Thoughts on the “historical body” – sensing the “past self”

In a recent conversation I said something interesting.  I was talking to someone who made this statement, “I don’t reflect much on my past . . .” and it made me think of this:

For me, I feel its important to always reflects on ones life.  It should be done often and regularly.  I went on to say that we should view our life as an entirety.  Most people tend to only view the immediate “now” and forget their past.  I tend to feel that our past is a significant part of who we are and one should feel ones entire life as a whole.  I called this the “historical body” and compared it to our physical body.  I said that our past, or history, is just as much a part of who we are as our own physical body as well as the immediate “now”.

Some aspects that are good to reflect on include:

  • What type of person we were like in the past.
  • What we like and dislike about the person we once were.
  • What life was like.
  • Things that we did and events that took place.
  • What we considered important and unimportant at certain times of our lives.
  • What bothered us at certain times of or lives.
  • Conflicts and crisis.
  • Joys and happy events.
  • Events that changed our lives.
  • The particular quality that make up what it was like to be younger.

One thing that becomes apparent is that we are not the same people we were in the past.  In fact, we could very well say that the person we reflect on in the past is a totally other person.  In some cases, looking at ones self in the past is no different than looking into the life of another person . . . we can be that different.  This self of the past we could call the “past self”. 

Most people view their self from the perspective of the “immediate self”.  This is the self in the immediate moment.  It is really reflective of the culmination of ones life and reflective of the current existing conditions.  In this way, it is really a narrow aspect of the self, though it has a basis in ones whole life.  Because of this, it cannot be considered reflective of ones entire self.

Typically, people generally associate the “past self” only in relation with the “immediate self”.  That is to say, what one remembers of the “past self” is only aspects of it that somehow are relate to and are relevant to the “immediate self”.  In this way, they are only seeing the “past self” as a representation of the “immediate self”.  Its not the “past self” they see but a modified version of the “immediate self”.  Because of this, it tends to be a distorted aspect of the “past self”.  Perhaps we could speak of this as the “reflected self”, as it is only the “immediate self” using the “past self” to reflect on itself.

What this shows is that the “past self” cannot be found in the immediate situation or on reflection.  This makes the “past self” very unique.

THE “PAST SELF”

The “past self” has several qualities:

  1. It is not a part of who we are (that is, its like another person).
  2. It is a part of us (its our former self and so always remains attached to us and who we are).
  3. It is not overtly “felt” by itself (that is, its not necessarily easily accessible to us)
  4. It must be seen from the framework of the “immediate self” (this tends to create something like a disconnect because of the differences between the “past self” and the “immediate self”).

As a result of these things, its hard to experience the “past self” as something tangible and real.  When it is reflected upon (by the “reflected self”) it is usually treated as a dead abstract memory and removed from who one is, as if it were a rock.  In many cases, ones “past self” is viewed as a non-entity, as if it doesn’t exist and isn’t even something considered.  What all this shows is how difficult sensing the “past self” can be.  I get the impression that many people can’t sense it.

SENSING THE “PAST SELF”

It seems that a person must have some prerequisites in order to sense the “past self” as something tangible and real.  These are:

  • Awareness – An awareness of ones self in ones past.
  • Interior sense – A “connection” with ones self that continues through time.

These show that the “past self” isn’t just a memory you reflect on.  You’re not just reflecting or remembering what happened in the past.  Instead, the “past self” is a part of ones self.  As a result, it must be “felt”, or, rather, “experienced”, as a part of ones self.  This is often achieved through what can be described as a “sense”.  That is to say, a person must be able to “sense” their “past self”, not reflect or remember it.  Any remembering is just remembering an event, not the self.

Typically, our past memories consists of images, in one form or another.  The “sense” of the “past self”, though, goes beyond images and is deeper.  It can begin with images but that’s not where the “past self” is.  It is found on a deeper level and must be sought there.  Its as if there is a progression from superficial to deep:

  • Images – memories, events
  • Emotions – feelings, reactions
  • Awareness – knowledge of certain things and qualities
  • The “past self”

In this way, a person must as if progress to the deeper aspects of the self to find the “past self”.  A person can begin with an image, an emotion, or an awareness, but it always has to progress to the deeper levels to find the “past self”.  In other words, the “past self” is not found with images, emotions, or awareness . . . they only point the way.

There are many things that seem to affect the sensing of the “past self” which include:

  • States of mind – generally, the more worldly the state of mind the less the “past self” is sensed
  • The strength of the “immediate self” – the stronger the “immediate self”, the less the “past self” is sensed . . . this shows that the “immediate self” is so powerful that it pushes the “past self” away
  • Age – this often causes a deadening or a weariness of the self overall which makes it harder to sense the “past self”

A person generally has to put themselves in a particular state of mind in order to sense the “past self”.  Interestingly, this often takes on a religious quality as you go deeper.  This is because much of the “religious sense” is similar to the sensing of the “past self”.  Some traits of this include:

  • Must be open to the “past self”.
  • Must “let go” of the “immediate self” and ego.  The stronger the “immediate self” the harder it is to discover the “past self”.
  • Must allow things to happen.  This requires a lessening in the power of the “immediate self” and ego.

Because of the similarity between the “religious sense” and the “past self” its not surprising that the theme of the “past self” is seen a lot in religion.  Some aspects of this include:

So what we see is that the “past self” passes into other aspects of the self.  In this way, we could say that there is this progression (going from superficial to deeper):

  1. Memory with “immediate self” – The memory of actual events in ones past.
  2. Memory without “immediate self” – The memory of a childlike quality . . . not based in actual events.
  3. Memory of “past self” – The memory of another life.

The fact is that this tendency to feel as if there is another “life” is based on the fact that the “past life” is another life . . . it is different from your “immediate self”.  As a result, the “past self” tends to be “felt” as another life.  Because of this, its not all that surprising that people tend to believe in things like reincarnations and other lives.  They are really sensing their “past self” as another self.

This sense of another self, though, isn’t perceived as another self alone, that is removed and separate from you, like an actual person.  There is this quality of it being “separate but with a connection” to you.  This, it seems to me, gives it some unique qualities, such as:

  • A spiritual quality.
  • A sense of some “guardian” or “something watching over you”.
  • A sense of “magical abilities”.
  • A sense of “hidden qualities”.
  • A sense that there is “more”.

This gives a greater and deeper sense to ones self and how one perceives who one is.  Perhaps one could say that the great depth of what a person is, and what they are, is found in the sense of the “past self”?

What we can see is that one of the benefits of sensing the “past self” is that it tends to “link” different aspects of ones self’s.  It makes ones self more whole and unified.  I often speak of the quality of “linking” different aspects of ones self as the ‘cross-self experience’ (see my article “Thoughts on observing the “nature-as-living” images – the ‘cross-self experience’ – the ‘pre-imagination’“).  Some ways that promote this experience include:

  • Some religions.
  • The recollecting of ones past.
  • Having a simple “childlike” way.
  • An attitude of openness.
  • The forgetting of ones “immediate self”.
  • Even something like a psychoanalysis or a deep inquiry into ones self.
  • Contemplation or meditation of some sort.

Oftentimes, though, the sensing of the “past self” tends to jump into the “religious sense” and the “past self” is forgotten altogether.  But when this happens one loses the “past self”.  I think this is a common scenario.  Sensing the “past self” is beneficial because it is a reflection of an aspect of ones self.  The “religious sense” goes beyond ones self and tends to not reflect ones self.  In this way, one as if “loses ones self” in the “religious sense”.  One could also look at it from the perspective that there is this relationship:

  • The “immediate self” – worldly
  • The “past self” – deeper sense of self
  • The “religious sense” – goes beyond self

As a result of this, one tends to quickly pass by the “past self” and go to the “religious sense” as it seems to be grander.  But, in so doing, one loses the self-connection.  One wants to try to keep this self-connection as it places a person in the world as a human being and gives them depth.  In this way, we can see that being “too religious” actually impairs a person.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Life in general, Living Images: Nature-as-living images, living memories, etc., Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on a media-induced mass hysteria . . . the “Trump panic”

Here is a reply I made to an article that said that Trump was mentally ill, which got me disgusted with all this Trump bashing:

“This whole endless nonsense about attacking Trump for every move he makes has gone past a joke.  I think that people need to start looking at themselves and why they are making such a big deal about this stuff instead of blaming Trump for every thing and turning him into some “bad guy” that’s against everything “good” in the world.  Oh, wait a minute, I guess I’m behind the latest revelation.  Now they are saying that he is “mentally ill”.  Are you kidding?  What’s next?  I guess the next step is that he is insane, huh?  No!  Maybe we can say that he is really a terrorist or, better yet, an alien preparing the world for a future alien invasion?  I like that one.

Most of this nonsense people are complaining about is nothing but hype and blowing things out of proportion.  Practically everyone I know agrees with that.  Its so obvious.  But many people can’t see that because this is all a mass hysteria.  Even during the election it became clear, to me, that we are dealing with MEDIA-INDUCED HYSTERIA in the general population caused by and provoked by the media blowing things out of proportion.  In other words, THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT TRUMP BUT ABOUT THE PEOPLE GETTING HYSTERICAL.  Some people have gotten so hysterical that they’ve made it out as if the worlds going to come to an end as a result of Trump.  Are you kidding me?!

