication”.  That is to say, it affects a person in many ways.  It seems, though, that all these manifestations can be put into two groups:

  1. Mental – attention problems.  This shows the intensity of the mind the “image-focused” condition creates.  The mind is trying to focus on the “image” that isn’t there.
  2. Physical – “hyper” problems.  This show the physical effects the “image-focused” condition creates.  The body is trying to react to the “image” that isn’t there.

This range from mental to physical shows the effects the “image reality” can have upon the person (as described above:  senses, mind, person, body . . . the “narrowed self”), that it can affect a person mentally to physically.  It seems to me, though, that a person will be more susceptible to one or the other.  That is to say, they will be more affected mentally or physically.  Some things that may cause this include:

  • A persons character.
  • The effects of intensity.
  • The effects of excess.
  • How it is experienced.

From what I have seen the mental reactions are more prevalent.  In other words, attention problems are more prevalent.  These attention problems tend to reflect two conditions:

  1. A tendency to focus.
  2. A tendency to neglect.

In other words, attention refers to a focusing on certain stimuli while neglecting everything else.

The “image-focused” or “sensory point orientation” tends to cause a prevalence of being too focused on a specific thing and being too neglectful to other things.  The example of “looking through a tube” is somewhat descriptive of this condition.

When they are in the “image reality” condition (such as playing computer games) they are displaying the focused tendency.  That is to say, they attention is intensely focused on the “image”.  People don’t normally see this as it is not displayed in normal everyday life.  When we see these people in normal life what we are actually seeing is the neglectful tendency.  This is because there is no “image” for them to focus on in everyday life and, accordingly, their focused tendency is not demonstrated.  As a result, all we are seeing is the neglectful side and it is this that causes many of the conditions described above (no manners, voices too loud, over-reactive, erratic concentration, etc.).  Normally, these things are “checked” by a decency and manners in everyday life . . . one could call this a “maturity”.  Because they are so “image-focused” they are neglected.  When we look at these symptoms we can see several forms of the neglectful tendency:

  • Social.  They have no “social sense”:  they’re rude, inconsiderate, don’t “check” their behavior with societies conventions (voices too loud, etc.).
  • Personal.  They can’t control themselves, fidgety, nervous, don’t care how they look or behave, etc.

In many ways, there is a complete neglect of everyday life.  It can make some of these people appear odd, nerdy, goofy, unappealing, rude, etc.  One can see that this tends to have great impact on their “social life”.  In fact, there often isn’t any.  The people they associate with are often like-minded people.  That is, people who are “image-focused” like themselves.  Its probably not surprising that much of the association with these people tends to not be personal at all (that is, face-to-face) but impersonal (that is, “screen-to-screen” as on a computer screen or cell phone).  In this way, they often have no social skills.

These effects can range from mild to severe.  In fact, one could say that the bulk of the younger generation probably displays these problems at least in some small amounts.  It can be so severe that it literally destroys some peoples lives (almost like drugs).


These problems are more dramatic with boys.  I believe this is because the male tends to be more ‘world-centered’, by nature, and are more needing of world association than the female (see my article “Some thoughts on the difference between male and female in children“).  In this way, it shows that the “image reality” condition tends to attract the ‘world-centered’ nature of the male.  In fact, my observation is that it is so strong that many males are somewhat helpless to its pull.  Because of this, males are more susceptible to it and fall to it easily.  In some respects, it becomes like a drug and they become addicted to it.

The pull of the “image reality” is so strong that it will dominate much of boys lives, self, and time.  If this becomes excessive then it tends to interfere with the males growth and development.  This then often ends up causing a great disruption in the males association with the world and with his self (as described above).  The result of these can be the symptoms we have been discussing.  

Because it affects growth and development it is particularly severe during the period of time when the male is growing.  It seems particularly damaging from about six to the teenage years.  If a male becomes “image-focused” in his later years (say his early twenties or later) he does not seem to be as impacted and its effect is minimal.  This is because his self has grown and developed and he has been more disciplined by the “real world”.  This seems to show that the more the male has been disciplined by the “real world” the less likely he is to fall to the problems created by being too “image-focused”.  This is because, being more “real world” oriented, the “image” is more minor.  In this way, the “image-focused” condition tends to take on the quality of being a “diversion” or “entertainment”, instead, and has minimal dominating effect on him.


Since the disciplining of the “real world” tends to decrease the problems created by the “image reality” it seems to suggest a number of ways to alleviate these problems:

  1. To make the person participate in the “real world”. 
  2. To minimize the “image-focused” condition.

I would think that this would help in many cases (but what do I know?).  In some respects, what may have to happen is something like a “retraining” back to the “real world”.

Many boys especially, it seems to me, need to be more rooted in the “real world”, beginning at a young age, for the sake of their mental health and growth.  In fact, I think the focus and orientation of young males should be in the “real world”:  learning crafts and trades, camping, hunting, sports, touring different places, and such.  In addition, they need to be under the guidance of older males to give them direction, identity, and someone to look up to.  I should point out that these things have been part of the life of males since the beginning of time . . . they have now become absent and, in a sense, been replaced by the “image reality” of TV, computer games, cell phones, etc.  This shows that this problem isn’t just rooted in the “image-focused” condition and a screen.  It has a root in the failure of society and culture in the modern world.  As a result of this we could add a third way to alleviate this problem:

3.  To live in a stable culture and a society.

But, it seems to me, for some people these problems have become too deep.  As a result, the things above may not be effective.  It seems this may be a result of things like this:

  • When it has appeared early in the child’s life.
  • When the child has been too exposed to it.
  • When it has been too intense.
  • When it has had too much impact on his personality.
  • When it has become habit.
  • When it has become an addiction.

Conditions, such as these, can make it harder to alleviate the problems.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some people who can’t be cured of these problems.  This is probably primarily because it has become too ingrained in the persons psyche and has affected them too deeply.


Interestingly, these same problems seem to be reflected in what is called ADHD or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.  Though they appear the same I’m not sure if we are looking at the same thing.  I should point out that I am not a great believer in “mainstream psychology” or the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – used to diagnose mental problems).  Though I was in psychology many years ago I have become very skeptical of its dictates, explanations, and solutions.  That is to say, I do not immediately accept “mainstream psychology” as an authority.

My observations above (and elsewhere in this blog) are primarily a result of my own personal inquiry and what my “gut” and intuition tell me.  To be frank, my observations above are a result of my disagreeing with what psychologists were saying about these problems, its explanations, and its solutions.  They describe how it appears to me at this time.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Dehumanization and alienation, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the unique association between the White Male and the modern world, as well as some of its effects

Here are some thoughts I had based on some observations I have made recently.  Some of these thoughts I have mentioned before in articles such as “Thoughts on the “male panic”” and “Thoughts on the ‘WAM envy’ – a success story turned bad“.

I have always felt that the white male is in a very unique position, primarily as a result of the fact that he created the modern world (I shall speak of the “white male” as WM in this article).  It has had both good and bad reactions and effects not only for him but for society and the world.

Oddly enough, much of the white males contribution, role, and influence in the modern world seems to be downplayed and, oftentimes, trivialized, if its noticed at all.  In fact, his contribution is generally not acknowledged or noticed from my experience.  If it is acknowledged it is primarily only an individual person, not the WM-as-a-group.  My observation, though, is that the WM-as-a-group is critical and plays a major role in all this.  But, since the modern world has now become so massive and powerful it has, in some respects, eclipsed the WM-as-a-group.  In this way, the massive size of the modern world has hidden not only the contributions of the WM-as-a-group but the problems it has caused them.  Because it has become so hidden a person must stand back and take another look.  I’ve found that the more I do this the more I can see that that there is a lot more to it than it, at first, appears.

Here are some of my impressions:


The white male appears to consist of Western European or Western European-descended males.  When I first observed this phenomena I originally thought it was directed toward the White American Males or WAM, as I called them.  Now I know that it goes beyond that to Europe.  More specifically, it refers to the white male originating from the Norse people (Germanic-Scandinavian) which make up Western Europe.  There is special emphasis with the English or English-descended male. This fact, I feel, shows that the condition that created this phenomena is primarily developed by the English and is, therefore, centered upon them and their descendants (and, sometimes, anyone who has a physical resemblance!).  From them it has spread to the British colonies of America.  As a result, it is the American white male, in particular, who has continued and developed this phenomena even further.  This fact shows that this phenomena largely reflects a cultural manifestation originating from the Western European male, specifically the English and English-descended male.  As a result of them, it tends to center upon them as a group.  This shows a tendency of what can be described as a ‘group centered tendency’.  That is to say, this whole phenomena tends to center on the acts of a specific group of people who, accordingly, creates it and controls it.  In addition, since it centers on them, as a group, this has been their main orientation, on themselves as a group, of their interests, of their concerns, and their world perception.  This is because it is a manifestation of their culture, primarily, which causes them to exclude other people as a result.  This tendency would be used to villanize and ridicule the white male, particularly in recent times, often making this group out as tyrants and oppressors for example.  In actuality, the ‘group centered tendency’ is a normal process that happens in human society.   What makes this group different is that they have created something that has had far-reaching and influential effects, and which ended up affecting much of the world (the modern world).  As a result, much of their behavior, and attitudes, tended to have greater impact.  Normally, the creations of any ‘group centered tendency’ does not have such impact nor develop such power and, as a result, the behavior and attitudes of the group tend to have minimal influence.

The cultural element tends to focus much of this phenomena on the Western European or Western European descended male, but it is not necessarily exclusive to them.  It can appear in other groups and nationalities but generally on a lesser level.  Not only that, they typically have to be in a social environment created by the WM.  It often appears in these other groups not because they are part of the phenomena itself but because they are somehow associated with the phenomena created by the WM.  For example, they may be living in the same country or went to schools created by the WM where they develop qualities such as these:

In this way it can entail other groups of people such as the Celts (such as the Irish or Scottish), the Spanish, Italians, Greeks, Slavs, and Jews.  Many of these type of people have made major contributions to the WM group.  Typically, they are only “a part of the group”.  The actual group they are in (Italians, Jews, etc.) does not make up the WM group.

Interestingly, these all tend to physically resemble the white male to some extent.  It seems a little harder for people who do not resemble the white male physically to be part of this group (the non-WM’s, such as oriental people, black people, and females).  This shows that the physical appearance of the white male plays a critical role in all this showing a strong ‘group centered tendency’.  This seems to have two origins:

  1. From the WM themselves.  Because the creations of the WM were created by their culture they naturally tend to focus it upon themselves and exclude other people not in the group.  It shows that this whole thing is related, and based, in a group mentality.
  2. From non-WM’s.  Not being part of the WM culture they view themselves as “off to the side” and watch the WM at a distance.  Because of this, they are not a part of it and removed.  This often creates a strong “them versus us” mentality as well as envy (see below).

My observation, over the years, seems to show that this tendency is actually strongest with non-WM’s.  In other words, it is the non-WM’s who display the greatest ‘group centered tendency’ primarily because they are not part of the group (because they are not a part of it).  In this way, the non-WM’s have actually contributed a lot in the creation of a “WM group” by segregating themselves as not being part of the group.  In other words, they feel “left out”, so to speak, which made them single out the “WM” as a separate group that is separate from them (the “us versus them”).  The WM did not segregate themselves out as a group that much, it seems to me.  Their stance would be more of a “they’re living in their own world”.  Because of this, the WM tends to view themselves as only participating in his own “WM culture”, oblivious of other people and its effects on other people.  This, I tend to feel, became one of the problems with the WM, as he became engrossed in his own “WM culture” as if it was a world unto itself, removed from the rest of the world.


Over the years, the WM created his own culture – the “WM culture”.  This culture was the net result of hundreds of years of development in Western Europe.  During this time many qualities have contributed to its makeup, such as:

  • Christianity.
  • Neoclassicism (the revival of Greek and Roman classics which led to things like democracy and science).
  • Royalty.
  • Norse mentality and traditions.
  • Exploration (of the world and ideas).

It has basically developed traits similar to any “culture”, such as:

  • A tendency where the “culture” becomes its own world independent of everything else.  As a result, there is a tendency to as if live in their “own world” oblivious of everyone else.
  • The “culture” is a manifestation of a group mentality.  In other words, it is based in a bond between a particular group of people.
  • The “culture” tends to be centered upon them, their concerns, and their world viewThey tend to not take into consideration other points of view and realities.
  • There is a tendency where they do not want other people, ways, or things, intruding upon their “culture”.  In many cases in history, an intrusion by some foreign quality can incite a violent reaction in some cultures.  This has happened within the “WM culture”, from time to time, as well.

These qualities would become particularly pronounced in the Western European male.  In fact, it is these qualities that made the “culture” quite strong and powerful and, eventually, very powerful.  Because the “culture” centered upon the WM, who is only a part of society, one could say that the “WM culture” became a subculture within the greater culture of Western society. 

I would even go on to say that the “WM culture” was “tribal” in many ways.  That is to say, it has qualities of a “tribe” much as we see in primitive tribes.  This “tribal” quality made the qualities above more intense and important.  This helped create qualities such as:

  • There became a stronger bond between the WM’s.
  • There was greater emphasis on their “culture” and ways.
  • There was a stronger sense that they “belonged” to their “culture”, ways, and creations, or that it was “theirs”, something that they “possessed”.
  • There was more of an exclusion of people not part of the “tribe” (non WM’s).

These are common qualities seen in many forms of “tribes”.

Being a type of a subculture, or “tribe”, the “WM culture” was not a generalized culture reflecting the greater culture of society and definitely not of the world.  It is primarily a reflection of a specific group of people, a subgroup in the society.  This fact reflects a number of things:

  • That it is an association or bond of a specific group of people.   People who do not have this association or bond tend to not reflect it that well.
  • That the association or bond of this group has a unique quality that creates it.  In other words, this unique quality can’t really be replicated completely by people who are not a part of this group.  It is a quality that is inherent in the subgroup.
  • That once this group disappears the association or bond disappears, the unique quality disappears, and what they created disappears with them.  In other words, what the “WM culture” created will probably fall when they fall.  In this way, it is really no different than any other “culture”, that when it falls, its “spirit”, so to speak, falls with it.  What remains are only remnants of what this “spirit” created.