I often say that “my advice is QUIT WATCHING THE NEWS . . . things aren’t that bad.    You’ll find that, once the smoke clears and the hysteria subsides, almost all of this is nothing but hype, nonsense, and fabricated stories similar to what we saw during the Vietnam War protests around 1970”.  Yeah, yeah, the government was all bad then too, they were plotting against the people, they were corrupt, freedom and democracy needed to be protected, our rights were being violated, peace and love, the worlds going to come to an end, yeah, yeah.  Oh, and they all had the “proof” to support their claims too.  Not only that, they quoted the Constitution to make them right too.

Of course, we’re all being threatened by Trump now!  Trumps a threat!  God help us all.  He’ll cause WWIII.  The economy is going to collapse.  Our rights are being threatened.  He’s against immigrants.  He’s against females.  He’s against everyone.  Our rights!  Our rights!   My God we got to fight for our rights!  Paranoia to the left.  Paranoia to the right.  Paranoia everywhere.  Its all Trump’s fault.  He’s a threat.  I say this because BLIND PARANOIA IS WHAT FUELS THIS HYSTERIA.

I think you’ll find that, in the end, a lot of this is not what it seems and that this is nothing but a hysteria in the general population.  I think what people need to do now is to calm down, quit listening to the news, and quit criticize Trump for every little thing, but to stand back and take a look at themselves and see how hysterically paranoid they have become . . . “

Naturally, this got me to thinking . . .

I do feel that if anyone would stand back, calm down, and take another look one can see that all this is nothing but an all-too-obvious villainizing of Trump and that things are not that bad.  People are doing everything they can to make this guy look bad.  No matter what he does its condemned, criticized, and looked at in the worst possible light.  Even if he doesn’t do anything its still condemned.  This has gone, as far as I’m concerned, way farther than it had to go and I now rank it as one of the worst villainizing I have ever seen (at this time, the worst I’ve seen still comes from the feminists – for example, see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists” . . . also see my article ‘Thoughts on villainizing“).

Some of the claims against Trump are so utterly ridiculous, outrageous, and obviously villainizing that its almost unreal that people actually expect me to believe it.  To be frank, I find it insulting that people expect me to be so dumb to believe what they’re dishing out.  They sit and say all this stuff about Trump but what they ought to do is look at what they’re saying . . . its asinine!  The fact is that the nonsense the media and the people are dishing out makes anything Trump has done look mild.

I’ve begun to call this mass hysteria the “Trump panic”.  Standing here and watching this at a distance, its like watching a bunch of people panic over nothing.  In fact, its almost funny at times.  I’ve started to make jokes, such as “Oh my God, Trump hates everyone!” or “Oh my God, Trump misspelled a word.  That shows he’s mentally unstable!”, or “Trumps going to cause the end of the world!”, and such.  But even though its a little comical I’ve said that if this “Trump panic” does not end, from politicians and common people alike, then this is going to do more damage than anything Trump could do.  How can a government, society, or people work effectively when people are doing nothing but condemning, criticizing, villaining, and seeing the worst in things?  In short, I am starting to feel that this “Trump panic” may cause an undermining that may adversely effect this country This makes this hysteria a serious issue and nothing to look at lightly. 

Keep in mind that this is a problem that originates in the people, not Trump, and its there we must look.  Because of this, it is more of a psychological and social inquiry, not a political one.  This is an inquiry into mass hysteria in a population of people.

SOME EXAMPLES . . .

There are many examples of this mass hysteria.  The news is literally filled with it.  A large part of the news involving Trump has signs of mass hysteria in one way or another.  Some have even become excellent examples of the traits of mass hysteria and what it does to people.

Sadly, the hysteria is now so extensive that everything involving Trump, what he does, what his intentions are, etc. have become distorted as a result.  This means, basically, that we do not know what is actually happening, despite how the media makes it appear clear-cut and obvious, even showing proof.  Just to figure out what “really happened” may take historians years to figure out.  This hysteria is causing a lot of myths, misconceptions, misunderstandings, and so on that has clouded everything and which will probably persist for years or even indefinitely.  Trying to dispel some of them may even become an achievement in itself.  More than likely, all these myths and such will create “schools of thought” as to what is going on in the years to come.  There will probably be, at least, a “pro-Trump school of thought” and an “anti-Trump school of thought”.  There will probably be endless “opinion wars” as well, of people citing this or that opinion that conflicts with another person opinion and causes disputes.  This wouldn’t be that surprising as this type of scenario is common with mass hysteria.  It shows that “what really happened” is not what is important in hysteria but, rather, what people “think is happening as a result of their feelings”.  It is this that is remembered and considered truth and this becomes the basis on what is considered to of “happened”.  The result is many versions of what “happened”.

Take a look at this:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/chaos-mess-fake-news-turmoil-trump-lets-loose-at-press-conference/ar-AAn1sLG?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  The news has repetitively stated that his administration is in chaos.  Is it?  Just look at the title of this article:  “‘Chaos.’ ‘Mess.’ ‘Fake news.’ ‘Turmoil.’ Trump lets loose at press conference.”  Sounds suspiciously as if the news media is trying to make Trump look bad because he says his administration is not in chaos . . . he “lets loose”.  God help us!  Should we believe what they say, after all the media has said so far (for more examples of what the media has put out, see the examples below)?  As for me, from what I have seen so far, I am not going to put any faith in the media.  But that doesn’t mean that its wrong . . . there may also be a truth in it (more than likely, it will be a highly exaggerated truth).  I cannot say at this time.  The fact is that the media has distorted things so much that we cannot say what is going on exactly.  It will probably be years before we find out what actually happened.

The examples below come from the news media which have been largely responsible, in my opinion, for beginning the hysteria as well as keeping it going (see section below on the effect of media).  I’ve often described the situation this way:  “the media has worked the people up into such a frenzy that many are not in their right minds”.  I think there is truth to this.  Its no surprise, then, that much of what I have heard from people have largely followed the media and is generally in imitation of the media or at least its an orientation that assumes that it is correct.  As a result, the news media is a good source for examples.

The examples below show material from many groups of people, such as:

  • Journalists.
  • Politicians.
  • Common people.

As one looks at what these people say note what they say.  Don’t get hung up on what they’re saying about Trump.  Look at what is coming out of their mouths and what they are dishing out.  Its almost unreal what they are saying.  I’ve been saying all along that people need to stand back and look at what the people are saying!  They sit and talk about what Trump said, but look at what THE PEOPLE SAY.  There’s almost like a spectrum.  On one extreme it borders on paranoid delusion and is almost insane.  On the other extreme it is comical and hilarious.  I always said that if I was a foreigner, and had no vested interest in the U.S., this would be a great comedy.  I’d look forward to looking at the news in the U.S. just for its comedic value.  Remember, this isn’t based in what Trump says, its what the people are saying . . . journalists, politicians, and common people . . . they are the “clowns” of this whole thing.

Now, when looking at these examples look for a number of things that suggest hysteria and not an honest statement of facts (which is what the media SHOULD be doing):

  • Watch how Trump is portrayed as “obviously bad” and how some articles are written with the intention of doing just that.
  • Notice how conditions are portrayed worse than they really are.
  • Notice how they jump to conclusions and make bold assumptions (that the “world is in chaos”, for example).
  • Notice how they often describe dark personal feelings (they are “frightened”, for example).
  • Notice how they take a small thing (such as a statement) and blow it out of proportion and make it out far bigger than it is.
  • Notice how many statements seem out-of-place and, sometimes, to the point of sounding “insane”.
  • Notice how they use extensive use of their version of “right” in speaking of Trump (this shows that its not about portraying facts but making a “judgment” on Trump).
  • Notice how there is the point of view that he is always doing bad things that are “obviously” against societies social standards, as if he intending it to be that way (such as that he “hates” this group or that group).
  • Notice how Trump tends to be viewed as against American values and principles.
  • Notice how they condemn him with worn-out American clichés about “evil” leaders, such as comparing him to Hitler, being a dictator, trying to deceive the people, etc.
  • Notice how they make cheap associations with historical events.  If they can even remotely make a comparison between Trump and some “bad event” in the past they make it.  Because they can make this comparison it makes Trump “obviously bad”.
  • Notice how they “ramble on” with the same event or situation, condemning and criticizing it.  In some cases, this “rambling on” can go on for weeks . . . an endless statement of perpetual endless and monotonous condemnation.
  • Notice how they portray Trump as “plotting against them” or trying “threatening them” in some way, even though nothing has happened or there’s no reason to believe it.
  • Notice how, if one stands back, a lot of it sounds like an endless stream of bickering, complaining, moaning, bitching, and so on.
  • Notice how much of this is unprovoked and is not instigated by Trump.  Much of it is a reaction to some small thing, such as a statement, that really doesn’t matter that much.

If one looks closely, one will find that a great number of articles, and news, involving Trump is not motivated by stating the facts but, rather, in condemnation and villainization.