I should also point out that “WM culture” does not reflect all WM’s but, in actuality, only a minority of them.  Many WM’s, in fact, have nothing to do with the “WM culture” at all.  In this way,”WM culture” is sort of misleading.  It really refers to a part of the WM that became particularly powerful and influential.  But it, by no means, reflects all WM’s.

In addition, with the varying qualities, traits, ideals, and such that have contributed to the “WM culture” there has developed many forms of it.  It seems that most varieties of “WM culture” lie within and remain within the WM himself and tends to not affect anyone else.  That is to say, it entails qualities that are only a concern to the WM himself and, accordingly, has very little, if any, influence on others.  In this way, it becomes a culture only they know.  Most WM’s live within this form of “culture”.  The “WM culture” that has affected the world is a form of “WM culture”.  It is not reflective, really, of all forms of it.  This form of the “WM culture” is very unique in that it has gone way beyond the WM himself and has had great impact and influence, not only for other people but the world.  This aspect of the “WM culture” is what created the modern world with all its organization, machines, inventions, etc.  It is this aspect of the “WM culture” that I speak of here.  This aspect of the “WM culture” has had so much influence, and wielded so much power, that many feelings, good and bad, have begun to revolve around it.


The creation of the modern world has created a great dilemma for the world, what can be called the ‘modern dilemma’.   This dilemma has origin in a number of sources:

  1. It has been too successful.
  2. It has had too much impact.
  3. It primarily reflects the Western European male character or WM.
  4. Because of the ‘group centered tendency’ they tended to emphasize only on themselves as a group, tending to disregard or leave out everyone else in its creation.

The effects of these can range from incredibly good to incredibly bad, things that are amazingly beneficial and things that are horrifyingly bad.  In this way, its often hard to say if the modern world is “good” or “bad”:  its a mixture of both.  In addition, to that, it has had tremendous influence and power.  In this way, the ‘modern dilemma’ is looking at something which has become so powerful and impactful, and with so many good and bad qualities, that it has become hard to determine if its good or bad.  Its almost as if there is no consensus as to how to view it exactly.  Typically, if its good or bad depends on where you stand and how you are affected by it.  This makes it so that there are no clear views on it, many of which are contradictory.  In addition, the impact and power of the modern world on peoples lives incites many deep feelings.  It can almost be religious, for some people, heralded as a savior.  Other people see it with horror and a threat.  So we see that the ‘modern dilemma’ describes a reaction to a condition placed upon peoples lives which appears in as many ways as there are differences in people.  Some of these same feelings, of the ‘modern dilemma’, are often placed upon the WM as well.

The influence of success

I’ve often said that the problem with the WM is that they have become too successful.  In actuality, the WM has created the most successful systems in history:  the modern world.  Never, in the history of the world, has any one single group of people created so many successful elements and on so many different levels.  Because of this I describe this as the “WM miracle”.  I say this because one could very well say that the success of the modern world has been miraculous.  The creation of massive ships, skyscrapers, jets, landing on the moon, etc. have an almost miraculous quality about them.  This is stuff that has never been seen before.  As a result, it has incited many feelings and reactions such as:

  • Fear.
  • Envy/jealousy.
  • Hatred.

These are feelings that are often directed toward the WM as he is associated with the creation of the modern world.  I, myself, have found this out from personal experience.  I’ve often been stunned at how intense these feelings can be in some people and how they can be directed toward us as a group, regardless of what we’ve done or our involvement.  Overall, its appearance has the quality of an apprehension, and seems directed to the WM as a group.  This is why I call it ‘WM apprehension’.  In this way, the success of the “WM miracle” (the modern world) has caused a tendency for people to become apprehensive toward it and the people who created it (the WM).  This will make many people grow to fear and hate the WM as well as become enviousIts a particular quality of attitude.   

The influence of being too impactful

This success of the “WM miracle” (the modern world), is seen on a multitude of levels:

  • Ideals.
  • Knowledge.
  • Government.
  • Society.
  • Inventions.
  • Discoveries.
  • Explorations.

These have made it so that the modern world has affected society as a whole, not just a small aspect of society.  In this way, the success has affected many people in society and in the whole world as well.  In other words, it has been very impactful on many people, many of which are not WM’s.

Unfortunately, for this miracle to happen there had to be great changes and effects, as a result.  Some of these were good, some were not.  Some were beneficial, some were tragic.  Some helped, some harmed.  This has caused a multitude of reactions, good and bad, much like this:

  • Destructiveness.  The modern world has done great destruction and damage and in many different way.  One could describe an aspect of the modern world as tragic.
  • Interference.  The modern world has intruded and disrupted many things.  In many cases, these have become damaging.
  • Helping.  The modern world has often help people even in small amounts.
  • Benefitting.  The modern world can often change things for the better.  Many peoples lives has been improved, and even saved, by the modern world.

Since the WM is associated with the modern world the attitudes about the WM tends to follow this pattern as well.  My experience is that the WM is typically viewed in a negative light, as a group and as a person, and is blamed for many of the problems helping to create the ‘WM apprehension’.

Interestingly, I’ve heard very few people praise the WM-as-a-group for what they have created (though they are generally willing to condemn and criticize them).  I’m often appalled by how we have all these special recognitions for other people (black history month, women’s history month, etc.) but there is absolutely nothing for the WM.  He doesn’t even get an acknowledgement!  I tend to believe that the tendency to exclude the WM is one of the manifestations of the ‘WM apprehension’ phenomena.   Everyone else is acknowledged for their contribution, however minor, except for him.  The WM is treated as a non-entity by society even though society has gained so much from the WM.  In many cases, society owes practically everything to the WM and what he has done and created.  I’ve often jokingly said that “I refuse to honor something like black history month or women’s history month until they have a white male history month.  But, if they get a month for what they’ve done, we should get a white male history decade for our contribution!”

The influence of the European  and Male character

The modern dilemma reflects aspects of what I call the “male creation”.  This refers to the things that the male character created (see my article “Thoughts on the “male creation”“).   In other words, the modern world is a “male creation”.  As a result of this, it is inherently associated with the male and reflecting male character traits.  In addition, being that it is created by the Western European male it reflects the character traits of Western European culture.  One of the effects of this is that it has naturally left out the character traits of many people such as:

These exclusions would become a part of the ‘modern dilemma’ and intensify the ‘WM apprehension’ even more.  The reason for this is that it created a problem where the modern world did not reflect most of the people it had power over.  As a result, many people found themselves influenced by an “alien” power, so to speak, in which many people could not, in some cases, even relate to.

Because it is a “male creation” the modern world reflects many “male characteristics” such as:

  • Great organization.
  • A tendency to comradery for the males (which can create an attitude of exclusiveness).
  • An orientation of confronting and dealing with the world.
  • A tendency to control things.
  • A tendency to emphasize the protection of ones self, family, and country, which often means a willingness to violence.
  • Creativity and innovation.

These qualities, of course, has had good and bad aspects with them and have had great impact on the perception of the modern world and the WM.  In this way, one could say that the ‘modern dilemma’ is really a dilemma created by the “male creation”.  To be more precise, the ‘modern dilemma’ is really the dilemma of the creation of the WM. 

The emphasis of the WM as a group

The ‘group centered tendency’, as I said above, has made the modern world exclusively a WM-made thing.  As a result, the tendency was for these things to happen:

  • They tended to play a part in it.
  • They primarily benefitted from it.

In this way, there was a tendency that it was exclusive to the WM alone.  Though a lot has been made out of this tendency, its really no different than a lot of other things in the world that people create, where they see it as “theirs” and do not want other people to possess it.  In fact, I’d say that the general stance of the WM is that it was created for themselves, not everyone else.  In normal situations, this would of been the case.  But their creation proved, as I said above, to be too powerful and influential.  Many WM’s, I think, never had any notion that it would become as powerful as it was.  To be frank, I think the WM was caught off guard by it all and still does not know how to react to his creation and the power it containsBecause of this, the general WM, in my opinion, tends to maintain a ‘group centered tendency’ orientation and views what they created as “theirs”. 


I’ve noticed the peculiar quality of “MW apprehension” for decades.  It appears in such a unique and odd way that I could never quite put my finger on it for years.  Being a part of the WM group I was often stunned at the weird suppositions and opinions people had about me (and eventually us).  I have seen many people look at me in ways such as:

  • As a threat.  I’m looked at as someone who it trying to undermine them, enslave them, degrade them, and even destroy them.  Oftentimes, I have no idea why or where they got this idea from.  I don’t believe I have ever provoked these feelings in these people.
  • As someone to hate.  I was often stunned how I was viewed with hatred, often for no apparent reason.  Its particularly strong with foreign or foreign-like people, including black people and Mexicans.
  • As someone who has all these benefits they don’t have.  That is to say, I’m treated as if I am ‘upper class’ even though I don’t make that much money (nor am I in a family that does).  Accordingly, they view themselves as ‘lower class’, in comparison, or as impoverished.  Apparently, the WM is supposed to have all this “stuff” that they don’t have.  I guess we “deprived” them of it, huh?
  • As someone to try to outdo and to compete against.  I was often stunned how people seemed to compete and try to outdo me for no apparent reason.  I’ve jokingly said that being a WM reminds me of the story where the best gunfighter in the Old West is always being challenged by people trying to be better than he is.  After awhile, he got sick of it quit being a gunfighter.  There are times I feel like that.
  • As someone who is supposed to know everything.  Some people seemed to think that I had all the answers and was supposed to know everything.  I remember a kid I knew in High School and Trade School (who was from Mexico) who always seemed to think I had these answers.  He also was competing with me all the time, always trying to know more than me.

Here we can see a whole range of effects from a threat to someone who knows everything.  That’s quite a range, from bad to good.  This is common with the ‘WM apprehension’, as I’ll mention below.  Even though it had a range from a threat to emulation, it generally has a quality of an apprehension in it somewhere I’ve found (the first two reflect a reaction to being threatened . . . the last three reflect an envy).  In this way, it often has a love/hate quality.  This gives it a very unique quality, consisting of mixed feelings that are often contradictory (of a feeling of being threatened mixed with a desire to imitate, for example).  This could be described as an ‘apprehensive contradiction’, which seems very unique to this phenomena.

This contradiction pervades opinions and attitudes about the modern world and the WM.  It is primarily reflective of the traits of the ‘modern dilemma’ described above.  In other words, the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ is really a reaction to the dilemma:  of a powerful system that has both good and bad in its effects making it difficult to determine to view it as good or bad.  As a result, feelings are often mixed and contradictory.  Since the WM has created the modern world the WM is often looked at in this contradictory way as well.  In this way, the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ tends to permeate the ‘WM apprehension’.  There develops both good and bad viewpoints about the WM as a result.  Often, you’ll see people state contradictory statements about the WM or reacting to him in contradictory ways.  One minute they may be try to emulate or imitate you and the next they are condemning you as an ‘oppressor’ or something.  One effect of this is that it has put the general attitude about the WM in a stance of uncertainty, no one is certain how to view the WM.  This often turns, it seems to me, into an indifference about the WM over the years.  That is to say, the WM is basically turned into a “nobody”, ignored and “pushed to the side”.  I’ve often been stunned how often we are treated like nobodies and ignored.  Often, no one even cares about our opinions (but they’ll listen to everyone else!).  Its really bizarre, one minute they are trying to be like you and the next they treat you like a nobody or condemning you.  So we see that the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ has more of a range, much like this:

  • Envy (causes things like emulation and imitation).
  • Hatred.
  • Indifference (ignoring and treating the WM like a nobody).

When several of these are directed toward the same person they all contradict each other, regardless of which one is used.  What this shows is that there are a multitude of ways the ‘apprehensive contradiction’ can appear.

Other Reactions

Some common reactions to the “WM miracle” include:

  • The success of the modern world has created an envy toward the WM.
  • The problems of the modern world has created a fear of the WM.

Envy can create:

  • Hatred and dislike.
  • Jealousy.
  • Feelings of being left out.
  • A feeling that the WM has taken things from them.
  • A feeling they are not allowed to do anything.
  • A desire to imitate.
  • A desire to outdo.
  • An ‘us versus them’ attitude.

Fear can create:

  • Hatred and dislike.
  • A blind fear.
  • A desire to destroy what they fear.
  • Feelings of being threatened.

Much of which stance you take tends to depend on where you stand and your situation.  What I mostly see are forms of envy.

Other aspects of the reaction include:

  1. If one is benefitted by it then one generally looks at the “WM miracle” as a system (that is, as technology, government, etc. . . . it is generally devoid of a human face).
  2. If one is adversely affected by it then the “WM miracle” is viewed as the act of a person, the WM himself.  Because of this, the WM is attacked personally as tyrants, oppressors, and such . . . the “WM miracle” is now viewed as having a human face.

The ‘WM apprehension’ can be directed in a number of ways:

  • Directed toward the person of the WM.  This could be the King, President, Official, or just a WM in general.
  • Directed toward the institutions created by the WM.  This could be the government, business, military, and such.
  • Directed toward the creations created by the WM.  This could be the machines, knowledge, weaponry, and such.

This shows this phenomena is not necessarily based around the person of the WM but everything the WM has created or is a part of.  In other words, the dilemma is about the modern world as a complex of different things (its creators, the inventions, the institutions, etc.) and not just one thing (such as the WM).  In this way, we see that the ‘WM apprehension’ is a reaction, in actuality, to a condition.  More specifically, its a reaction to power . . .