Here are some examples:

This is an example of how absurd things have gotten.  Look at this article in msn: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/whats-hot/did-trump-alter-this-white-house-photo-to-make-his-hand-look-bigger/ar-AAmka0E?ocid=iehp.  First of all, check out the statement:  “I’ll just begin by saying I will readily and lustily believe any conspiracy theory about our current president.”  Wow!  Can you believe that?  That is a good example of how people are so willing to believe that Trump is bad.  Remember, this is the mentality we’re seeing out there.  Its being taken by the media, politicians, and common people.  And what is this article about?  Apparently, there is a photograph where Trumps hand, which is resting on Obama’s shoulder as he was shaking his hand, appears to of been photoshopped to be bigger.  Are you kidding?  So, I guess that implies some sort of malicious intent on Trumps part?  Is that what this is supposed to mean?  I certainly doubt that.  I think this ranks as one of the more ridiculous, asinine, absurd, and the stupidest claims I’ve seen.  This is a good example of how asinine all this has become.  Interestingly, the author of this article, who made the statement above, was basically recognizing that the claim of photoshopping is ridiculous.  Even the people who are so eager to villainize Trump are recognizing that other people have gone too far.  I wonder when they will recognize that they are part of this asinine hysteria too?

Take a look at this:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/24/someone-wrote-trump-2016-on-emorys-campus-in-chalk-some-students-said-they-no-longer-feel-safe/?utm_term=.48cb54bbd7b8.  Look at the title:  “Someone wrote ‘Trump 2016’ on Emory’s campus in chalk. Some students said they no longer feel safe“.   They “no longer feel safe”.  Are you kidding?  And what were the statements written on the sidewalk: “Trump”, “Accept the inevitable Donald Trump in 2016”, and “Build a wall”.  That’s it!  Note the statement, “they shouted in the quad, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”  What?  Also note this statement, “We have nothing to lose but our chains.”  What?  Look at this statement, “pain in the face of this perceived intimidation.”  Did I get this right?  Someone writing slogans in support of a candidate, during an election, is “intimidation”?  That’s too ridiculous.  And listen to this, “Sidewalk Is a Racist Microaggression …,” and then it goes on to say that students need ““safe spaces” to protect them from presidential candidates’ names and slogans”.  Are you kidding me?  Let me get this straight, writing Trump, or something associated with Trump, on the sidewalk is a “racist microaggression”?  Did I hear that right?  And students need a “safe space” away from this?  You’ve got to be kidding me!  It also says that writing this on the sidewalk is “hate speech” and the “attack these messages represent”.  It also says, “But it is un-American to support hatred against others, and that is exactly what Donald Trump is doing”.  He is!  I think maybe they ought to look at their own hatred toward him instead of the hatred they think he apparently has for everyone.  They seem to suggest that Trump is against everyone and hates everyone . . . and, let me guess, he hates females and minorities especially, the old wore out American line of villainizing.  If one stands back and looks at it, one can see that this is a gross over-reaction, particularly looking at it months afterwords.  When I first saw it, right after it happened, I was stunned by it.  It was one of the things that made me realize that we are definitely dealing with mass hysteria, as it shows signs of paranoia, over-sensitivity, over-reaction, blowing things out of proportions, self-created threats, etc.  This is very good example of how ridiculous this has gotten.

Take a look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trump-under-fire-for-saying-he-respects-killer-putin/ar-AAmEAON?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  Here it says, “President Donald Trump drew fire from Republicans and Democrats alike Sunday, after he defended a softer stance on Russia, playing down political assassinations and Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.”  And what was this over?  It was in response to inquiries about ” Putin’s alleged links to the extrajudicial killing of journalists and dissidents” (notice the word “alleged” . . . the Russians are even demanding an apology for this, http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/kremlin-says-it-wants-apology-from-fox-news-over-putin-comments/ar-AAmF8lG?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp).  Trump replied that “There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers.”  He goes on to say, “You think our country is so innocent?”  My God, honesty about how the U.S. has behaved for the first time!  But, yet he was criticized for it, of course.  I particularly like the response, “This moral equivalency that Trumps continues to draw between the USA and Russia is disgusting (and inaccurate).”   I hate to break the news to you . . . yes, the U.S. also has killers and has done some bad things.  But all these high and mighty American politicians won’t accept the truth and only want to see the good.  Since Trump mentions something bad about the U.S., even though its true, it gives them cause to condemned him for it . . . another example, I guess, of how bad Trump is, huh?  But Trump then goes on to make a good point of politics, “If Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all around the world, major fight. That’s a good thing.”  But, lets all sit and nit-pick the guy to death and see bad in everything he does.  This looks, to me, like another example of finding fault with Trump.

Take a look at this:  http://www.sltrib.com/home/4904474-155/i-misspoke-one-word-conway-calls.  Here Kellyanne Conway, a Trump advisor, was criticized for saying the wrong word.  She said “Bowling Green massacre” but she actually meant “Bowling Green terrorists”.  She was speaking of Bowling Green, KY where two Iraqi citizens were convicted for trying to send money and weapons to Al-Qiada.  She says, “the corrections in the papers that are attacking me are three pages long”.  Even Chelsea Clinton got in on the attacks saying to “not make up fake attacks” (see http://ktla.com/2017/02/03/trump-advisor-kellyanne-conway-cites-bowling-green-massacre-that-never-happened-to-justify-travel-ban/).  This just shows how FANATICAL this attacking of Trump has gotten, where someone associated with him gets bashed for making a mistake with a single word!  Unbelievable!

Take a look at this:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newsfactcheck/fact-check-what-trump-got-wrong-at-news-conference/ar-AAn1KPZ?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  An article on three facts he got wrong at a press conference.  In the first it states that he was off by 2 electoral votes!  Two electoral votes . . . something like that deserves an article by itself!  Then look at the second header, “Trump misstates ‘biggest Electoral College win since Reagan'” but in the body of the article it states what he actually said, “I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.”  There’s quite a difference between “misstates” and “I guess”.  Look at the last header:  “9th Circuit Court of Appeals has not set a record” and then look at what Trump actually said, “I have heard 80%, I find that hard to believe, that is just a number I heard, that they are overturned 80% of the time.”  Trump expressed uncertainty about the number but, yet, the media treated it as if he was stating it as fact.  The first is over a small almost laughable number and the other two are statements he said, and expressed uncertainty about, but in which the media treated as definite facts.  These are good examples of the endless nit-picking and finding-fault-with-Trump mentality that we’re seeing.  This article is just another cheap attempt at trying to find something wrong with him.  The news is filled with nonsense like this.

Take a look at this:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/18/thats-how-dictators-get-started-mccain-criticizes-trump-for-calling-media-the-enemy/?utm_term=.833c20551b18.  Here, Sen. McCain states that “That’s how dictators get started” because Trump attacked the Press.  He then goes on to say, “In other words, a consolidation of power.”  Are you kidding?  Then he says, “When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I’m not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I’m just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”  Wow, using history to “jump the gun” as a cheap attempt to portray Trump as bad as possible.  At least he toned it down by saying that he’s not saying that Trump is trying to be a dictator.  The problem is that he implied and suggested it and by using a too simplistic and cheap comparison with history.  Just because someone criticizes the Press doesn’t mean this is the path they are going to take.  I’m not that stupid.  I can’t believe even Politicians are making such claims.  They sit and talk about Trump’s sanity but I think they should be concerned about their sanity.

Take a look at this:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/watergate-reporter-carl-bernstein-trump%E2%80%99s-attacks-on-the-press-are-more-dangerous-than-nixon%E2%80%99s/ar-AAn7gV0?ocid=iehp.  I like how they have a picture of Trump pointing and yelling, another cheap way to make him look bad and as a maniacal tyrant, huh?  I particularly like this statement:  “Trump’s attacks on the American press as ‘enemies of the American people’ are more treacherous than Richard Nixon’s attacks on the press.”  Are you kidding?  Can you guys blow this any more out of proportion?  Then it says that it ” brought to mind “dictators and authoritarians, including Stalin, including Hitler.”  This has got to be a joke, right?  I particularly like this statement:  “Trump is out there on his own, leading a demagogic attack on the institutions of free democracy,” he said. “We are into terrible authoritarian tendencies.”  What the crap?  This has got to be a joke . . . its too ridiculous.  Is it me or does this sound paranoid, over-reactive, and people “jumping the gun”?

Take a look at this:  http://www.sltrib.com/news/4963471-155/not-my-presidents-day-rally-brings.  Look at some of these statements:

  • A man told the crowd that Trump was creating false enemies — such as immigrants, people of color, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals — to divide the country. — That sounds paranoid to me.  It sounds as if he is implying that Trump is deliberately trying to undermine the country . . . he’s plotting against us!”Poor white people have been hoodwinked, bamboozled and conned” by the president, who appears to be looking out for the rich and powerful, a man said. — Where did that come from?  I guess people got to find something wrong with him, huh?
  • “Donald Trump is doing real damage to this country,” one lady said of the president’s first month in the White House. “And we have to get him out of office as soon as possible.” — He’s doing damage?  Personally, I’d say that these people are the real threat, spreading paranoid ideas, blowing things out of proportion, and becoming hysterical over nothing.  They are propagating and spreading false stories, false fear, and false threats.  If that isn’t a threat then what is?
  • Another protester said Trump is a threat to the nation’s future.  He goes on to say, “I see that our federal republic of the United States of America is in danger,.  There is a clear and present danger to the structure and values of our nation.” — There is?  Are you kidding?
  • Another protestor had a placard that said, “Early warning signs of fascism”. — Wow!  Let me guess . . . Trump is another Hitler?
  • Trump’s relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin is troubling, said one protestor.  “I’m concerned about the Russia thing,” she said. “Trump and his adviser . . . there’s something going on there.” — It sounds like she’s doing what a lot of people are doing, making a threat where there is no threat.
  • I also saw, on the news, a lady say something to this effect:  “I fear that we are going to have a violent takeover of the government.” — Wow!  God help us all!  Deliver us from the tyrant Trump.

I can’t believe these people went walking around saying such absurd ridiculous nonsense.  Anyone can see that these are statements of paranoia, over-reaction, and blowing things out of proportion.  They are not the statements of people who are in their right mind, calm, collected, and logical.  You don’t expect me to believe that Trump is deliberately trying to undermine the country and the other nonsense they are saying.  I still think I have the best description of Trump.  He is actually an alien preparing for an alien invasion.  I can go further.  He’s in league with the Russians so that they will come over to the U.S., the land of the free, and take away our freedom and oppress us.  Once we are oppressed and enslaved it will make it easier for the aliens when they invade earth, as they want to oppress and enslave the whole human race.  Our freedom’s at stake, people!  We must fight Trump so that we do not become slaves to the aliens!  Take arms!  Resist!  Resist!

Take a look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/mayor-of-madrid-compares-donald-trump-to-hitler-over-immigration-ban/ar-AAmwMUm?li=AAggFp5&ocid=iehp.  Here the Mayor of Madrid is comparing Trump to Hitler because of the ban on refugee’s from certain Muslim countries.  Are you kidding?  First of all, why does the policies of the U.S. even concern the Mayor of Madrid at all?  Why should it concern any foreign country at all?  As an American I find it insulting that people from foreign countries are saying things like this and I’m particularly offended because people are actually out protesting:  its not your country!  Personally, I feel that, under the current conditions of terrorists attacks, it is a wise move.  But more importantly, what, exactly, is the association between Trump and Hitler?  Because a country does not allow certain people into their country to help protect its people . . . this makes Trump like Hitler?  Give me a break.  I particularly like this statement, “If you read your history in the lead-up to the Second World War this is the kind of rhetoric that allowed Hitler to move forward.”  Are you kidding?  This is a joke, right?  This is a cheap over simplistic association, in my opinion.  My God, countries restricting access isn’t new.  Many countries have strict restrictions and regulations on who can go in their country and for many different reasons.  Look, for example, in the immigration rules of the UK and you’ll see a lot of restrictions.  When I went there, many years ago, I was stunned by all the rules.  But I have always taken the point of view that it was a countries “God given right” to restrict foreigners, for whatever reason, or to make them leave the country at any time and for whatever reason they want.  A country has no obligation to accept or keep foreigners in their country.  The point of view they’re taking is like saying a country has no rights, only foreigners.  I do not agree with this.  In fact, this is not acceptable.  This whole silly nonsense about the ban is making me say “I want my country back!”  That is to say, I want a country where we can say who comes in and who doesn’t come in and that its treated like its our right as a country . . . and no one says a thing about it!  Its like the U.S. has given itself away to other peoples opinions, letting it determine what we do.  That’s not acceptable.  All this sounds, to me, like another case of villainizing of Trump and making things sound worse than they are.  I particularly like how she stamps it as a “violation of rights”.  That’s good . . . it makes it sound legal, legitimate, and makes Trump look “obviously bad”.

Overall, it doesn’t take a genius to see that all this protest and such about restricting refugee’s from certain countries from entering the U.S. is nothing but another attack on Trump.  In other words, all these people who are professing to be for the refugee’s are not for the refugee’s at all . . . if Trump wasn’t involved then they probably wouldn’t care at all.

Take a look at this article:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-outrage-refugee-ban-donald-trump-jared-kushner-alfalfa-club-dinner-inappropriate-a7552046.html.  Here, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trumps daughter, posted a photo of herself and her husband.  No big deal, right?  Take a look at this statement:  “She immediately drew heavy criticism for sharing the photo while humanitarian chaos swept across airports around the world. People accused her of “extreme insensitivity” and labelled the photo “wildly offensive”, “inappropriate” and “tone deaf”.”  What?!!!  Are you kidding?  “Humanitarian chaos” . . . she’s the Presidents daughter . . .  she’s not responsible for the country . . . what the ****?  If that isn’t cheap and obvious villainizing than what is?  Now take a look at one of the responses:  “Oh, good, the world is burning and families are being torn apart, but you’re decked out in tin foil.”  What?!!!   The “world is burning and families are being torn apart”.  This has got to be a joke, its too ridiculous.  It just too bizarre and crazy.

Take a look at this about the “women’s march”:  https://www.womensmarch.com/mission.  This single web page has a lot of manifestations of mass hysteria.  Here are a few points:

  • Look at this statement in particular, “The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.”.   I can understand the insulting part but “demonized”, “threatened”, “hurting”, “scared”, and “national and international concern and fear”.  What?!!!  Are you kidding?  My God, are things that bad?  Did I miss something?  Are things really that bad?  I don’t think so.  This sounds like over reaction to me, and blowing things out of proportion.  These sound like self-created threats, which they created in their own minds, and not based in any actual conditions.  Someone show me the proof that these conditions exist!
  • Then there is mention that they are following the principles of “Kingian nonviolence” (does that mean Martin Luther King?) and they list all these principles.  Half the page is dedicated to that.  Violence?  What violence?  Where does this concern for violence come from?  Again, did I miss something?  This sounds like a ridiculous over elaboration, in a different way, of the “fear”, “scared”, “hurting”, etc. themes that are mentioned above.
  • If you read the first statement I quoted above more closely you can see that they are saying that all these supposed threats are directed toward females and minorities, which this “women’s march” is supposed to be protecting.  It is not directed, of course, to white males who gets no mention at all.  What?!!!   So are they implying that the white male is threatening them and the cause of it all . . . is that it?  Wow!  This makes it look like they are being “anti-male”, especially “anti-white male”.
  • And then there’s the statement, “women’s rights are human rights”.  What are they saying, that their “human rights” are being threatened?  Where did this idea come from?  Which rights are being threated, exactly?  Again, did I miss something?  They’re sitting here talking about being scared, hurt, with all these threats, concerns over violence, and rights but no one, that I know, can see any substantiation for it.  Many of us are sitting here going “where the crap did this come from?”
  • If one looks closer at it all one can see that much of it is harkening back to themes from the Vietnam War protest period of time.  For example, if you look closer you can see a lot of “peace and love” themes in it, almost like they are trying to repeat those marches.  They seem to almost be portraying themselves as the self-proclaimed representative of these values as well as the self-proclaimed representatives of American democratic values.  For example, they jump from concerns over women’s rights to minorities rights like its the same thing (fight for minorities rights is the same as fighting for their rights???).  And then there is the reference to “Kingian nonviolence” probably referring back to the civil rights movement no doubt.  The reference to violence, even, may even refer back to the war issue, with all its violence and death.  Also, the whole idea of a march and a “hear our voice” is almost like a repeat of the Vietnam War protests.   Even the whole document is “dressed” in what can be described as an “official democratic document” citing political and democratic ideas and ideals even with its terminology.  So is this to make it look more legitimate?  I guess we’re supposed to automatically assume its correct.
  • But also take a look at this statement, “We will not rest until women have parity and equity at all levels of leadership in society”.  If  you read between the lines this appears to say that they are upset because a female didn’t become President and they won’t rest until a female is President.  That’s what it sounds like to me.  The “leadership” they are referring to is really the Presidency.  That, after all, is what this whole thing revolves around and this whole march is in response to it.  Saying that they “will not rest” appears to imply that they are going to vote for any female the next time a female runs for President, just because she’s a female (which is probably what many of them did), or that they will do anything to get females in leadership positions, just to get them in there.  This sounds “sexist”, to me, and that they are “favoring females” (if a male did that we’d be condemned but its OK for them to do it).  I also know, as a fact, that many females think that a female President will solve their problems (see my article “Thoughts on some aspects of female identity problems“).  This document seems suggests that they even think a female President will solve all their new self-created fears described above, as well.

Overall, the “women’s march” seems to reflect a lot of qualities of mass hysteria, such as self-created fears, fabricated threats, paranoia, getting carried away with emotions, over reaction, and such.  With all these self-created fears and self-created threats, paranoia, and such they have created what I call the “false hysterical world” (see ‘mass hysteria and its effects’ below).  Basically, they take a fear and elaborate it so much that they create a world of fear and threat that does not exist.   Much of what they are saying, and claiming, come from this “false hysterical world” (such as how they are “hurting”, “scared”, and worrying over their rights that aren’t being threatened).  The “false hysterical world” can get so bad that they will start to defend themselves against the self-created fears and self-created threats that they have created in their own minds.  In other words, they are reacting to a self-made fear and threat, not one that actually exists.  It also shows how they think that politics, marching, and a female President is going to protect themselves against this “false hysterical world”.  What’s sad, and pathetic, about all this is that I very well know that this whole stupid thing revolves around the fact that Trump said some “inappropriate” things.  They took some words and blew them so far out of proportion that they have become, to use their own words, “demonized”, “threatened”, “hurting”, “scared”, and with “national and international  concern and fear”.  You see, they have become frightened by their own elaboration of the statements and, as a result, have fabricated false threats and abuses and created a “false hysterical world” that does not exist!  If this isn’t blowing things out of proportion then what is?  Its common in mass hysteria.