Aspects of Power

It appears, to me, that the ‘WM apprehension’ primarily revolves around not being part of the “power” of the “WM miracle” or modern world.  Being so impactful, and influential, the “WM miracle” created a lot of power inherent in its makeup.  Because of this, one could really say that everything revolves around the power that the “WM miracle” created, more than anything else, and that this is what is actually causing all the conflict.  In this way, its really just another “power game” or “King of the mountain” game, where people without power want to have the power:  they see the people with “power” and want it.  This is why the example I gave above, of the Old West gunfighter, is so appropriate:  they are trying to knock the person “on top” off and take his place.  To me, in its simplist form, the ‘WM apprehension’ appears to be nothing but a “King of the mountain” game.  The WM created the power (of the modern world) . . . now everyone else wants it.  The “apprehension” is a result of qualities created by the “King of the mountain” game.  One could then say that the “apprehension” is actually a mixture of these things:

  1. Feeling intimidated by the power.
  2. Not having the power.
  3. Wanting the power.

In this way, we see that the issue does, in fact, revolve around “power”.  Looking at it this way we can see the effects of power:

  • The fear of what power can do.
  • Of not having power.
  • Of being affected by power and unable to do anything about it.
  • Of feeling threatened by those in power.
  • Of not trusting those with the power.

Overall, this creates a sense of “apprehension”.  In other words, ‘WM apprehension’ is an apprehension caused by the existence of a new form of power that has appeared. 

Many WM’s, in my opinion, are not fully aware of the power that the “WM miracle” has created nor the problems its created.  Most, from my experience, tend to look at things casually, such as seeing something as “only something new”, a “new idea”, a “new invention”, a “new business venture”, etc.  In other words, they do not fully realize the effects their creations has created.  In this way, the WM is often the one who least see’s its effects and they often don’t see the effects of the power problems it creates.

But the power of the “WM miracle” (the modern world) is very impactful and influential.  Never, in the history of the world, has any one single thing been so impactful in the world.  In some respect, the WM bit off more than he can chew.  The power of the “WM miracle” turned out to be far more influential than he ever thought or knows how to deal with.  He was unprepared for it (everyone was, I think).  But now “the genie has been let out of the bottle”.

Interestingly, the general attitude of the WM, in my opinion, was in creating not in controlling power . . . he created the modern world.  The effects of it, though, he did not know how to handle.  In this way, the WM found himself at a loss.  The “WM miracle” went so beyond the WM’s capabilities that many WM’s began to condemn his own creations and see it in a bad light (see below).  So, we see, that the “WM miracle” put the WM in a precarious position.  He created something with so much power that not even he knew how to control it. 

But, for the non-WM’s, it created whole other conflicts.  They basically saw a power rise up above them that had effects such as these:

  • They were adversely affected by.
  • They were not a part of it.
  • That it had great power and influence over them.
  • That they were helpless against it.
  • That it made them appear or become inferior.

The most significant factor was how they were affected by it:  if they benefitted from it then they generally accepted it . . . if they did not benefit from it then they condemned it.  If they condemned it then they generally made issues out of “not being a part of it”.

Eventually, though, the modern world began to wield so much power and influence that many people wanted to be a part of it.  The problem is that they were not a part of it.  This caused things like this:

  • A feeling of being left out that hit deep.  This was often draped in political/legal jargon.  For example, they were “discriminated against”, it was “racist”, etc.
  • A tendency of imitation the WM by non-WM’s (see below).  This, interestingly, would cause a tendency for people to destroy their own identity.

In effect, many of the people who wanted to be a part of the new “power” of the “WM miracle” would sometimes get to the point that they would do things like use (or, rather, warp) law to get it or they would deny who they are to “appear” to be a part of it.  This shows the power the “WM miracle” has.  Things, such as these, would also start a process of the undermining of social institutions (such as law) and the degradation of the individual person (such as destroying their identity) . . . see below.  In other words, the scramble for power would scramble society and the person.

We can go on to say that the modern world wielded so much power and influence that the WM, its creators, also began to feel they were not a part of it.  In this way, the WM would be undermined by the very thing he created (see below).  In this way, even the WM would be adversely affected by it as well.

An interesting example of the effect of the “WM miracle”, on other people, is seen in a response I received from an article called “Thoughts on matriarchial societies: Africa, slavery, and rebuilding – the effects of non-organized society“:

“hey i am just waiting for these patriarchal societies to end the world….and matriarchal societies are not weak …..its the treacherous, deceitful, coniving, arrogance, self centered nature of white people. The Ethiopians are the original hebrews of the bible infact they can prove direct lineage to solomon….not one european jew can prove any lineage to ancient hebrew yet they STOLE someone else birthright. Now I beleive these patriarchal europeans practive thievary, arrogance, deceit in taking things that they like but not man enough to create on their own,”

Though it does not refer to the white male directly it is basically speaking of him . . . “patriarchal Europeans”.  Oddly enough, they are using Judaism as the argument, which shows how Jews are associated with the WM, being that they are similar in looks (and, in addition, many Jews had played a part in the “WM miracle”).  My feeling about the statement above is that they are equating the “patriarchal Europeans” with European Jews.  The problems is that most “patriarchal Europeans” are not Jews.  It appears, to me, that they are reacting to the “WM miracle” but are using religion as a means of authority probably because it figures prominently in their culture.  Hence they equate the WM with Jewish males as a general overall viewpoint.  From this statement we see a number of interesting traits:

  • The sense of a threat . . . the patriarchal societies (the societies the WM created) will “end the world”.
  • That patriarchal Europeans have stolen something from them . . . in this case, the Jewish heritage.
  • A general attitude of ‘us versus them’ (see the ‘minority and female versus the WM’ below).
  • That the patriarchal Europeans are not “man enough” to create a “birthright” of their own.  This is like saying “we’re the genuine ones, not them” . . . they are now “taking credit” for the Jewish heritage.  In this way, they are as if making themselves “bigger” and “better” than the patriarchal Europeans.  More than likely, this shows a sense of inferiority.

Basically, it appears to show a rather common reaction to the power of the “WM miracle”.  Overall, there’s a general sense of apprehension (the “WM apprehension”).  This apprehension is no doubt in direct response to the adverse effects the “WM miracle” has created for them.  One could say that this statement is a good example of the resentment that the power of the “WM miracle” created in the people who were adversely affect by it.  In fact, one could say that for those who did not benefit the overall effect of the power the “WM miracle” created was a resentment.  In other words:  power + adverse effects = resentment.


The power of the “WM miracle” was so great that this resentment could become great and extensive causing great tension, conflict, and hatred that still exists today.  In fact, for some people its a source of much hatred and ill-feeling in teh world.

Being adversely affected appears to of appeared from a number of causes:

  • Being negatively affected.  That is to say, they somehow suffered as a result.  The “WM miracle” was so successful that many people found themselves swept up in it, enslaved by it, or even squashed by it.  Naturally, this caused much bad feelings.  Sadly, many people have suffered, and even died, as a result of the “WM miracle”.  This is one of its tragic effects.  Though we may emphasize its effects on the world we must also remember that much of these qualities were first played out on their own people – poverty, social class struggles, the destruction of new weaponry, etc.  In short, the tragic side of the “WM miracle” knew no barriers and could effect anybody it influenced.
  • Envy.   Many people watched the success of the “WM miracle” and found themselves saying “why don’t I have that too?”   Its this envy that made many people want to be a part of it and somehow gain from it.  But envy is a negative-like feeling and describes a feeling of insufficiency and inadequacy.  As a result, it ended up having qualities much like ‘being negetavely affected’ described above and so created a feeling of resentment.  Interestingly, the base of much of this envy is really nothing but a form of greed.  In this way, one of the effects of the success of the “WM miracle” is that it may have fostered the growth of greed in many people and, perhaps, increased greed in the world.

It seems that this sense of resentment is one of the traits of the modern world and is intimitaly bound with it.  In fact, resentment is so dominant a feeling that a major reaction to the modern world is the attempt at decreasing, or alleviating, these feelings of resentment.  I would not be surprised that what many people call “democratization” is really nothing but attempts at decreasing resentment.  In other words, its not a result of politics and political truth as some people may think but, rather, the attempt at decreasing resentment that just happens to resemble democracy.  Why is this?  Because the attempts at decreasing resentment amounts to nothing but “allowing everyone to have the benefits of the modern world”.  The idea being that if everyone has access to the benefits resentment will disappear.

It seems that this “access for all” has decreased resentment to some extent, as near as I can tell, but its created some new problems, such as:

  • The destruction of societies and cultures.  To have access to the benefits of the modern world means you must open our society and culture to the modern world.  Because of its power this amounts to an opening up of ones society and culture to the destructive qualities of the modern world.  In other words, when you open up your society and culture to the modern world you lose your society and culture.
  • The blurring of people and individuals.  The destruction of society and culture, and the power of the modern world, tends to degrade people and turn into everyone into a blurr.
  • The development of a slavish attitude toward the modern world.  The modern world has such power that people find themselves slaves to it having to follow its every whim.  This is particularly true if you want to benefit from it.

In other words, humanity, and the human being, is being “moulded” to the mould of the modern world in order to gain its benefits.   To put it another way, to benefit from the modern world we must become its slaves and follow its every beckon and whim.  We must do what it wants, the way it wants, and follow its lead, good or bad.  In this way, trying to gain the benefits of the modern world is only turning humanity into its slave.  We may all gain from it by following this path today, as well as alleviate much of the resentment for the time being, but what of tomorrow?  What happens when humanity, the whole world, is enslaved to it?


The feeling of being adversely affected by the “WM miracle” became particularly strong after the cold war where the great power of the modern world was being demonstrated.  This was particularly as a result of the threat of nuclear annihilation and of complete destruction at the hands of weapons of destruction that was created by the WM.  As a result of this, ‘WM apprehension’ is often related to cold war themes and would be deeply bound up with themes originating there, such as:

  • Anti-war sentiment.  The WM would be viewed as a ‘war-monger’ and threat.
  • The destructiveness of war.  The WM would be associated with war, the weapons of war, and destruction in general.
  • The idea of oppression.  This originates from the political side which surrounded the cold war (freedom, oppression, etc.).  The WM would be molded into the oppressors, of people who controlled other people.
  • The idea of democracy and people rule.  The cold war caused a glorification of American ideals, of democracy and people rule.  The idea of democracy and people rule also catered to the feeling that non-WM’s were “not a part” of the “WM miracle”.  In this way, the idea of democracy and people rule gave a way for non-WM’s to either be a part of the “WM miracle” or it would be used as a defence against its effects.  This appears to be one reason that gave the idea, for example, that non-WM’s should “rule”, which was often glorified as a great cause, or that they were “oppressed”.

In effect, the anti-war attitudes turned into anti-WM attitudes during the cold war.  The cold war, then, is very much related to the development of an anti-WM attitude that continues down to this day.  In some respects, the cold war turned the WM into a “bad guy” to many people and gave them the excuses as to way.  Not only that, the cold war gave this idea that the WM was a person who couldn’t be trusted, that the WM are war-mongers and oppressors, for example.

In many ways, the cold war gave an outlet for the feelings of being adversely affected or “not a part of” the “WM miracle”.  It gave means, and themes, to vent these feelings.  It also created a false image of the WM that continues to this day.  In fact, it would have tremendous effect on the male in general (see below).

In addition, the cold war associated anti-WM feelings with politics and law.  This is because there was a tendency to use politics and law as a justification for the anti-war feelings during the cold war.  Since the WM is associated with the cold war this same tendency would be directed toward the WM.  The effect of using politics and law for anti-war and anti-WM causes ended up distorting and warping politics and law.  This is because, during the cold war, there became a great cold war paranoia and panic that developed.  One could say it was a mania, being very prevalent in the early 1970’s.  This mania used politics and law to justify its cause.  But, being a mania, they began to distort and warp politics and law for their cause and purpose.  The distortion and warpage of politics and law still exists today.


Because of the success and power of the “WM miracle”, with its success and problems, there has developed a tendency to suppress the WM and in many different ways.  This is because the WM is equated with the problems of the ‘modern dilemma’.  Its almost as if they think that by suppressing the WM they will suppress the problems of the modern world.  Often this suppression, is associated with ‘the minority and female versus the WM’ myth (see below).

The success of the weapons of war, as a result of the cold war in particular, has seemed to cause great apprehension of the WM.  It has made these associations:

  • WM = war
  • WM = destruction

These associations has been very prevalent since the Vietnam War in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s.  In fact, it seems to of caused an “organized effort” to suppress the WM as I, myself, have seen.  Because of this, there has been great effort to “suppress” the male as a person, as well as male associated things.

This suppression has gone to many aspects of the male character, such as:

  • Not allowing any weapons, even toy weapons.
  • Not allowing an form of anger or anything violent.
  • Not allowing any form of social hierarchy.
  • Not allowing any form of control.

The effect of this is to basically turn the male is turned into a vegetable who must “sit there”.  In addition, he is taught attitudes that are the opposite of these male character traits, such as learning peacefulness at all costs, not being angry, being “democratic” to destroy a supposed desire to control, teaching that to shoot a gun is bad, etc.

Other ways of male suppression include:

  • The WM is degraded in some way.  Often this entails trying to portray them as bad or tyrants or something similar.
  • Trying to replace the WM.  They often will try to replace him by becoming the WM, emulating what he does and how he does it, what I often call being the “new WM” (see below).
  • They try to put the WM in a “non-existence” stance.  The WM is treated as if he does not exist and is, in a way, forgotten.  This is often what happens with ‘righteous imitation’ (see below).
  • They try to accuse and blame the WM for everything.  All the problems of the world are the WM’s fault.  I was often appalled how the WM was blamed for everything in the world, as if the WM is responsible for it all.  This includes war, overpopulation, poverty, disease, etc.  In many ways, the WM has become the scapegoat for the worlds problems for many people.  Whatever the problem, its the WM’s fault.  Its become a joke for me, even, to always say “blame it on the white male . . . he’s at fault for everything”.
  • They turn the WM into a tyrant, oppressor, or villain.  He becomes the “bad guy”.  This is often assumed by people, often automatically.  In actuality, this is usually just a form of stereotyping the WM (see below).
  • They favor non-WM’s, even though the WM is more qualified or better.  I’ve seen this many times and, myself, have been the victim of it.  They’ve even made laws to guarantee the favoring of non-WM’s, whether qualified or not!  To be frank, watching this has destroyed my belief in this society.