Take a look at this:  http://cornellsun.com/2016/11/09/devastated-cornellians-mourn-election-of-donald-trump-at-cry-in/.  Here people got together to cry and “mourn” the fact that Trump won, a “cry-in”.  Are you kidding me?  This has got to be a joke.  Its too silly.  I heard of girls crying for hours after the election results all in a panic of self-created fears and threats that have this uncanny knack at resembling the themes from the Vietnam War protests and civil rights movement (see the remark on the “women’s march” above) as well as the liberal views it created.  Its states, “There’s no way we’re going to let his bigotry, sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia define this country — even though it defines the presidency at this point in time”.  Are we back to 1970 again?  Peace, love, democracy, freedom!  Also notice how they try to bring in themes of how they are representatives of democracy, such as “organizers encouraging attendees to gather closer together and “include each other.”” and “attendees signed papers in solidarity with groups they believe may be marginalized during a Trump presidency”.  I guess they’re the protectors of democracy against the mean tyrant Trump.  We see all-so-familiar themes from the Vietnam War protests . . . supposed hatred of females and minorities, the governments a threat, equality, peace and love, democracy.  Is that coincidence?  I don’t think so.  In actuality, the hysteria over Trump is a continuation of the hysteria over the cold war, particularly during the Vietnam War period . . . I believe it descends from it and, because of this, it repetitively uses its logic and themes (see section on the liberal connection below).  Its this type of nonsense that made me joke to people that I am going to be a “Trump trauma therapist” specializing in the traumatic effects of Trump winning the election. . . . every Tuesdays and Thursdays we could have “cry-in’s” to help people deal with the trauma . . .

Take a look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/a-worrying-tweet-donald-trump-wrote-about-kate-middleton-has-resurfaced/ar-AAmnmuu.  In this article they speak of Trump making a tweet that says, “Who wouldn’t take Kate’s picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on Kate!”.  This was about a picture of Kate Middleton topless on a holiday.  The media calls it a “worrying tweet”.  It is?  To me, it sounds like common sense.  I’ve already heard people, numerous times, say things like this when famous people do the same thing.  I, myself, have repetitively said that this loss of privacy is one of the main reasons why I would hate to be famous.  I even remember Prince Charles even stating that no matter where he went he felt he had no privacy, particularly with these big long range lenses they have now.  They can take a pictures at any distance and then it will be on the front page of the news.  I particularly like the statement in response to Trump visiting the UK, “We don’t imagine Kate will be too thrilled to meet him.”  Is it me, or does this sound over-reacted, blown out of proportion, and ridiculous?  To me, this sounds like they are taking a simple statement from Trump and making the worst of it.  Can you find any more fault with the guy?

Take a look at this:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/here-are-all-the-companies-that-have-cut-ties-with-the-trump-family/ss-AAmD1Sk?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  My God, they’re now trying to urge people to not shop at retailers with Trump brands.  Are you kidding?  Also look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/watchdogs-kellyanne-conway-broke-ethics-rules/ar-AAmLYQI?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp.  They say that Conway’s mentioning Ivanka’s brand in an interview is “unethical”.   My guess is that behind all this, which sounds like a justified statement, is just another attack on Trump and his government.  This appears that way, and we’ve seen similar many examples above, of people looking for any way to attack Trump, regardless of how trivial and nonsensical.

These examples are just some of the many things that are being said.  When looked at “casually”, and as single articles or statements, they just seem like weird statements people say from time to time.  But these are not occasional statements made by occasional people.  They are being made by many people and quite often.  This means that we are looking at a greater social phenomena.  As a result, they need to be looked at as part of a greater social phenomena.  This is why there are literally millions of these coming from almost all classes of people:  politicians, journalists, common people, etc.

SO CALLED “TRUMPISM” – ANOTHER OBSERVATION OF THE SYMPTOMS OF THE MASS HYSTERIA

I am not the only one to notice this hysteria.  Take a look at this:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-therapists-214333.  This article, in actuality, is describing the hysteria.  The problem is that they are blaming Trump for it all and not seeing the greater social side of it.  As a result of this, they are actually manifesting the hysteria to some extent.  In other words, they are not only describing its effects but their own hysteria is altering their interpretation of it.  Its for this reason why they make continual therapy/political associations, such as that see  “Trump as a threat not just to the American people but to the democratic tradition, which he believes fosters the kind of openness that is essential to the work that therapists do.”  So, you see, he see’s Trump as a threat, reflecting the hysteria, but he also see’s Trump as a threat to the work of therapists . . . now Trump is a threat to them as well.  This threat of Trump they called “Trumpism”.

This “Trump as a threat to the work of therapist” is the orientation of this article.  As a result, things are somewhat “twisted” to fit that orientation.  Trump is then viewed as the “threat”, and the cause of it all, but, if one looks closer, one can see that its actually symptoms of mass hysteria are being described.  Some of the examples include:

  • They state the therapists are worried about the effects Trump will have on our mental health.  It states that Trumps statements are a “threat to the well-being of the people we care for”.  This refers to an observation of the hysteria but blaming Trump for it because they, themselves, are influenced by it.
  • They state, “There’s good reason to believe that demagogic, authoritarian leadership has a profound effect on citizens’ mental health—yet we know very little about what that effect is, Doherty says, because such repressive regimes tend to punish those who would dare to publicize findings of psychological damage.”  So are they are comparing Trump to a “repressive regime” but there is no reason to suppose that.  There is no reason to believe this.  We’re starting to see signs of fabricated threats and fabricated stories . . . Trump is being credited for something that has not happened.   This shows how the hysteria, with its politics, is affecting their interpretation.
  • They then state that, in a poll, they found that “43 percent of the respondents—not limited to people in therapy—reported experiencing emotional distress related to Trump and his campaign” This is a good example of how over-sensitivity and over-reaction is a big factor in this hysteria.  The article above, with the writings on the sidewalk, are another good example.  Basically, people are getting carried away with over-reaction.  This makes them prone to see the worst things in things and make things out worse than they are.  I would go on to say that over-reaction defines this mass hysteria . . . people hear something and blow it so far out of proportion that it becomes a threat.
  • It says, ” I spoke to seven of those therapists, who described the effects of Trumpism they are seeing in their clients—from fear of being ostracized or stripped of legal protections they now enjoy, to suffering the terror of a childhood trauma reawakened by a candidate whose father trained him to think of himself as a “killer” and a “king””.  This last is particularly interesting.  The “suffering the terror of a childhood trauma” is a good example how hysteria becomes an avenue for psychological issues.  The other statements show how hysteria becomes an avenue for life worries.  In other words, mass hysteria often becomes an avenue for other issues such as mental problems, life concerns, worries, cultural fears (such as racism and the fear of another Hitler), and so on.  Because of this tendency, mass hysteria often brings in other forms of fears, worries, etc. that have nothing to do with it.
  • In addition, it states, “They also spoke about how Trump—with his evident lack of self-reflection and frequent scapegoating—is making it harder for them to do their jobs.”  It is?  Unfortunately, they don’t elaborate on this.  My guess is that this may be some form of a paranoia.
  • Also note this statement, ” Those comments have touched a nerve in many women, sometimes even more alarmingly among those dealing with the post-traumatic effects of physical or sexual abuse by husbands, boyfriends or fathers.”  This is a good example of the power and extent of mass hysteria.  It shows that mass hysteria can be more “traumatic” than an actual event. 
  • Also note this statement, “Trump is contributing to a sense of “collective trauma,” a blow that tears at the basic tissue of social life”.  I think this shows that we are looking at something that goes beyond Trump, as a person, to a social problem.  And then there is this statement, “Even here in the upper Midwest, our sense of community is disappearing.”  This is about Trump, is it?
  • And then there is this statement from a client, ““I’m afraid some white motherfucker is gonna go down to the West Bank”—a part of Minneapolis that has a large population of Somali, mostly Muslim immigrants—“and shoot people up.”  Wow!  Its OK for them to state racist remarks but not Trump, huh?  I don’t see anyone crying about that or making a big deal about it.  That’s not acceptable!  If Trump is heavily criticized then so should this be.  I should of seen these “therapists” condemn that heavily . . . but they didn’t.  That says a lot.
  • Then there is this from a therapist who “experienced panic attacks herself just thinking about how her patients—most of whom are legal immigrants of Latin American, African or Caribbean descent—might respond to Trump’s branding of immigrants as a danger.”  She suffered “panic attacks”?  This shows how they, themselves, are being swept up in the hysteria as well.
  • Here is another statement about their clients, “Their alignment with Trump is a symptom of their trauma.”  Wow!  Its all Trumps fault, huh?  Just blame him for it all.
  • And then there is this statement, “It isn’t enough to defeat Trump the candidate, some signers of Doherty’s manifesto say, and that’s not really the point. They believe they have to fight Trumpism—the emotional pain they say he has already caused. “There is a real and present danger for a national mental health crisis,” Doherty says. “And regardless of the outcome of the election, it will continue to need our attention.”  Wow!  This shows how far and the extent that mass hysteria can go.  They also say “the emotional pain . . . he has already caused”.  That’s nothing but blaming him for something he had nothing to do with.

As I said above, this article is actually describing the hysteria but by people who are also affected by it.  As a result, they are still blaming Trump for it, as if he is at fault for it all.  But, if one looks at some of what they said above, as well as the examples above, one can see that Trump, himself, has had very little influence in it . . . he just made some statements here and there.  It was the people who turned it into something horrid and panicked over it.

THE QUESTION OF A BLUNT MANNER AND “INAPPROPRIATE” STATEMENTS

What’s particularly sad and pathetic about all this is that this mass hysteria has origin in Trumps blunt manner, “inappropriate” statement, and his lack of “etiquette” in speaking.  In other words, its that he said things in the “wrong way” and it is this that caused all this.  Think of it . . . a mass hysteria caused because people were “offended” or “did not like” what someone said.  Wow!  People talk of what Trump said is bad . . . what about a mass hysteria based on what a person said.  Which is more ridiculous?  You tell me!  My God, they weren’t worth a mass hysteria and the asinine panic, “mental problems”, villainizing, and the other nonsense it caused.

I’ve seen many of Trumps statements and I’m not convinced of how “bad” they are (at least to the point of causing mass hysteria, panic, and such).  To me, who stood by just watching it at a distance, I saw a number of types of statements.  In actuality, these are statements that are actually common for most people, in one way or another.  In other words, I don’t see anything particularly new about it.  Trump just seemed unrestrained compared to the majority of people.  Some of the statements include:

  • Statements that could be called “rude” or “inappropriate”.  Typically, these were statements about opinions he has about people.  If they involved females they often tended to be sexual in orientation.  To me, they sound like statements many guys make all over the place and which I’ve heard all my life.  Even I’ve made similar statements.  Personally, I chuckled at most of what I heard and didn’t view them in a bad light.  I was actually stunned by the reaction, frankly.  I still believe that they have been way over-over-over-reacted by people.  Like I said above, a hysteria created by these statements is utterly ridiculous and I personally now view the reaction as one of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen in my life, far surpassing how “bad” people make them out to be.  Typically, these types of statements are “private”, often said only to certain people, such as friends.  Sometimes, they are often so private that they are not said to anyone but kept to ones self.  I do agree that it would of been best that he did not of said these, but some people don’t, for whatever reason.
  • Some statements were often very “personal” toward people and could range from praise to fierce condemnation.  Of course, the praise he does is passed off as nothing, and not noticed and, from what I have seen, he’s done more praise than most people.  Just as he’s praised people he’s also said some “bad” things about people and this is all that most people see.  And if the criticism, or condemnation, is a female or minority it was automatically “bad” and social hysteria ensued.  God help us all!
  • The bulk of the statements, it seems to me, are questionable and are really a matter of opinion and ones “sensitivity”.  With this hysteria, “sensitivity” has become the most critical and influential of those.  Basically, the more “sensitive” you were the more “offended” you became.  Typically, this appears as blowing things out of proportion and making a big deal about them.  As I said above, “over-sensitivity” figures prominent in this hysteria.  I can’t decide, though, which has caused the most problem, Trumps “openness” in his statements or peoples “oversensitivity”.  Really, its probably a combination but I think that people who weret “oversensitive” tended to blow it out of proportion.

Take a look at this:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83.  This has some really good examples of blowing what Trump said out of proportion.  It also shows some of the the “cheap” ways they try to villainize him by making him a “racist”.  Here are a few points:

  • One of my favorite statements is the supposed “racist remark” Trump was supposed to of said about a Federal Judge of Mexican descent.  He said, “he’s a Mexican”, and went on, “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”  This was condemned as racist.  It is?  That’s a statement of hatred or belittling, huh?  I don’t think so.  Actually, to me, it sounds like common sense.  What, you think that people do not show a favoritism to their own people?  In the real world, this is a common thing.  I see it all the time and consider it “normal”, actually.  For example, I’ve been to the bank, many times, and sat and watched how Mexican clerks gave their people preference over us white people and, of course, no one called them “racist”.  If we did that we’d probably be in a lawsuit or something.  I’m not the only who made these observations.  Ironically, it seems to me, that Trumps statement is actually his way of questioning “possible bias” that the Judge might have.  To put it another way, it seems to me that Trump was questioning if the Judges rulings was “biased” or “racist”.  But, in paranoid, frightened, and hysterical America he mentioned his race (God help us all!) so he automatically becomes a racist in that wonderful make-the-worst-out-of-everything-by-jumping-to-conclusions American mentality.  Trump was also asked if he would trust a Muslim judge, in the light of the immigration restriction, and he was supposed to of said that they might not be fair either.  Your not going to tell me that’s racist too?  Sounds like common sense to me.  I would of thought the same thing, based on my observations of people “in the real world”.  A lot of this warped and twisted accusations of “racism” is caused by a point of view of looking at things from some idealized political fantasyland (which tends to be liberal in orientation) and not understanding things from a “real-world” perspective.
  • Trump was also supposed to of said about a black employee, “I think the guy is lazy and it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”  This sounds like a “real-world” observation of peoples characters to me.  My God, I’ve said similar things before and, my God, its not some attack or degradations.  Its called OBSERVATION.  A big interest of mine is anthropology and different cultures.  When I look at different peoples and cultures I tend to say things like, “they are uptight nervous type of people”,  “these people tend to be very casual and peaceful”, “those people tend to be rather violent”.  Basically, different groups of people have different character types and qualities.  That’s what you note and remember them by.  If that’s racist then what about the common complaint I’ve heard about white people, that they are lazy and not willing to do manual work?  Wouldn’t that be considered racist too?  Of course, no one cares if its directed toward white males, especially, but the same remark said against females or minorities and the worlds going to come to an end.
  • Look at this statement, “He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him?”  Are you kidding?  Yeah, and it makes Trump a bad person.  That’s silly.  Can you guys find any more reasons to villainize him?
  • I like how his questioning of Obama’s birthplace is supposed to be “racist”.  How do you figure that?  Let me guess, its because he’s black?  So if he questioned a white guy would anyone of noticed?  No one would of given a care probably.
  • Then there is the “Black lives matter” guy who got ruffed up.  Trump says, “Maybe [the protester] should have been roughed up,” he mused. “It was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”  Is that racist or a statement of an opinion of what someone was doing?  Its sounds like the latter to me.  If he said the same thing about a white guy then would it of made new?
  • And the thing about Jews is great.  The article says, “When Trump addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition in December, he tried to relate to the crowd by invoking the stereotype of Jews as talented and cunning businesspeople.  “I’m a negotiator, like you folks, “Trump told the crowd, touting his book The Art of the Deal. “Is there anyone who doesn’t renegotiate deals in this room?” Trump said. “Perhaps more than any room I’ve spoken to.”  What was that? . . . “invoking a stereotype”?  And then it describes this as “offensive”.  What?  Are you kidding?  It sounds, to me, as if he was actually complimenting them as a group (an example of how Trump compliments people).  But, yet, in their great fanatical drive to condemn Trump they had to see the worst in it.  So what are they saying, that describing any positive traits of a particular people is a sign of hatred and/or devaluation?  That’s utterly ridiculous.

To me, much of these are “racist” but not because of Trump . . . he is not the “racist”.  Its the people who are accusing him that are the real “racists”, so to speak.  This is because it is they who are automatically assuming hatred and bad intentions, and for the stupidest of reasons . . . they are actually the ones bringing up the issues of hate and such. 

Personally, I rank his blunt manner quality as one of his appeals and I find this view is felt by many people.  The fact is that many of us are tired of these “prim and proper” politicians who kiss babies, say everything in the correct political way, not offend anyone, always look 100 percent, look happy and with a smile on their face, doing everything correctly, and so on.  These people tend to be “phony” and, as a result, you can’t really trust them.  Its qualities, such as these, that are some of the reasons why people don’t like politicians.  Its nice to see someone who is not like that and reveals some other qualities of humanity, even unpleasant ones, and expresses them openly.  The “prim and proper” politicians would go through great efforts to hide, of course, any unpleasant qualities and we’d find out about them only in a scandal or something.

I have always compared Trump to General George Patton who was known for swearing and saying “inappropriate” things, and was often in trouble for it.   But he was a guy who got things done.  I think there is truth to Patton’s statement:  “You can’t run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn’t fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.”  The fact is that a blunt manner, “inappropriate” statements, cussing, swearing, and such is often a good sign.   Even my experience shows this to be true.  Living out here in the western part of the U.S. I’ve seen a lot of that.  From my observations, there seems to be two main reasons for it:

  1. As an outlet, an expression for having to force things to happen.  I tend to feel that the difficult pioneer lifestyle, and the stress of having to force things in your favor it caused, is what made it very prevalent out in the western U.S.  In this way, its an expression of difficulties and frustration, and someone who will do anything to get the job done.  Its because of this that I often admired guys who did this, because I know that this is what it reflected, even though they could be very vulgar (I’ve seen some that are pretty bad, too . . . anything Trump said is laughable in comparison).  Oftentimes, because it is a reaction to stress it becomes ingrained in some guys characters and they’ll cuss, swear, insult people, and such to the end of their days.
  2. As an expression for contempt This became particularly prevalent after the Vietnam War and hippi movement as part of the social rebellion.  I saw a lot of this and it was primarily younger kids who did this.  Basically, they cuss, swear, and that as a means to spit on society.  I’ve been around many guys who would “F***” this and “F***” that, especially, or weave it in every second or third word.  It also appears in people who feel that they have not been given a fair share in life or feel that society is hindering them in some way.