Overall, then, what we see is a great attempt at trying to “take the WM out of society” or in  “demasculanizing” society.  This is often done under the guise of democracy and freedom.  That is to say, under the guise of self-righteous cause.  I’ve even seen references by people (such as liberals and feminists) that the suppression of the male will bring peace and harmony in the world.  In other words, the apprehension of the WM, as a result of the conditions caused by the “WM miracle”, has created points of view that the suppression, and even elimination, of half the world (the male) would end much of the worlds problems and bring world peace! 

These points of view would become particularly prevalent after the end of the cold war in about 1990.  The younger generation of males (even to this day) would particularly be demasculanized (I often speak of them as “the castrated generations”).  This shows how the suppression of the WM has turned into a suppression of the male in general by society.  In other words, the success of what the “WM miracle” created has caused a movement to the destruction of the male!  In this way, something like a male crisis has been created, of a society that has become pitted itself against the male.  So we see a pattern like this:

  1. The WM creates the modern world (the “WM miracle”).
  2. Non-WM’s feel adversely affected by the modern world.
  3. The weapons of war, caused by the Cold War in particular, creates particularly harsh feelings against the modern world.
  4. This is then associated with the WM.
  5. The villanizing, condemning, and suppression of the WM is begun.
  6. These feelings spread to the male in general.
  7. The male, overall, is suppressed.

This more or less says that the power of the modern world, a creation of the WM, has been so strong that it has caused a reaction against the male in general.

This suppression has gone on to a general shunning of the WM, in general, in ways such as:

  • The problems the WM have are not acknowledged or dealt with (they are neglected).
  • The WM are ignored.
  • The WM is treated as a non-entity.
  • The WM is not helped in any way.
  • The WM is not inspired or given confidence by society.
  • The WM are treated as if they have no value.

It seems that this shunning has turned into a generalized neglect.  Some of this neglect has become almost unreal to me.  I am particularly bothered to see little boys, nowadays, neglected and shunned in these ways.  I’ve seen quite a number of boys, in some families, so neglected that they are treated as if they don’t even exist!  In fact, I’ve found that the lives of many young boys have become a life of neglect.  I see this wherever I go.  Many boys, I have found, have sought a refuge in things, such as computer games or the fantasy land of books or movies, as a means to have “some value” in life, where something they do matters and where they are a somebody.  Many boys are starting to develop mental problems as a result of this.  In fact, I do believe I’m seeing many mental problems in boys, nowadays, that appear to be a direct result of this neglect.  I have been utterly appaled how this crisis in the lives of young boys is so neglected and treated as if it does not exist . . . all a part of the shunning and neglect the WM has received.

Many adult WM’s will confront this shunning and neglect as well (many have been brought up with it).  Many WM’s will find themselves in a society that often doesn’t seem all that supportive of him or seems to want him (such as see my article “Thoughts on being a “surplus human” – the importance of self-deception“).  Some of the things this has caused are:

From my observation, these are common attitudes in the male today.  In short, we see that the WM becomes a degraded person as a result.  Often, this is blamed on various things or he’s just called an “ass” or something.  There is a tendency to not see that it has a deeper origin.  Too often it is discounted as “no big thing” or treated as if doesn’t exist.

So what we see is that the shunning and neglect of the WM has had great and tragic effects on the WM.


With the dilemma of the cold war many of the non-WM’s (minorities or females) often viewed themselves as being victimized by the WM (which is really the modern world with all its weapons and such).  One of the weird effects of this is that it has caused a tendency for them to think that they are the ‘saviors’ of the world in some way.  By this is usually meant that they will reverse the effects of the “WM miracle”.  In other words, they will “save the world” from the adverse effects of the modern world.  As a result, there has developed a stance that it is the minority and female versus the WM.    Because of this, I call it ‘the minority and female versus the WM’ mythThis condition, of course, does not exist and is a myth that non-WM’s have created, particularly as a reaction to the cold war mania and paranoia during the Vietnam War.  If anything, its another example of the power the “WM miracle” had.  In other words, its a manifestation of the power issues caused by the “WM miracle” (see above).

This myth has gone so far that it has been put into law.  In some cases, employers and government must employ so many minorities and females, for example, regardless of their qualifications.  I, myself (as well as many friends), was told that I was excluded from the U.S. Army because I was not minority or female (see my article “Some thoughts on why I consider the U.S. a fallen country – denying its own people“).  This scenario, as I’d find out, is far more prevalent than I realized.  It had created a condition where minorities and females are given ‘special privilege’ because they are NOT WM’s.  In this way, something like a ‘reverse discrimination’ is created (though professing to be against discrimination) or a favoritism.   This often appears in a number of ways, such as:

  • Non-WM’s are accepted into things (such as jobs).
  • Non-WM’s opinions are listened to.  I’ve sat and watched how many WM’s are ignored and their opinions disregarded.
  • Non-WM’s are looked at as being “automatically better” then the WM, generally without cause to believe it.  This is a weird phenomena that has appeared.  Its created a myth that minorities and females are better or superior than the WM, even though the WM created everything they’re using.  In most cases, all they are doing is imitating the WM and, in so doing, they seem to think that they are better than the WM.  In other words, they think they are better than the people they are imitating!  It sort of has a quality of an actor thinking that they are better than the person they are portraying because they think they can imitate him better.  This has always made me chuckle . . . it also seems hypocritical.  This tendency to think they are better than the people they are imitating I often call the ‘righteous imitation’.  It is common with non-WM’s.  This tendency to ‘righteous imitation’ is a good example of the contradictory qualities of the ‘apprehensive contradiction’:  It shows an envy mixed with an indifference.  They are envious of the WM, and so imitate him, but then “push him to the side” and are indifferent to him, because they think they are “better” than him.  It is the fact that the non-WM’s continually displayed this type of behavior that most convinced me that this was a phenomena revolving around the WM.  Originally, I viewed the “WM miracle” as just a system, the modern world.  The continual observation of the ‘righteous imitation’ convinced me that the attitudes about the modern world was actually about two groups of people – the WM group and everyone else – and this is why everyone else was trying to imitate the WM.  If it was not for this I would not of thought that much about the WM and his role in all this.


The success of the “WM miracle” has caused a tendency to try to imitate the WM, a-try-and-become-a-WM stance.  In fact, I would be inclined to say that society has become what I call an ‘WM imitative society’.  That is to say, much of what is done is to have or do what the WM has or does.

This tendency to imitation seems to show a number of things in the people who demonstrate it:

  • It shows a sense of not being part of the group.
  • It shows an envy.
  • It  shows a sense of powerlessness.
  • It shows a sense of being threatened.

This makes non-WM’s very aware that they are not part of the group.  Because of this, they feel ‘left out’, ‘neglected’, and such.  This can go so far that they claim that they turn it into a political/legal issue, such as that it is ‘discrimination’ or ‘oppression’, etc.  It also creates a great effort to try to imitate or, rather, replicate the WM.  In other words, they are reacting to the WM and what he created.  Again, this shows the power of the “WM miracle”.

In my opinion, the imitation of the WM by people is actually degrading them, regardless of how successful they appear to be at doing the same thing as the WM.  In other words, one of the great things that is undermining people, nowadays, is the imitation of the WM.  This fact, I don’t feel, is fully acknowledged or noticed by people.  There is a reason for this:  many people have turned the imitation of the WM into a “status symbol”.  In this way, a “successful imitation” is viewed highly and as an achievement.  Because of this it is, of course, not looked down upon but with praise and esteem.  I see this a lot with females and some foreigners.  I should also point out that by “imitating the WM” I also mean to have what he has.

I’m under the impression, at this time, that a lot of the destruction of belief, culture, and religion in people is not because the modern world destroyed it, on its own, but because the people destroyed it themselves in by imitating the WM, in some way, so they can be part of the modern world.  In other words, imitation of the WM, by people, has been very destructive to them.

Here are some interesting points I’ve noticed about imitation:

  • Interestingly, people who imitate the WM never seem to develop his qualities and traits, though they may be able to “do” what he does.  Typically, they only repeat what he does, like playing back a video.  This more or less shows that imitation is not the means to power.  As a result, the technique of imitation really doesn’t work.
  • Another aspect of imitation is trying to “get into” the club.  That is to say, they try to get into the modern world and be a part of it and, thereby, gain its power.  This, it seems to me, works much better and is how most non-WM’s have gained “power”.


I, myself, have noticed that there is a particular “bond” between WM’s that is not seen with non-WM’s.  When this “bond” is made it seems as if a ‘magic’ can sometimes happen.  I tend to feel that this is a result of a cultural bond.  In other words, I have often felt that the “WM miracle” is a result of a cultural bond between WM’s.  If this is the case, then it shows that a lot of the “WM miracle” is a result of a cultural manifestation.  Normally, the “modern world” is viewed as a separate entity, an abstract system, independent of a culture or any social bond.  Its often looked at as a result of a scientific truth, which usually is viewed as being devoid of any cultural or social bond.  My observation, though, is that the modern world is very culturally based and is reflective of a culture.  This means that it is not some abstract point of view, independent of any culture or society.  In other words, its not based on a “generic culture” that is applicable to all the world.

 The culture of the modern world, really, is the “WM culture”, which created it.  This culture is based in a bond between the WM’s, which is often unseen, even by WM’s.  I would even go on to say that this “bond” is very “tribal” in quality and has strong tribal-like qualities.  In this way, the bond between WM’s is a “tribal” bond, which is no doubt why its so powerful.  There are variations in this, of course, particularly in intensity and who is “part of the tribe” but, overall, it has a tribal-like quality.  In fact, the more I look at it the more “tribal” it becomes.  In other words, the “bond” is “tribal” in origin and manifestation.

This tribal-like quality is probably why there is often an attempt at ‘safeguarding the WM bond’ by the WM which can, at times, be very strict and severe.  In fact, if one looks at the life of the WM, in the past 150 years or so (which happens to coincide with the modern world, interestingly enough, which is probably no mistake), one will see that there has been many manifestations of this strictness, such as:

  • The ridiculing people who do not meet their ideals.
  • The exclusion of people who are not a part of the “tribe”.
  • A strict social structure.
  • Great demands on behavior, ideals, and actions.
  • Having to “prove their worth”.

These things (which all reflect a tribal quality) have caused great and tremendous stress and strain on the WM over the years, a side of the life of the WM that is seldom mentioned.  In some cases, it has turned life into a hell for some WM’s, often by things like bullying, ostracizing, and the like.  Its also put great demand on the WM because it forces him to have to behave a certain way.  So we see that the WM’s tended to be very strict with themselves, as a group, which reflects its tribal-like nature.

In a “tribal” mentality, there tends to develop a strict social code between people “in the tribe” and people “without the tribe” which usually entails great etiquette and manners.  Usually, great respect is given when these strict codes are maintained.  This is seen in the association with females, children, and some foreigners who are treated with great respect and etiquette.  When the strict codes are violated or altered in some way, a number of reactions can take place, such as:

  •  Anyone who is not an WM, or part of the “tribe”, is perceived as destructive to the “tribe” causing a despising-like reaction.  There have been times where this can incite violent reactions.  I’ve seen this many times and have felt it.
  • There is a marked demarcation of those in the “tribe” and those who are not in the “tribe”.  Anyone who “crosses the line”, so to speak, is despised and it can even incite violence.
  • There is often a tendency to look down on people who are not a part of the “tribe”.  This is usually demonstrated by WM’s who have a lot of pride and arrogance.
  • Anyone trying to emulate an WM is often despised or looked down upon.  I know this from personal experience.

These all reflect common tribal-like reactions and are, frankly, common in the world in any “tribal” condition.

Looking at these qualities we can see that a “tribe” is really a special “bond” between a certain group of people in a society making it something like a subgroup.  This “bond” is so valued that there are great attempts to maintain its existence and quality within the “tribe”.  In many ways, the maintaining of this “bond” is the purpose of the “tribe”.  In addition, it creates a strong sense of those “within the tribe” and those “without the tribe”.  This distinction creates a strong social code in the association with people who are “without the tribe” that must be maintained.  Any breaking, altering, or corruption of this social code can incite bad, and even violent, reactions.  One could say that this is the “tribal condition”.  It is a worldwide phenomena.  History also shows that it is a force that must be respected as it can cause a lot of hatred, violence, and discontent.


The WM, being the creator of the modern world, has a position of authority.  As a result, he has the problems of authority.  As is often said “the position of power is the loneliness position of all”.  This is because authority has particular qualities:

  • No one helps.
  • He’s blamed for everything bad.
  • He is viewed as unreachable.
  • He is given no sympathy or support.  This has created an attitude of “indifference” toward the WM, which is one of the reasons why no one notices this problem.  This sense is no doubt the origin of a statement I often hear from WM’s:  “We help them but no one will help us”.  He is given no sympathy or support in the same way parents and the government are not given sympathy or support by the children or people.

This is particularly a problem because the WM is given the same attitudes of one who is in authority but he, in reality, is not in authority.  In fact, no one is in authority over the modern world.  The modern world is really a beast with a life all its own.  In other words, the WM is treated as if he is in authority, with the same attitudes, when he actually has no authority.

These attitudes show that the WM is associated with an image of authority.  But, as I said, its an authority he does not have.  This shows that the image of the WM-as-authority tends to be a false image.  It does not reflect the actual condition.  In this way, the authority of the WM is something like an illusion.


Oddly, the WM have found themselves alienated in the very world they created.  Many WM’s are finding themselves detached from it and unable to adapt so much that they are having difficulty dealing with it.  In fact, I tend to believe that there has developed a sickness, a ‘WM alienation’, that is slowly beginning to define the modern WM.  In many ways, a modern WM has now become an alienated WM.  He has found himself lost, detached, and uprooted in a society that he has created.

One aspect of this alienation is the orientation the WM has had toward it all.  In general, the WM creates and establishes.  The non-WM’s utilize.  Because of this, the WM’s have a hard time “fitting into” the very world they created.  They often have a hard time utilizing what they created.  Its not uncommon that the non-WM’s do better here.  As a result, many WM’s find themselves creating stuff only to have it taken from them as I, myself, have observed.

But the WM has also been alienated because of the “WM apprehension” which has begun to shun, suppress, and neglect him (as described above).  In this way, the society has begun to alienate the male, often turning him into a nobody or non-entity.  I’ve often been stunned by this and how it is completely bypassed and looked over as if nothing happened.


Oftentimes, the modern world is not viewed as a “thing” or “system” but as something being identical to its creators, the WM, as if they are the same thing.  In other words, the modern world is perceived as having a human face:  the WM.  As a result, he tends to be blamed for everything and is the image to villanize.  I’ve seen many cases where a white male is automatically viewed as corrupt or oppressive (such as in politics) even though there is no reason to think that.  I’ve even heard people say things like “he’s part of the people who caused all the problems”, meaning the WM.  So the solution is to put non-WM’s in these positions because they are not “part of the people who caused all the problems”.  I think this scenario is far more prevalent than people think.  Of course, no one notices this as bias and discrimination.  If it happened to anyone else it would surely be made a big deal out of.

This tendency of needing a human face to blame things on no doubt has origin the phenomena of Kingship (see my article “Thoughts on the stages of kingship“).  Kings were often viewed as the source of the societies problems (beginning with causing “bad crops” in the early years).  In English society Kingship is very strong and much of this tendency continued in England.  As a result, the problems of society were often viewed as being the Kings fault, as if he had done it himself on his own accord.  A good example would be King Charles I who was beheaded during the English Civil War after being blamed for all the problems.

Since the WM is largely English, reflecting English culture, much of these attitudes of Kingship would be continued with him.  In short, the WM would be equated with a King and, accordingly, blamed for all the frustrations, angers, and feelings that the modern world created whether he was responsible or not.  So we see that the royal tradition of England would be continued with the modern world and the WM.  To go even further, it seems that the WM has received a similar sentence as King Charles I after being blamed for the countries problems.  One could say that the WM was also “beheaded”, in a sense, because of the problems the modern world created.


A big element of the degradation of the WM has been initiated by the WM himself!  My observation is that they are contributing to a lot of their own fall as well as the fall of the “WM miracle”.  This is done by things like:

  • Christian attitudes.  These tend to create an attitude of self-undermining and self-degradation which also would entail a belief in their own suppression and degradation (“we’re all sinners!”).
  • Democracy and freedom.  As mentioned above, these themes were often used to degrade the authority of the WM.
  • The self-defeating male.  Recently, the male has created many self-defeating attitudes that only undermine him (see my article “Thoughts on the self-defeating quality in the post-WWII American male – the coming of the ‘nothing male’“).
  • The pussy whipped attitude.  This reflects a general attitude of the male that is self-undermining (see my article “Thoughts on the American pussy whipped coward male . . .“).
  • Their attack and rebellion against the older generation, which became particularly prevalent after about 1970.  By attacking the older generation they as if undermined themselves by taking away their foundation.
  • The abandonment of traditions, morality, values, and beliefs.
  • The lack of organized cohesion.  That is to say, they ceased working together.  This caused a failure of the “bond” and “tribe”.
  • Since everyone is competing with them they get tired of it and don’t want to do anything (see the story of the gunfighter above).  I feel this is far more prevalent than it may seem.

Much of these attitudes are a direct response to the cold war and the 1970’s and became prevalent during that time.  In other words, as a result of the cold war and 1970’s many WM’s joined the non-WM’s in condemning the “WM miracle” and, in so doing, undermined themselves in the process.  The net result of all this is that the WM undermined his dignity as a result of the success of the “WM miracle”.


The American female, in particular, has developed both a strong envy and fear/apprehension of the WM.  Generally, though, a female will lean toward one or the other.  This has became particularly strong after the cold war and the 1970’s.

The envy of the WM is now so strong that the American female is now going through a great “campaign” of trying to make the female the same as the WM.   In other words, they’re trying to be like men (see my article, “Thoughts on the female and Victorian society – “being Victorian green” – the females envy of the male and the ‘female envy culture’“).  A common thing for me to say, nowadays, is:

“It won’t be too long before the female is going to be nothing but a pathetic caricature of the male”. 

For many American females this is already true.  This tendency is also helped by the problem with the female identity in this country (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“).  What has basically happened, as a result of this, is that WM envy is now a significant element in the destruction of the female identity.  In trying to be like a WM they are only destroying themselves and their identity.  So we see that one effect of the “WM miracle” is the slow destruction of the female identity.

In addition, with the suppression of the WM that has taken place, many females have tried to jump in to fill the gap by trying to be the “new WM’s”.  This has created a whole group of females who do things like this:

  • They “ape” the male (making the American female look utterly pathetic).  They dress, act, and try to do things like the WM and are associated with him.
  • Many of them are doing everything they can to try to “outdo” or “outperform” the WM.  I’ve seen many females who go through great effort to do this.
  • Some are trying to actually replace him.  That is to say, to make the male redundant and meaningless.  I was stunned to see this.
  • Many females are spending a life where all they do is try to have the same “glory” the WM has (or what they think he has).

Many females have made it a political and legal issue to the point that its some sort of a cause.  Think of it . . . trying to be like a man as a great political and righteous cause.  Unbelievable!

As  stated above, part of the “WM miracle” is fear and apprehension.  Many females have particularly demonstrated quite an extensive fear and apprehension of the male.  Its appeared a number of ways, such as:

  • For some females the fear has created an obsessive concern over being “victims” by portraying themselves as abused, oppressed, enslaved, and such.  This has made many females falsely accuse and villanize the WM as a result, claiming things that has not happened.
  • Some females fear and apprehension of the WM is so strong that they have become a significant force in trying to suppress the WM and in trying to demasculanize him.  So another effect of the “WM miracle” is that is has made some females try to “castrate” the male.  Unbelievable!
  • Some females equate the male with war and destruction (see above) which only reveals a fear of the male.  Their solution to this fear, interestingly enough, is to make themselves the ‘savior’ and answer to the male threat of war and destruction:  they turn themselves into the symbols of peace and harmony!

Many of the reactions of the female toward the “WM miracle” have been almost unreal to me and seem rather ridiculous and overplayed.  In fact, I’d say that the females have taken the ‘WM apprehension’ to the most ridiculous and absurd extent, more than anyone else.


Because of the success of the “WM miracle” there has been extensive attempts at taking advantage of it by non-WM’s.  These include people like females, minorities, immigrants, etc.  Many (like the females, as stated above) are actively trying to be the “new WM’s”.  That is to say, they are deliberately trying to imitate the WM to have what he has, to gain power from the “WM miracle” (modern world), and to become him in some cases.

One could say that there has been an extensive “campaign” to create the “new WM’s” in this society and much of the world.   I would even go so far to say that there are many non-WM’s trying to push the WM out of the way so that they could gain their power.  In other words, the “WM miracle” has created a tendency for some non-WM’s to start a power struggle with the WM, primarily to gain the power of the “WM miracle” (modern world).  In order to do this, though, they must make themselves like the WM’s . . . by becoming the “new WM’s”.  In this way, the “new WM” is nothing but a way to try to “fit in” to the modern world.  In some ways, its like the saying goes, “when in Rome do what the Romans do”.

Unfortunately, though, the creation of the “new WM’ has caused a deteriation, in my opinion, in the “WM miracle”.  It seems, to me, that the “new WM’s” will eventually destroy the “WM miracle”.  This is primarily because they do not reflect the WM character which created it.  Everyone’s motive is only in trying to get in on its power and influence.  They are only “playing the game”, so to speak.  They do not reflect its “spirit” . . . at least, it doesn’t seem that way to me.  This creates a “want-to-be” attitude in the non-WM’s.  In actuality, the “new WM” is nothing but a “want-to-be”, really.  This is one of the things that I noticed that was quite prevalent.  In addition, the “new WM” seem like they are turning the “WM miracle” into something more like an assembly line.  I’d compare it to, say, turning an art form into a mass produced item.  It may look like it, and may serve a function, but it still lacks something and, after all, its only a “copy”.

In this way, we could say that we are in a “post WM miracle” era.   Its seems, to me, that everyone is riding on the system the “WM miracle” created (which is strong at the moment) but the originality and creativity that created it is fading. This may largely be caused by non-WM’s or WM’s who have undermined themselves or lost the “spirit”.  As a result, it will probably slowly fall over time.  Because of this, I tend to see the “post WM miracle” era as a slow fall of the “WM miracle”.  Everything, now, is standing on the shoulders of what the “WM miracle” created as it now stands.  That is to say, its a continuation of what’s already there by people trying to imitate it for themselves.  In this way, the original “spirit” is fading.


I tend to believe that ‘WM apprehension’ has had an undermining effect on society.  This is basically because of things like this:

  • The WM has built the society.
  • The WM has created its ideals.
  • The WM has been its authority and guided all this.
  • It falsely attacks people.
  • It causes unnecessary divisions in society.
  • It creates myths.
  • It undermines the male and male traits, which are needed in society.
  • It creates a want-to-be attitude in non-WM’s.

In some sense, the attack on the WM has a quality of attacking society.  After years of observation, I believe this to be true in Western society.  One could compare it to the attack on the older generation in the 1970’s and the effect it had.  Basically, when you attack and condemn your predecessors, existing authority, existing tradition, etc. you literally pull the carpet from under your feet.  This is basically what ‘WM apprehension’ did.


There has been a lot of stereotyping of the WM as a result of this apprehension.  That is to say, much of the apprehension is directed toward viewing the WM a certain way as a whole.  In other words, we are all equated the same, as if we are all the same type of person.

This, of course, is not true.

In actuality, very few WM’s has had any great involvement in the modern world.  Most WM’s are not the great creators of the modern world people seem to think they are and most have actually played no, or little part, in the “WM miracle”.  Most WM’s are just working people, just like everyone else in the world, doing nothing special.  Just to give some examples . . . if I look at some of the people I know I see several truck drivers, a miner, a sheepherder, indoor painters, a chef, a farmer . . . nothing particularly dramatic, nor is it a great involvment in the “WM miracle”.  None of these jobs are high paying or prestigious or give us great power.  In other words, there is no “favoritism” displayed there.  Despite this, people still stereotype the WM a specific way, as if we have all have special privelage, high paying glamorous jobs, great benefits, and so on.  I’ve not seen a lot of evidence of that.  I often wish I had what a lot of people think we have.

Regardless its almost unreal what people do.  One person may try to imitate us (such as females).  Another person may turn us into “bad people” (such as minorities).  We also always tend to be accused of things none of us have anything to do with (such as slavery or some form of oppression).  I’ve often been stunned by stuff like this.  I’ve been particularly appalled how we are accused of stereotyping people but it is THEY, in actuality, that are stereotyping us by assuming we’re all the same!

But everyone sees us as a group, as a whole, as if we are all the same . . . if one person has it we all do!


In many ways, this whole thing is nothing but a “have-have not” issue.  I personally think that this whole situation is similar to the storyline that is seen in the 1980 show called “The gods must be crazy”.  In this movie a bushman in the Kalahari Desert finds a Coke bottle.  He takes it back to his tribe and soon everyone is fighting to have it.  The bottle causes anger, envy, hatred, and violence in the tribe that never had these problems before.  Because of the problems it has caused they decide to have one of the bushman travel to the edge of the world and throw the bottle off.

We see a similar theme to the movie.  The WM created a world that proved very successful and, accordingly, they are the “possessors” of it.  Everyone else looked on at it all, and all it contained, and felt lacking or deprived.  This created envy and jealousy which made everyone upset.  As a result, they are doing whatever they can to “have” it.  But, in so doing, they are destroying themselves with it.  Its too bad we can’t have someone throw all this off the edge of the world like in the movie.

Really, we are seeing the problems of envy and jealousy of the “have-have not” dilemma.  Several issues of this dilemma include:

  • What do the people who “have” do?  Should they give to the “have not’s”?
  • How envy and jealousy in the people who “have not” cause bad feelings in people.  The hatred, dislike, desire to be like, want, etc. that they feel.

This is on of the great unanswered dilemma’s in life.  This dilemma is seen in every society, at least in some form.  Attempts have been made to try to prevent its problems but nothing, really, has worked that well (charity, Communism/socialism, laws, etc.).  What, then, is the answer?

In some respects, the nature of the dilemma is what causes the problems.  It creates tensions and conflicts in people and society.  Does giving to the “have not’s” really solve anything after all these tensions and conflicts have appeared?  I don’t think so.  This dilemma seems inherent in human society.  Once its solved, another one comes in to take its place.  The problems created by the “WM miracle” is one in a long list.  Its unique, so far, in that it has been rather extensive, dramatic, and worldwide.

There seems to be several ways at dealing with the “have-have not” problem:

  • Dealing with the actual “have-have not” problem.
  • Dealing with the bad feelings its caused.

The reaction to the “WM miracle”, it seems to me, is primarily dealing with the bad feelings it has caused not in dealing with the problem it caused.  This, I my opinion, is what made it so damaging.  But bad feelings are just bad feelings and generally only caused discontent, which is exactly what happened.  It seems, to me, that bad feelings dominate the “WM miracle”, particularly by the non-WM’s, and is primarily how this problem is dealt with.  Accordingly, this is why it never works and has turned it into a bigger problem.