Most people assume that it is always the latter but this not always the case.  That’s what people are assuming in Trump’s case.  My experience, and observation, seems to suggest that his is primarily of the former variety.  This suggests that he is probably someone who has had to force things to happen in his life and this has become his outlet.  This appears to be the case.  What does this mean?  That, for me, his blunt manner and “inappropriate” statements were a sign that he would be someone who will force things to happen and get things done.  That’s totally different from how everyone else interpreted it.  Isn’t that interesting?

I think that one thing no one realizes about this election is the appeal of Trump’s blunt manner and “inappropriate” remarks had.  It was far more influential than people think in making Trump appealing to people.  I think this is particularly so with older males who, I think, are the only ones who can truly understand it.  To give you an example I know of an instance where a President of a company was up giving a presentation in front of some of the employee’s.  Every so often, he would swear and cuss, saying “inappropriate” things, and such, which alarmed some of the people.  I grinned and found myself respecting this man.  Why?  Because I knew this was a man that would probably be worth following for a number of reasons:

  • He is genuine.  He doesn’t hide behind “etiquette” and “proper manners” and “prim and proper” behavior.  He “was how he was”.
  • That he would do what had to be done to get things done.  As I said above, it is an outlet for “doing whatever it takes, even though its a pain”.

He would end up being a good President of the company.  To be frank, I had the same reaction with Trump.  But all this does not immediately mean that they will be good, of course.  He still has to have ability and inclination.  Also, because a blunt manner, etc. is associated with contempt it can sometimes turn into that form and he can turn into a contempt filled man.  This may happen if he continually fails or has serious problems.

I cannot say if Trump will be good (I neither voted for Clinton or Trump).  Personally, I think that if people would quit complaining and work with him there’s a possibility that he will be one of the best Presidents the U.S. has had.  But if people keep opposing him and complaining we may see something altogether different.  In other words, if there is a failure of the U.S. government in the next 4 years it will be the peoples fault, not Trumps.  The people, really, need to cease their “temper tantrum” . . .

THE LIBERAL CONNECTION – THE “LIBERAL TEMPER TANTRUM”

This mass hysteria is closely associated with liberalism.  More specifically, it is associated with what I call “70’s liberalism” (see my article “Thoughts on liberalism, with remarks about “70’s liberalism”“).  In fact, its so closely associated with liberalism that I often call it the “liberal temper tantrum”.  In actuality, that is what a lot of this is.  The liberals are basically upset because they didn’t get what they wanted.  This figures a lot in this hysteria.

“70’s liberalism” originates from the Vietnam War protests of about 1970.  This is closely associated with the cold war and the effects of the horror of the Nazi’s, what I often call “living in the shadow of Hitler” (see my article “Thoughts on ‘living under the shadow of Hitler’ – the horror of the modern world“).  If we look at it closer we can see that these are all associated with some form of fear.  We could describe various forms of fear in “70’s liberalism”:

  • The fear of war – WWII
  • The fear of hatred between people – WWII (from the holocaust)
  • The fear of nuclear annihilation – cold war
  • The fear of government – cold war
  • Even a fear of the white male, who is associated with all this

These all contributed to create a generalized paranoia and panic in the people during the Vietnam War.  What this did is turn the Vietnam War protests into a mass hysteria with, of course, the medias help.  In other words, the accumulated fears, created by WWII, the cold war caused a panic that fueled a mass hysteria during the Vietnam War.  This same panic has became the base of the current mass hysteria.  In this way, we can see that the hysteria over Trump is a continuation of the panic caused by WWII and the cold war.

Since there was a fear of the Soviet Union during this time, who was viewed as our rival, there became an excessive “glorification” of American values.  This became something like a “defense” against the panic and was viewed as its “solution”.  This appeared in ways such as the emphasis on democracy, freedom, rights, and such and how we have to “fight” to defend it.  One effect of this is that they began to use the Constitution like a weapon, quoting it for everything and against any perceived threat, real or imagined.

Liberalism is rooted in the opposition to existing order (see my article on liberalism referenced above).   Because of this, they already preached a “freedom” of sorts.  This made it so that they closely identified with all the “freedom and democracy” line during the Vietnam War and, naturally, played along with it.  In this way, they became very associated with the conditions and themes of the Vietnam War protests.  This created a new form of liberalism, the “70’s liberalism”.  Because of this, “70’s liberalism” took on the fear and hysteria qualities of this era and, as a result, these have become a quality of its makeup.  This makes it so that people who take up the “70’s liberalism” point of view tend to be prone to blind fear, panic, and hysteria.

Because of all the media, marches, protests, etc., over the years, many “70’s liberals” have developed a self-righteous and arrogant attitude.  They have begun to believe that they are the representatives of America, its values, and its peoples.  They also think they are the ones fighting for it (remember, they are “fighting for rights”).  Having a female running for President, following a black President, has further increased this self-righteous and arrogant attitude (the ‘female and minority’ issue reflects the fear of the white male and is a reference to the fear of war).  Naturally, many liberals began to think that they would win the election just because they are “right”.  Trumps blunt manner and “inappropriate” statements only fueled this sense of “right”.  As a result, when they lost many acted as if they were hit by a brick wall (just look at some of the pictures of people) and the world was going to fall apart (see examples above).  They didn’t get what they wanted and their sense of “right” was smashed!

Their self-righteous cause was threatened.  This caused several reactions:

  • Fear and panic – Since liberalism is based in fear, their losing only aggravated this fear and panic.  As a result, they see it everywhere and in anything involving Trump.  Because of this, there is endless references to “fear”, “hurt”, “pain”, and such.  A good example is the example above, of the writing on the sidewalk.
  • Villainizing – Their sense of “right” is so self-righteous and arrogant that it has started a campaign to do nothing but find fault with Trump, and villainize him, no matter how they do it.  I sometimes jokingly call this the “find-fault-with-Trump movement“.  We saw many examples of it above.
  • Self-righteous cause – They still feel that they are “right” (and Trump obviously wrong).  This has became the basis of a lot of their villainizing.
  • “Freedom and democracy!” – Since the believe they are the representatives of American it caused a tendency to justify what they do with ideals coming from the Vietnam War era, usually using politics and law, citing “equality”, “rights”, “freedom”, and such, which they believe they are representative of and Trump is against, naturally.  A good example is the claims of the “women’s march”, such as that they must “marching for their rights”, even though none is threatened.  Doing this satisfies their self-righteous cause that was hurt.

These have all contributed to the mass hysteria and, in actuality, are what make it up.

What does all this mean?

That much of this mass hysteria is made up of liberals or liberal minded people.  In other words, liberalism played a big part in the creation of this mass hysteria.  My own observation has shown this to be true.  Generally, the more “conservative”, or non-liberal, a person is the less they are involved with this hysteria.  Its because of this that I often call this hysteria the “liberal temper tantrum” because they didn’t get what they wanted and their high sense of “right” and self-righteousness was hurt so they are “kicking up a fuss”.  The examples above are representative of this “temper tantrum”.

Take a look at this:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/democrats-dnc-chairman-trump-keith-ellison-tom-perez.html?_r=0 . It describes how Democrats are taking the liberal lead in protesting Trump (this isn’t that surprising as they tend to be liberal in orientation).  Notice these statements:

  • ” . . . incensed army of liberals demanding no less than total war against President Trump.”  
  • “My belief is, we have to resist every way and everywhere, every time we can,” when Mr. Trump offends core American values.
  • “By undermining Mr. Trump across the board, he explained, Democrats hope to split Republicans away from a president of their own party.”
  • “We have to fight like hell to stop him and hopefully save our country.
  • “This isn’t a time for polite parties anymore. This is a time to take a different posture of true aggressiveness.

Wow!

Are things really that bad?  I don’t think so.

Has Trump really done anything that justifies these statements?  I don’t think so.

THE EFFECT OF MEDIA 

I consider that the media has played a large role in this mass hysteria.  In fact, without the media this mass hysteria could not of happened.  I personally feel that we could probably put most of the blame on media.  It has not only instigated it but it is media that is keeping it going.  Two forms of media seems to of played a significant part in it:  news media and social media.

News media – The fall of responsible and professional journalism

Early on in the election I could tell that the media was taking an incredibly and unacceptable bias in their reporting.  In fact, I was appalled.  It was obvious that the bulk of the media took a liberal view and, accordingly, did not favor Trump and expressed it.  In fact, I’d say that most of the media reporting of Trump, before the election, had these qualities:

  • It was biased.
  • It was judgmental.
  • It was condemning.
  • It had an absence of “news”.  That is to say, it didn’t report any information that was needed.

In other words, the media was not doing a responsible impartial journalism, but took on a quality of a biased, personal, and attacking nature.  In this way, it set a “tone” for this election.  Since people depended on the news media for the information for this election the “tone” set by the media had incredible impact.  It established the mood, the stance, the attitude, and the issues that would become the base of this hysteria.  I am a firm believer, after watching this happen, that had the news media just reported “news” this hysteria probably would not of happened.  In other words, the news instigated the hysteria by establishing a “tone” that had qualities such as:

  • It was threatening.
  • It was condemning.

These created a general sense of apprehension, fear, worry, and concern in the people who watched, and believed, the media.  Since the media coverage was so extensive, this mood would become more and more prevalent in the population.  As a result, it grew and grew to the point that it would turn into a generalized fear and panic.  Soon, people were seeing threats in simple statements of Trump, seeing motives that weren’t there, evil intentions that don’t exist, and so on . . . the “Trump panic”.  As I watched it, the news media played a large role in this hysteria.

Much of what the media said seemed more like the personal opinions of the journalists to me.  In other words, they were using the news to promote their political viewpoints instead of reporting the news.   Some examples where I saw this include MSN, NBC, CNN, and even the Salt Lake Tribune.  This type of thing is UNACCEPTABLE and I stated it then too.  As I watched this I could see the find-fault-with-Trump-at-all-costs mentality taking form and dominating the news.  I was not the only person who noticed this.  I talked with a number of other people who, like me, noticed it and were disgusted.  I don’t care what Trump said, this does not give the news media license to do such things.

I have speculated that this type of “false journalism” actually reflects a new mentality in the younger generation.  These are the generations who are brought up with social media, technology, and so on and whose lives are dominated by it.  I think it reveals a new “cheap” attitude that we are seeing and which is a direct result of those things and which has dramatically affected these generations (for example, see my article “Thoughts on the post cold war generations – some observations . . .“).  A good example is what I call a “cheap scholar” which is a person who “plays at being a scholar but isn’t” (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘era of cheap scholarship’ and the problem of the ‘institutionalized knowledge system’“).  Oftentimes, they are people who just so happen to get good grades, and remember things, but they do not have a serious scholarly attitude.  They “play act” being a scholar because it primarily gets them a job.  As a result, they become a “pretend scholar” who has a shallow non-serious viewpoint.  This creates a “cheap-like” orientation.  I actually feel that this is a different manifestation of this same “cheap scholar” attitude as many journalists have been to college and, as a result, adopted much of these attitudes.  Its because of this that I have begun to speak of “cheap journalism”.  Watching how the journalist have behaved, and still do, I’m questioning how much of this attitude has caused this hysteria . . . perhaps far more than I originally thought.

This “cheap journalism” attitudes appeared in a number of ways, such as:

  • They used the news as a medium for their own point of of view.
  • They only looked at their viewpoints and did not take into consideration the larger picture.
  • They hid behind the “mantle of journalism” making them appear legitimate.
  • They had a lack of responsibility, that people are expecting what they report to be true.

You can see that this shows that they used journalism as a “front”, making them appear legitimate, but it was really a means to promote their personal viewpoints.  This is similar to the “pretend scholar” point of view, a big “play acting game of importance when what they say has no importance”.  But, much of this “pretend game of importance” involved these qualities:

  • Fabrication – What they said was a distortion of things and created a false reality.
  • Personal – What they said made it appear as a personally important issue.
  • Fear – What they said played on peoples fear and worry.  I thought this was often used as a “stamp”, so to speak, to justify that they are “right”.

As people watched the media they naturally began to taking on the example it set, of fabrication, personal, and fear qualities.   This, really, set the stage for the hysteria and the form it would take.  By referring to fear they brought in the subject of fear in the election, something that wasn’t there originally, and exposed it to the people.  As a result of this exposure, fear became an issue and people reacted.  People started to become “frightened”, “scared”, “in pain”, and such, over threats that didn’t exist and God helps us all if they had reason it “might” exist . . . then it really got out of control.

As the hysteria progressed, the people became, in a sense, a “minion”, “puppet”, or “automaton” of the media, following its lead, its attitude, and its stance.  As I sat and watched people it was like watching people mesmorized by the media’s message, entranced and captivated by it, and believing everything it dished out without question, and without reflection.  It was probably not much different, it seems to me, as how many Germans reacted to Hitler in the 1930’s.  In this way, I think that we could say that this hysteria has many similarities with Germany in the 1930’s, of a people mesmorized by the power of media.  In Germany, the image the media used was Hitler as savior.  In the U.S. its Trump as a villain.  I do believe there is truth to this.

Looking at it overall, it seems that a lot of this hysteria is a result of the media losing its responsibility and professionalism, of a commitment to unbiased impartial journalism.  I think its obvious, even looking at the media now, that the media has largely lost these qualities.  What all this shows is the power of the media, and how it can affect things, and that this power requires that the media take a responsible and professional stance.  They seem to of lost it during this election.  I fear, though, that the media is not going to regain these qualities and the era of responsible and professional journalism may be over.

I’m not the only one to see the distortion of the media.  I have talked to many people who can see it to and I can see it in replies to articles as well.  Even Trump notices it.  Take a look at this article:  http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/in-an-erratic-performance-president-trump-shows-his-supporters-who%e2%80%99s-boss/ar-AAn2H2H?li=AAggFp5&ocid=iehp.  Of course, we see the usual Trump bashing by the media, such as “He absolved himself of blame” and “the president also put on a show” and “Trump was trying to regain authorship of the story line of his presidency and distract from the burgeoning scandal surrounding reported communications to Russian officials by his now-ousted national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and members of his political team” and such.  I particularly like this statement: “He was the complainer in chief. Resentful and melancholy, he sought to assign blame for just about everything that he believes ails America.”

But look at Trump’s own observations of the media:

  • “The tone is such hatred,” Trump said. “I’m really not a bad person, by the way. No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that — the tone is such hatred.”  And it mentions that he sees “so much anger and hatred.”  With the nonsense the media is dishing out what do you expect?  My own observation is that much of the anger and hatred is promoted by the media.  Without the media it would not exist.
  • And he excoriated the media — once the “fake news,” now the “very fake news.”  My own observations shows that this is true.
  • The press, honestly, is out of control,” he said. “The level of dishonesty is out of control.”  Again, my observations show that this is true . . . this is mass hysteria which means its out of control and things are being fabricated, as I’ve mentioned above.  In many ways, what he’s actually noting is the mass hysteria.

I like how the journalist sums up some of Trumps statements:  “Not enough people feeling optimistic about his presidency? It’s the media’s fault”.  Unbeknownst to him, he hit the nail right on the head!  I’ve condemned the media (I’ve stated that this is, after all, a media-based hysteria), other people have condemned the media, and even Trump has condemned the media.  DO YOU THINK THERE MIGHT BE A PROBLEM WITH THE MEDIA?  Maybe the media ought to stand back and take a look at what they are shoveling.  He speaks of “so much hatred and anger” . . . yeah, and the media is largely responsible for it!  That’s what my observation shows.

I am particularly appalled by a number of qualities that is being demonstrated with the media:

  • How the media seems to think that anything it writes is automatically correct.
  • Its particularly appalling how they seem to think they represent the “people”, which they do not.  They certainly don’t represent me.
  • The media seems to think that they are immune to any criticism, fault, and blame.  When is the media going to take blame for what it does?
  • I am appalled by how they do not critically view their own views, statements, and such In other words, there is no “watchdog” over the media, to censure it, criticize it, condemn it, and control what it dishes out.

The media has “free reign”, so to speak, to say what it wants, how it wants, when it wants, regardless whether its right or wrong, fabricated or true.  With the loss of responsibility and professionalism in the media the capabilities of what this “free reign” can do is frightening . . . I think this hysteria shows that.

Its because of all this nonsense from the media that I joke to people that I am going to become a professional “find-fault-with-Trump journalist” or a “fake news media guy” who specializes in finding nothing but wrong in all that he does and twist things around.  If he says a wrong word . . . I can bash him with it.  If he shakes someone’s hand the wrong way . . . I can bash him with it.  If we find some connection with the Russians . . . I can create a conspiracy.  It sounds fun . . .

The social media – making it too personal and oversensitive

It seems, to me, that the social media played a big part in this hysteria once it got established.  In fact, the social media may of been the cause for why it got so out of control and affected so many people.

The social media has qualities not seen in the news media.  These qualities give it a more “personal” quality.  That is to say, the news media tends to have a more “distant” quality to it.  The social media gives everything a more “personal” quality, making it seem more real, critical, important, and affecting our lives than it is.  It does this a number of ways:

  • It involves what can be described as a “private medium”.  It usually involves ones own private gadget that one usually personalizes with special programs, apps, and even looks.  In many cases, a person carries it around with them.  Because of this, a person “owns” it or “possesses” it, so to speak, almost as if it is a part of you.  In this way, whatever comes out of it (news for example) is perceived as something directed to you personally.
  • It is often a medium of “private statements”.  That it to say, a person says private and personal statements on it.  This causes a tendency to view everything that comes of it in a personal context.  This includes, even the news.  If, say, something is said on the news which you do not like it is then taken from a personal context and tends to become over-reacted.  In some case, reading some new you don’t like can be perceived as an “attack” for some people.
  • There is an illusion that everything revolves around you.  In this way, one tends to see it as “only affecting them” and their “little world”.  This causes a tendency to be narrow-minded and limited in ones attitude.

The net result of these is a tendency to look at things too seriously, too