The success of the “WM miracle”, and all its reactions, has caused a deterioration, and even fall, of the “WM culture”.  Since the “WM culture” created the modern world, and all it contains, its fall will probably have great impact on the modern world, which is exactly what its starting to look like to me.  This is for a number of reasons:

  • The fall of the “WM culture” is the fall of the modern world as they are intimately connected.
  • The non-WM’s attempt at trying to imitate the “WM culture” isn’t that effective.  They do not have the quality, mentality, and such, that makes up the “WM culture”.

What this would suggest is that we are in a transition phase moving us into a “post modern world”.  This transition phase reflects these qualities:

  • The “WM culture” falls.
  • People will try to imitate the “WM miracle”, sometimes with success, but never completely imitating it.
  • Being that the modern world is still active its effects will still be felt.  In a way, we will be”riding on the back of what earlier generations created”.
  • The ingenuity and originality of the modern world will slowly fade.  Anything “new” will primarily be nothing but a continuation, development, or elaboration of things already existing.  These will be probably still be called “progress” but nothing new or original will really be created.  This, it seems to me, is a defining trait, already, of this century.  People think all this technology is new and original but its really not.  Its primarily elaboration and development of things already existing.  I am also seeing less and less original and new ideas in many areas and fields.  Many things, such as “new theories”, is nothing but a restating of existing ideas.  In fact, I often jokingly say that we are in the “era of restatement”. 

After this transition phase a “post modern world” would appear.  This would mean a number of things:

  • The ingenuity, and original thinking, of the modern world will be over.
  • That people will live in the “effects” of the modern world that are still existing.  In other words, the modern world will just be something that is now “existing conditions”.

In this phase the modern world will really be over.  People will be living it in its aftermath.

I would not be surprised if the modern world inspires another culture into a specific direction.  It will be totally different than the “WM culture” and the modern world it created, though.  In this case, the creation of the “WM culture” will serve as something like a base or guide for their culture to develop, which will be totally different in orientation and outlook.  This will not be the “modern world” as we know it . . . who knows what it will be like . . .


It seems as if a cycle is being demonstrated, of a rise and fall of an era (see my article “Thoughts on the phases of Victorian society – defining what an “era” is“).

  • There develops a “WM culture”.
  • They create a way of doing things.
  • It is implemented and turned into a form.
  • The modern world is created.
  • This proves to have great power and influence.
  • It causes great social and world tensions.
  • It becomes a power.
  • There develops power struggles (“everyone wants a piece of the pie”).
  • This causes a deterioration of the “WM culture” and WM in general.
  • This impacts society and the modern world.
  • The modern world deteriorates and fades.

In some respects, its a lesson in one of the effects of power, that when there is a power everyone wants a piece of it, which causes a mad scramble for that power, and this ends up undermining the power in the end.

As I was brought up, in the “WM culture”, there is the belief that there was an “inherent truth” in science, inventions, the modern world, etc.  It was this “truth” that mattered and was made it so great.  This is what we sought.  Looking back on it now, I can see that this is not true.  This point of view, really, is a remnant of Christianity and its preaching of its “inherent truth of Christ” which carried over into science.  What made the creation of the “WM culture” great was not an “inherent truth”, as we thought, but the POWER of its effects which, I don’t think, any of us really considered.  In the end, it was power, not truth, that determined things.

The idea of “power” was something that I never really saw mentioned in the “WM culture”, at least the form I was brought up with.  Since the “WM culture” was created on the tail end of Christianity, with its emphasis on “true religion”, everything revolved about the idea of truth.  This eventually became “de-religionified” and turned into science, at least as I saw it.  This shows that the “WM culture” is really a “Christianity without Christ”Because of this, the general attitude was that the “WM culture” sought a truth that would “save” us . . . this is what we are seeking, the great “truth of science”.  Power, and its effects, were the furthest from our mindsThis is why many WM’s, I believe, still cannot conceive of the idea of the power of their creation or its effects.  As a result, many WM’s are oblivious about what their creations have done which is why they are so naïve about it.  In this way, the non-WM’s are the ones most familiar with the power of the creations of the “WM culture”.  It was so powerful that it created a great apprehension of the WM (the ‘WM apprehension’).  As a result, it was in them that the power struggles took place, of their desperate attempts and scramblings to have what the WM has.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Culture, cultural loneliness, etc., Dehumanization and alienation, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the effects of stuttering on King Charles I and the English Civil War

King Charles I

I have always speculated on the effect stuttering had for King Charles I.  Personally, I’m sure that it did have great impact on his character and on him as a person.  But an aspect of this, which I think is seldom referred to, is its effect not only on England, as a country, but English history.  In fact, it seems to me that the English Civil War was very much influenced by the effects stuttering had on King Charles I.  In some respects, it might even be possible to say that had it not been for his stuttering, the English Civil War might not have happened at all.

Oddly enough, I can find very little references to the effects stuttering had on King Charles I, not only for himself but on other people (which I’m sure it did).  There are hardly any references to it by anyone who had an audience with him or knew him.  The main references only state that he did stutter.  The extent, and severity, of the problem is not specified.  This could mean a number of things:

  • It was not that bad Perhaps it was a mild affliction?  If it was then most of what I say here is incorrect.  I’m going on the assumption, in this article, that it was a problem for King Charles I.  I tend to take this viewpoint because of his character which  suggests that it may of had great impact on him (see below).
  • It happened sporadically.  Perhaps it was worst in stressful situations (such as in confronting Parliament)?  Perhaps it was worst in his youth and improved as he got older?
  • It was not mentioned out of “respect”.  That is to say, it was “looked over” in the accounts of other people as it would be viewed as “impolite” and, perhaps, “rude” to speak about it openly.
  • The society, then, did not view it as severely as it did later.  To me, this seems very possible.  As far as I know, he was not criticized for it, condemned, or ridiculed as many people with stuttering often are today.  Its possible that it was only viewed as an “inconvenience” by the people around him.  But I tend to feel, though, that it had great impact on King Charles I himself to the point that it affected his character and behavior.  If this is true then it would mean that it was not a “social problem” but a “private battle” fought by King Charles I

Something like stuttering could easily create a dilemma for King Charles I for, as King, he was in a very social position in which speech was critical.  As a result, a problem like this would place great burden and stress on King Charles I.  Since the duties of the King is social in nature it would mean that it would have great impact on his acts and behavior as a King.  Because of the influence of the King’s acts on the government it means that it would have great impact on the government.  Its because of this that I feel that it may have had a major influence in the problems that were common in his reign, particularly with Parliament, which would have effected his association with them.  In this way, it would of helped to cause the English Civil War and, incidentally, his eventual execution.  This is a side of things I have never heard before as most debate on the English Civil War only emphasize the political or religious aspects as if that’s all that was important.

The effects of stuttering on a person varies, of course, to minimal to a major impact.  This, of course, would vary with the person, society, culture, and severity of the ailment.  Considering the position that King Charles I was in, as Heir to the Throne and later King, one could suppose that it was no minor problem and, more than likely, could easily have tremendous effect.  So far, as I mentioned above, it does not seem to of had great impact on him from the people around him.  The effects, it seems to me, were primarily personal.  Because of this, he had to behave in a way that “accommodated” the awkward effects that stuttering had on him.  In this way, it would have great impact on his character.  Some of the character traits it may of caused include:

  • It made him shy or reluctant to associate with people
  • It made him tend to be quiet and silent.
  • It made him use as little words as possible.
  • It made him passive and not forward in his manner.
  • It made him avoid confrontation and arguments with people.  This was probably one of the reasons why he did not want to argue with Parliament and kept dissolving them whenever there was a dispute.  We must also keep in mind that this may very well hint at a possible phobia that he may of had toward “official” disputes involving many people.  It may of also been the cause of why he tended to neglect problems as it would require confrontations.
  • It made him “seek approval” from people.  It appears that this tendency had great impact on his association with Parliament.  The power of this want of approval was probably seen in things such as his approval of the execution of the Earl of Strafford (which doesn’t make any sense) which haunted him all his life.  It may also account for the many unusual concessions he granted Parliament as well (which also tended to not make any sense).  In many ways, he may very well of been seeking their “approval” by blindly approving their requests.
  • It made him rely on other people.  The best example of this was his reliance on the Duke of Buckingham in his early years.
  • It made him “polite”.   This politeness probably  may as if overcompensated the social problems his stuttering caused him.
  • It made him rely on the “Divine Right of Kings”.   This gave him a means to “explain away” conflicts and issues that appeared and thereby avoiding confrontation and arguments with people.  I also tend to think that it made him “not have to make decisions”, so to speak, as Divine Right will make the decision for him.  This way, it would mean that he would not have to make “official” proclamations and arguments with people.

Many of these traits are described in the accounts of people who knew him.  In short, it appears that stuttering may of had a great impact on him by making him a reserved, unassuming, and agreeable person who avoided confrontation with people.  Its possible, even, that he may of developed a form of a social phobia in certain social relations as a result.

This type of character, of course, would have great impact on his behavior and actions as a King.  I’ve always felt that the main problem of King Charles I, in his political actions, was one of neglect.  Looking at the character of King Charles I makes me think that this neglect was not a result of things like these:

  • It was not deliberate on his part.  That is to say, he didn’t just neglect things because he wanted to, for whatever reason.
  • It was not a result of carelessness.  That is to say, he wasn’t just being negligent.
  • It was not a result of malicious intent.  That is to say, he did not have sinister motives.

From how it appears to me, it seems more likely to have other deeper origins.  What I mean by this is that it probably has psychological origins.  Its possible that this neglect may possibly have origins, or at least is affected, by his stuttering (perhaps associated with other psychological issues as well).  If this is the case then it would mean that his stuttering may of had far greater an effect than it seems.  In other words, this would mean that a simple case a stuttering changed British history.  I tend to feel that may very well be the case.

But people, and especially Historians, tend to only look at Kingship and the English Civil War from a purely political or religious point of view.  From these angles it is very easy to see King Charles I in these ways:

  • As a “tyrant”.  That he was someone who “wants to control”.
  • As a “fool”.  That he did things without thought and consideration.
  • As a “dimwit.  That he was stupid and dumb.

What tends to be forgotten, a lot of times, is the psychology of the people involved.  In history, especially when it involves politics and religion, there is a tendency to stand too far distant from things and look at things from an overall abstract and grand conceptual viewpoint of politics and religion.  In this way, there is a tendency to overlook small little things that have great impact, such as the individual psychology of individual people.  Typically, the psychology of individual people are looked at only from the political and religious point of view which, oftentimes, devalues their human qualities if they are acknowledged at all.  It seems, to me, that this situation may of happened with King Charles I and the English Civil War.

(also see my article “Thoughts on the character of King Charles I“.)


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Government and politics, Historical stuff, King Charles I and the English Civil War, The military and war | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on ‘life irritation’ – aspects on the burden of living

Recently, I found myself irritated.  There was “something” that was irritating me.  I asked myself, “what irritates me?” and got an interesting reply.  I said:

“Life irritates me” 

In other words, the fact of being alive has an irritating quality.  There are many things that make up this irritation, such as:

  • Being aware and conscious.
  • The effort required in being alive.
  • The culmination of experience.
  • The burden of memory and remembering.
  • The strain of emotion and feelings.
  • The weight of a self and a personality.
  • The strain of having to do something, such as work, or living a certain way, such as a morality.

All these, really, contribute to create what can be described, perhaps, as a ‘life irritation’.  This can be described as a general irritation or unsettlement in ones self that is not a result of a specific conflict or issue but only in the fact of living.

I tend to view it like a baby being irritated by things.  I have always felt that one of the conflicts newborns and infants have is the “burden of being aware”.  In fact, I have often felt that this is what mostly “bothers” them, making them cry and such.  One must remember that a baby is literally “woken” up to sensations, feelings, impulses, etc. that come upon it like a storm.  This is something like a shock on the newborn.  In some respects, one could say that we will be dealing with this shock the rest of our lives.  Perhaps we could call it the ‘awareness shock’?

Most certainly, there is a natural transition phase that most people go through, of getting used to the ‘awareness shock’.  We basically go through a phase of being an “irritable infant” which may even carry on into toddler years.

The ‘awareness shock’ forces the person to develop a self.  In other words, a self appears to as if manage the awareness that is forced upon a person.  So we see, then, that the self is associated with managing awareness and alleviating the shock from the very beginning.  This would become very critical later on (see below).

But I feel that, for some people, the ‘awareness shock’ becomes overwhelming and “too much”.  We could even call this the ‘awareness shock sickness’.  This can cause a number of reactions:

  • A natural tendency to always feel “uneasy” or “irritated” in life which probably ends up lasting all their life
  • A predisposition to “irritation”, “uneasiness”, being “upset”, and other feelings.
  • A predisposition to definable problems, such as neurosis.  In other words, it makes one more likely to have mental problems.

My guess is that these would be blamed on something most of the time.  Not only that, one problem will probably follow another problem in succession.  More than likely, it tends to make one predisposed to various problems and feelings.

‘Life irritation’, in its normal form, causes things such as:

  • A sense of an uneasiness.  For example, this could create things like unhappiness, boredom, etc.
  • A sense of conflict.  For example, this can make us look at life in a sinister and negative way.
  • A want of rest.  For example, this can make us want to become rich or retire.
  • A want of some image, or answer, to comfort us.  For example, this can make us religious or make us want to believe in “something greater”.

One could say that ‘life irritation’ creates a generalized “upsetting feeling” about life.  And, more importantly, this “upsetting feeling” is never satisfied.  It never goes away or is solved but hangs over us like a cloud.

Oftentimes, though, we tend to make a “big deal” out of this “upsetting feeling”, making it out far more than it is.  In fact, there is a tendency to try to “find something” to blame it on.  But, in so doing, we say that this or that bothers us and miss the whole point as we now have something to blame it on.  As a result of this, we tend to create blame things that is not the problem and end up creating problems that don’t really exist.  We do this for a number of reasons:

  • We tend to lack of a generalized “life sense”.  That is to say, we tend to not look at life “as a whole” but as events or in pieces.  Because of this, we are impaired in seeing its overall generalized life-origin nature.
  • ‘Life irritation’ is a generalized sense . . . it is not caused by a specific cause.  But when we have an irritation, or something that bothers us, we try to give it a specific cause, something to “blame” it on.

We see here a basic problem of generalized versus specific.  Basically, its easier to see things from a specific viewpoint than a generalized viewpoint.  But, in so doing, we literally fabricate sources of conflicts that don’t really exist.  As a result, much of our problems do not, in actuality, exist . . . we just think it does.  Its because of this that I tend to feel that ‘life irritation’ is probably the base of many conflicts we have in life in which we blame things on.

Some ways at dealing with ‘life irritation’ include:

  • Generally, we find something to “blame” for all these “unsettled feelings” on.  As a result of this, one of the first things to do in dealing with ‘life irritation’ is to quit blaming things.
  • The development of a more generalized attitude.
  • Begin to see the “unsettled feelings” as coming from life itself.
  • Seeing the “unsettled feelings” as “just the way it is”.  In actuality, there really is no answer.  It is just the nature of life.
  • Trying to decrease the things that seem to aggravate the “unsettled feeling”.  That is to say, if work is too much of a burden try to change it.

What this shows is that there is a degree of control we can have over ‘life irritation’.  More specifically, this control is usually done in a number of ways:

  • Avoiding things that aggravate it.
  • Decreasing the influence of things that aggravate it.

I would say that much of life is doing these things.  Most people, I think, do this naturally and unaware, at least to some extent.

But one must be careful not to become “numb-in-life”.  That is to say, to become non-feeling, or numb, as a way to deal with the irritation of life.

The solution to ‘life irritation’ is not in complete avoidance and ignoring.  In actuality, it seems that the best way to deal with ‘life irritation’ is in accepting according to ones means and ability.  In other words, one does these things:

  • One avoids or decreases things that aggravate it, as stated above . . . this way, it stays within acceptable levels.
  • One “embraces” it and accepts its “uneasiness” . . . this is because it is, in actuality, the source of “living”.

As I said above, the irritation of life creates an “unsettlement”.  This same “unsettlement” is the source of life”, in actuality.  This more or less says that to “live” means to be “irritated” and “unsettled”.  When a person removes these away (such as in becoming “numb-in-life”) then one ceases to live, in my opinion.  A person will develop a vegetable-like quality and attitude in life.

It seems that one needs to move from “irritation” to what I call “passion”.  The difference between the two is:

  • “Irritation” – when the “irritation” is upon a person it is perceived as a separate overbearing entity.
  • “Passion” – when the “irritation” actually inspires a person.

In other words, the “irritation” needs to be turned into “passion”.  When this happens the “irritation” ceases to be “irritating” and becomes a source of living.  One could very well say that living is a dynamic word describing a dynamic situation which means an in-balance, which is being unsettled, which is irritating.  “Irritation”, then, is a natural part of the condition of living.

There seems to be a process to the movement from “irritation” to “passion.  Much of this entails the self.

  1. The “irritation”.  It appears and as if “shocks” the person into awareness.
  2. The “irritation” creates the formation of the self.  The “awareness shock” forces a self to appear to as if manage the awareness (see my article “Thoughts on the pre-self, primal self, world self, post-self, and the greater self“).
  3. The self embraces the “irritation”.  As I said above, the self is there to as if manage awareness.  In order to do this, the self requires a “maturity” to deal with the “irritation”.  This can be described as a well-rounded practical way at dealing with awareness.  In order to develop “maturity” the self requires various forms of support, growth, experience, direction, acceptance, coming to terms with “irritation”, etc.  In other words, the self needs more than a self to develop and grow.  It must be a healthy and mature self.
  4. The “irritation” and self grows as one.
  5. The “passion” appears.

One could then say that “passion” is when ‘life irritation’ and the self become one.  In this way, they become as if united and work in concert.  One could say that it is in these conditions that life is at its best.  In this way, it would say that ‘life irritation’ is when the self is not participating that well.  In some respects, ‘life irritation’ is a “sign” that some growth of the self is required.

Interestingly, when ‘life irritation’ begins to appear after “passion” has been established it can create problems.  Typically, “passion” is the growing of a specific aspect of the self in relation to the “irritation”.  In this way, it is very specific.  When a new form of “irritation” appears the already established “irritation”/self/”passion” orientation does not work anymore.  What this shows is that the “irritation”/self/”passion” association is very specific and, just because it has been established, it does not mean it works for all situations.  In other words, different forms of “irritation” requires a different forms of orientation to work and this requires a different aspect of the self.  This means that the creation of “passion” is an ongoing never-ending process.  It also means that there must be a continuing discovery of self.  In short, then, “passion” requires a continual ongoing revealing of ones self.  When this stops then ‘life irritation’ begins to appear.  This often happens in old age where people tend to seek discovery of their self (as its associated with the activity of youth).  As a result, its not uncommon that older people often tend to become “irritable”, ornery, grumpy, and bitter.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Life in general, Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the unique quality of the American ‘perpetual power vacuum’ – the fear of a person in power, its origins with Moses, and the tug-of-war between a system and humanity

Here’s a thought I had:

It seems, to me, that the U.S. has a unique power vacuum problem.  It is largely a result of its political system.  It creates a condition that leads to a power vacuum that can never be filled.  In this way, it creates what can be described as a ‘perpetual power vacuum’.  This power vacuum has gone on even down to everyday life.  In this way, it has had great impact on the society and people as a whole.

To begin with, the political system of the U.S. has a quality where it tends to “force” conditions in a certain direction as its main motive.  That is to say, it is not a system that “goes along with the situation” nor is it all that reactive to situations (this, of course, is not what it professes).  Instead, it is oriented at forcing things in a usually predetermined direction with the idea that a predetermined result will happen.  This “forcing” is often called “change” and they seem to automatically assume that it is always the right path (regardless if it is or not).  This shows some conditions about this political system:

  • They base everything from an already established interpretation of things.  In other words, its point of view is not based in actual existing conditions, necessarily, but on a way of interpreting things that already exists.  In this way, this political system tends does not react to actual existing realities.  Instead, any current realities are compared to the already established interpretation, which is used as a basis for their actions.  This is one reason why the U.S. is so notorious at misinterpreting things, world situations, and other cultures.  Its also one reason why the U.S. always interprets, and reacts, the same way over and over again and again (such as that all the worlds problems are caused by “oppressive governments”).
  • The already established interpretation is rooted and based in a fear or apprehension.  These have become the attitudes that lie behind this political system.  They often determine its points of view and motivates what it does.  Its the reason why they are always forcing things to happen . . . to avoid or prevent something they fear.  These attitudes are also one of the reasons why the U.S. becomes paranoid so easily.
  • The fear or apprehension makes it so that they tend to “force” things in a certain direction to prevent what they fear.  Often, the solution is based in the already established interpretation and is “forced” over and over again (such as that the solution to the worlds problems is “freedom and democracy” and nations must be “forced” to practice it).
  • It often entails an idea of a already established solution.  This is a reflection of the already established interpretation and is often the same solution over and over again (such as that “voting” will solve everything).  In this way, the solution this political system offers is very limited and not very reactive to actual existing conditions.

One of the things we see is a political system that is based in fear and ideas more than in actual existing conditions.  This makes them “force” an already established solution to avoid this fear or apprehension.  As a result, its not uncommon that this political system becomes somewhat “detached” from the real-world reality and actual existing conditions (of course, that’s not what they say).  This is one reason why many of the solutions this political system offers don’t work.

What is the base of their fear and apprehension?

This is primarily to prevent any one person from having complete political power.  This is the basic idea of democracy where the people are supposed to have power.

Anyone who knows history knows that, though there are examples of this in the past, it has been made out far larger than it really is.  The fact of the matter is that a single person in power is not a major source of the worlds problems.  There are many other factors and elements that create problems in countries than that.  To focus primarily on that as a cause is like saying that good health is rooted in not eating a lot of fatty foods.  In the U.S., this line of thought has been made out so big that one could say that it has taken an almost obsessive and one-sided point of view.  I know people, for example, where it is the ONLY point of view and it explains ALL the problems of the world.  I, myself, have even said that its been made out so big that it its “almost like a religion” and that, I tend to feel, is its origin . . .

I tend to think that the “religious” obsessive fear of one person in control does, in fact, originate from religion.  That is to say, its origins do not really originate from actual experience and events but in a pattern of religious belief.  We must remember that religious belief is very powerful.  The beliefs in religion tend to establish a tendency of interpretation of the world.  As a result, religious belief tends to do things such as:

  • They are used as a base of all interpretations.
  • The interpretation they offer tend to be favored over all others.
  • They tend to neglect other interpretations.
  • They are viewed as the “ultimate interpretation” and so are given great importance, sanctity, and value.

The religious beliefs I speak of originate from Christianity and, through it, Judaism.  In some respects, Judaism sets the stage or, more properly, Moses sets the stage for this whole situation.

A significant part of the drama of Moses is a fight against a single man in power:  the Egyptian Pharaoh.  To make things even worse, the Pharaoh was viewed as a god.  Moses was then fighting not only against a man in power but a god.  Moses ended up breaking away from the Pharaoh and eventually led the Hebrews through the desert for 40 years.  During this time he set up the laws, sacrifices, and general attitudes that have made up Judaism ever since (though with modifications, of course).  In this way, I often jokingly refer to Judaism as “Mosesism”, as it really has a lot of origin from Moses.

In breaking from Pharaoh there developed an attitude of a fear or apprehension of people in power.  In the Jewish people, it seems to me, this appears more as a fear of people in power that are not Jewish.  This created a strong sense of a “Jewish people” as opposed to other people, a “me versus you” attitude.  I have often wondered if this is an origin of anti-Semitism (see my article “Some thoughts on the possible nature and origin of anti-Semitism???“).  Overall, it seemed to create a sense of distrust toward other people and a valuation of ones people.  In other words, it created something like a religious or ethnic favoritism.  This created something like a wall around the Jewish people separating them from everyone else.

With Christianity we see another fight against a man in power:  the Roman Emperor.  In some respects, Jesus Christ became another Moses, following his lead, showing the power and influence of Moses in Judaism.  He imitated Moses in many ways:

  • He was the savior of the people as Moses saved the Hebrews.
  • He was sacrificed reflecting the many forms of sacrifice that Moses set up.
  • He created a new “law” (of love) as Moses had created new laws.

With Christianity, many Jewish attitudes would naturally be extended to anyone who followed him.  Since many non-Jews would end up following Jesus they would end up adopting many Jewish attitudes coming from Moses.

One thing that did not seem to pass into Christianity was the “me versus you” wall that the Jewish people developed.  This gave Christianity more of an open, secular, or generalized attitude making it accepting, and appealing, to many non-Jew’s.  A remnant of this attitude, though, probably turned into the idea that the world has to convert to Christianity.  You were either Christian or not Christian (“me versus you”).  But instead of the wall that Judaism created something else appeared:  non-Christians must convert to Christianity.  Instead of a wall, an “everyone must be like us” was created.  In many ways, this is just the “me versus you” attitude in a modified form.  This attitude of “everyone must be like us” is one of the many attitudes coming from religion that would persist into the U.S.  Instead of “everyone must be Christian” it now becomes “everyone must live in a democracy”.  The U.S. trying to make the world a democracy is just a continuation of the attitude behind the Christian conversion of the world.

Jesus Christ’s conflict with the Romans only reinforced the fear of people in power in Christianity.  Since Christianity was prosecuted in its early years, it probably helped this fear and apprehension grow and become more firmly implanted in Christian attitudes.

As Christianity spread the fear and apprehension of a single person in power was often applied to whatever political/social situation that appeared.  It became the “easy explanation” for any problems they may have.  This is because of things like these:

  • It gave the explanation a “religious sanctification” and, accordingly, an authority to justify the blame.
  • It created a “scapegoat” to blame things on.  Oftentimes, governments, Kings, ministers, and anyone in government were automatically assumed to be “corrupt”, “evil”, “greedy”, “power hungry”, “self-serving”, and such (which tended to reflect, oddly enough, Christian vices).

When the tribal monarchies of Northern Europe started to have problems the King would naturally be associated with this Judeo/Christian fear of a person in power attitude.  This became particularly pronounced, interestingly, after the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s which caused great religious crisis and fervor.  The great Monarch of Northern Europe would become easy targets.  He would become the “new Pharaoh” that we must free ourselves from, just as Moses did.  In some respects, a “great reenactment of Moses” took place in the political theorizing of the 1700’s, with the King as Pharaoh and the people as the Jews.  Democracy would become the new law of Moses.

The political system of the U.S. was created in the late 1700’s, during this time, and is greatly associated with this mentality and the “great reenactment of Moses”.  As a result, the political system of the U.S. was based in this “religious” fear of a person in power.  Because of this, its whole perspective is geared to prevent this from happening.  It does this by things such as:

  • Voting by the people.
  • Limiting the power of those in power.

The idea of these is to prevent the rise of a person in power.  As I said above, this isn’t necessarily because of a historic pattern of abuse by people in power (which isn’t as great as is supposed) but more from “religious” attitudes that have become ingrained in the thinking of the culture and which caused them to interpret things in a certain way.  This “religious” origin is why its look at so seriously and critically, as if the whole fate of the world depended on it.  And so we can see that the political system of the U.S. is primarily to prevent the rise of any one person being in power or any one gaining power.  In this way, it creates a system where no one, really, is in control or has control.

The effect of this is that the political system of the U.S. creates conditions like this:

  • There is an inability for anyone to do anything.
  • There develops forms of “underground power”.  That is, power that “goes around” the political system.  In many cases, this is the only way to get things done.  Because it is “underground” it also leads to a lot of corruption.
  • Since no one is in control nothing gets done or, if it does, it takes forever and is often ineffective.
  • There develops a “government apathy”.
  • This apathy tends to create a “social apathy”.
  • It creates an atmosphere of continuous bickering and complaining.
  • Since there’s no one in charge people manipulate the system for their own ends.
  • It ends up creating a condition where there is a continual undermining of power in society as a whole.
  • It tends to create an overall stagnating quality.

Initially, this was only directed to political power but, over time, it has permeated to everyday life.  One effect of this is that it has made everyone powerless down to even parents who, in some places, can’t even spank their own kids!  Not only that, nothing changes nor can you do anything about anything.  In other words, preventing the rise of a person in power has, over time, made everyone powerless. 

But human society is based in power.  This undermining of power goes against the natural conditions of human society.  In this way, the American political system actually undermines human society over all and conflicts with human nature (see my articles “Thoughts on how the U.S. is undermining itself with its own ideals – the ‘God-ordained democracy’ thats frightened of authority” and “Thoughts on how “freedom and democracy” undermines human society“).  The effect of this is that it has an impairing effect on human society.  In some ways, it “bottlenecks” human society not allowing it to function properly.  There are times, I must admit, when I wonder how anything gets done at all.

This undermining of power causes a power vacuum that’s never resolved:  the ‘perpetual power vacuum’.  In other words, the undermining of power creates a power vacuum.  But the natural tendency of human society is to have power.  As a result, humanity tries to fill the vacuum but it can’t because the system won’t allow it.  This causes great tension in the society.  One can also look at it this way:

  1. The American political system undermines power in politics and society (I always jokingly say “. . . its a crime for anyone to be in control in this country”).
  2. A power vacuum is created because no one is in power.
  3. There are attempts to try to try and fill the vacuum because human society needs power.
  4. None of these attempts works because the American political system makes it so that power by anyone does not work.
  5. A tension is created by the continuous power vacuum which remains.

It creates things like these:

  • A continual political and social stress.
  • Continual battles between different points of view.
  • The use of underhanded techniques (“underground power”).
  • Many things are never solved.
  • A sense of disappointment, frustration, and anger.
  • Illusions of power or people thinking that they have power when they really do not (you see this in a lot of “educated” people or people in the government).
  • A quality of hypocrisy, of people thinking that they are greater than they really are.
  • The creation of “pseudo-powers” or things that appear to be power but isn’t (such as making a lot of money).
  • A tendency of “pointless scrambling”, of continually fighting for something that isn’t there.
  • A sense of helplessness which can turn into a hopeless attitude.
  • An apathy.

The fact is that human society needs power to function properly.  This is one reason why “real democracies” don’t work and fail after awhile.

This power in human society creates things like:

  • The “origin of influence”.  This refers to the source of the source or the impetus of power.  It is the thing that power originates from (such as a leader).
  • A “rallying point”.  This refers to having something to stand behind and follow.  One could say that this is what the leader represents.
  • A “following”.  This refers to the people who follow the source of power.  Without the people who follow there is no power.

Taking away power destroys the “origin of influence” which no longer supplies a “rallying point” making the “following” redundant.  As a result, everything comes to a halt or is impaired in functioning.  Society (which is really the “following”) will tend to become haphazard and disorganized as a result.

Since the political system undermines human power systems something has come in to replace it:  a “system”.   What this shows is that a lot of the “functioning” in this society, it seems to me, is no longer human-based.  It is based in the ultra organized system that the U.S. has created.  It is this system that keeps the U.S. going and functioning.  This is true with much of the modern world.

We must then make a distinction:

  • Human-based society.  This is society that is based on the naturally appearing human tendencies and qualities.  It is based in social power.
  • A “system”.  This is a society based more in regulations, rules, laws, organizations, etc.  If the “system” is organized enough then it can be run purely as a “system”.   When it becomes particularly strong I call it “systemism” (I’ve written a number of article on this in this blog).

The fact is that the undermining of power in human society has only led to the growth of a “system”.  In fact, its made it a necessity.  Without the “system” the U.S. may of deteriorated long ago.

What we are seeing, then, is a replacing of power with the “system”.  In that way, the system becomes the new “power”, so to speak.  The “system” makes power redundant and useless.  But, as I said above, humanity still fights for power, even though there is no power to gain.  This turns the fight for power as something like an empty cause, a useless struggle.  This is the ‘perpetual power vacuum’ I speak of.

I have often speculated that one of the reasons for the “apathy” in white males (as many white males have little drive to do anything) is because of the futility of “fighting for power”.  Its not surprising that this “apathy” would first affect the white males, who are part of the group that created the “system”.  Being on the front lines of it all, they are the first ones to feel its effects.  Many white males, I think, are looking out into the world where they have no power, hence the apathy (though they are unaware of it).  Its almost as if many white males has had the carpet pulled from under their feet.  Other people, such as females and minorities, are “trailing behind” and this fact has not hit them yet.  They still think that there is power there.  The “apathy” will probably soon catch up with them as well.

Interestingly, I often feel that a lot of the anger against politics and society is caused by the conditions this power vacuum causes.  What’s odd, though, is that the solution that they offer to solve it – the political system of the U.S. – is what’s causing it!  In other words, the solution to the problem is the cause of the problem.  In this way, something like a vicious circle has been created.

Because the “system” uses laws, organization, etc. on such a large scale it seems possible that the tendency to create a “system”, in Judeo/Christian-based societies, may have origin in the laws of Moses, though I cannot say for sure.  Moses created a multitude of laws and sacrifices that must be performed and which could be very complex.  This, over time, would create in Jewish people an attitude of laws and organization as part of “how the world works”.  This, of course, would be transferred to Christianity and would, no doubt, make up much of the attitude of Christian-based societies.  Its no wonder, then, that European society, which is Christian-based, would naturally turn to a “system” as part of “how things work”.  Because of this, we might be able to say that “systemism” has origin with Moses.

Overall, the undermining of power gives the U.S. a quality as if everyone is trying to climb a mountain that isn’t there or a people trying to grasp smoke.  It has given the U.S. a reputation, at least to me, as a place with qualities such as these:

  • That there is a “void” in society.
  • A sense of “something missing”.
  • A sense of having no direction.
  • A sense of “having nothing to belong to”.

In a way, it gives society a quality much like a “lost society” or a “bankrupt culture”.  This is quite significant as it shows that there is an inherent need for power in society.  That is to say, not only does humanity require power for society to function but it needs it interiorly.  Power affects a society on a deep level.  Here it affects each person individually.  In this way, society is not just something you are a part of but something that is a part of you.  One could say that this can become spiritual-like in some ways.

More specifically, there is a need for a “power image”.   This “image” is a something to “rally” around, so to speak.  It could be things like this:

  • A person, such as a leader.
  • A belief.
  • A way of life.
  • A “familiarity” (that is, something common between people that make people “connect”, such as race, family, occupation, etc.).

This “power image” is very important as it creates:

  • Something to look up to.
  • Something to belong to.
  • Something to give meaning and purpose.
  • Security and well being.

In this way, we see that human society is, in some sense, created by the “power image”.  It becomes the bonding agent and guide of the society.  The degradation of power, and its “power image”, then tends to degrade human society as a result.

In many ways, this situation describes a “system versus human institutions” problem.  Basically, the American political system has created a condition where the “system” is above human institutions and tends to undermine them.  Despite this, the “human” keeps wanting to play a part in things.  This makes something like a tug-of-war between the “system” and human tendencies (the ‘perpetual power vacuum’).  Since the “system” has so much influence, and is now a necessity, this tug-of-war will probably go on indefinitely . . . or as long as humanity can hold out.  In this way, we are seeing a conflict between a system and humanity.  This means that we are now fighting the very thing we have created.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, Culture, cultural loneliness, etc., Government and politics, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Society, The 'system' and 'systemism', The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the phases of Victorian society – defining what an “era” is

Here’s a thought I had:

It seems to me that we are still in the “Victorian” era.  That is to say, we are still under its sway and influence.  Perhaps, we could say that we are in a “post-Victorian phase” of the Victorian era.  Some things that show this include:

  • Though we are not “Victorian”, in the popular society sense (we don’t necessarily wear their clothes, uphold their moral standards, etc.), we are under its influence, of its ideas and ideals as well as what it created.
  • We are still pursuing the “ideal society” that was begun in the Victorian era, namely a “modern world”.  The “modern world”, really, is a Victorian idea.  All of our modern gadgets, toys, and gismo’s have a base in the ideas and ideals of the Victorian era.  Many of them were even initially created during that era as well.  In some sense, all the technology, gadgets, gismo’s, and such of the “modern world” are nothing but continuations of what was created in the Victorian era and reflect its ideals.
  • A lot of society is still based in “rebelling” against the strong Victorian codes, ethics, and morality.  Interestingly, many of these no longer exist anymore as they’ve been destroyed by the “rebelling”.  Despite this, the “rebellion” continues.  One could even say that a “blind rebellion” exists, rebelling against things that aren’t there.  This shows how the “Victorian sense” is still very strong.

In this sense, we live under the shadow of the “Victorian” era and, as a result, are really still in it.  If we look at things in this way we could then say that there are, so far, various phases in the Victorian era:

  1. 1800’s – ideals and ideas are created.
  2. 1900’s – these ideals and ideas come to fruition and are created.
  3. 2000’s – the problems of these ideals and ideas become apparent.

Actually, there is an overlap or, rather, one phase blends into the next phase.  I put them in centuries for simplicity. It seems, to me, that the latter phase began to be seen a lot in the late 1900’s and is being seen increasingly.  Many of the problems we have been seeing in the late 1900’s to today appear to be a result of the ideas originating in the Victorian era as well as conditions begun in the Victorian era.  These include things such as:

In effect, these have all created serious problems.  To put it another way, the “creations” and “solutions” of the Victorian era are now starting to create problems. The important point about this is that what we create, and think’s great, ends up creating problems later.  In this sense, the last phase of the Victorian era will be the problems its “creations” and “solutions” cause.  But since the Victorian era created the modern world we could say that the fall of the Victorian era will be the fall of the modern world.  Once that happens then we could say that it has truly fallen.

This, it seems to me, reveals an aspect about what an “era” is.  In some sense, an “era” can perhaps be defined with these three phases:

  1. The creation of the “idea” of the era.  This “idea”, then, defines the era as a whole.
  2. Making the “idea” a reality.
  3. The reality of the “idea” undermines and eventually destroys the era.

An “era” can be described as a historical circumstance where an idea is created and dominates the period of time.  Eventually, though, the very idea that defines the “era” ends up destroying it in some way.  In other words, an “era” is defined by an idea that ends up killing itself. 

If this is the case, then it shows that there is an inherent self-destructiveness to “ideas”.  This is not surprising as any “idea” is too specific and narrow to encompass the greater reality of life.  An “idea” may work under specific conditions but life consists of many more conditions than any “idea” can encompass thereby making any “idea” fail after awhile.  To put it another way, an “idea” has a life span.  This life span is the “era”.  And, as with all life spans, it has a birth, a life, and a death.

The “idea” of an “era” can refer to a number of things:

  • An actual idea, principle, or thought.
  • An organized system (such as a government or religion).
  • A condition.
  • A belief.
  • An attitude.
  • A stance or point of view.

Basically, an “idea” is the bonding element that holds everything together during this time.  It is something that affects everyone and as if “harnesses” the society.  Its this “harnessing” power that helps bonds things together and this bonding, in a sense, creates the “era”.

This bond continues to work while the conditions support the “idea”.  Inevitably, though, the conditions change and the “idea” becomes irrelevant.  Despite this, the “idea” tends to be continued.  Being irrelevant, the “idea” becomes alienated from the conditions and, accordingly, it ends up undermining itself.  In fact, the “idea” is often what is responsible for bringing the “era” down.

When the “idea” and conditions no longer correlate a number of conditions can bring the “era” down:

  • The “ideas” destroy itself.  This is particularly so when the “idea” has created specific rigid “creations”, such as systems, governments, organization, inventions, machines, etc.  Since the Victorian era, and the modern world, have these “rigid” things its probably more likely the “idea” of this era will end up destroying itself.
  • The “idea” fizzes out.  Basically, changing conditions cause the “idea” to become irrelevant and useless.
  • The “idea” is overtaken by another.  When the conditions change the “idea” loses power and a new “idea” takes over with more power.
  • There is a conflict with another “idea”.  Sometimes, new conditions cause the rise of other “ideas” which may have to “fight it out” to determine which one will be dominant.

During the era the “idea” is often viewed as a truth.  This shows that truth is often determined not by actual truth by because it reflects the “idea” of the era.  Once the era ends, the “idea” fails and the era’s truth dies.  What this shows is that the bonding element (the “idea”) of an era creates its own truth in things.  We could, perhaps, speak of this as the “truth of the era”.  We must remember that it is a truth that only exists during the era.

Many “truths” that people believe are probably of the “truth of the era” sort.  This is particularly so with social-based truths, such as religion or politics or popular opinion.  This fact shows that an “idea” tends to be social in manifestation.  This is not surprising as the social manifestation is the best means of the bonding element for a population of people.  This would particularly be so in mass media society and “advanced” civilization.

In societies that are not mass societies, “advanced”, or have mass media, the best bonding element would probably be things like conditions and lifestyle . . . how one lives and not the social situation.  As a result of this, in older societies a lifestyle becomes the “idea” that bonds everything together.  Once that lifestyle falls that “era” falls.  This has been seen in the fall of many primitive societies, for example.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Philosophy, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment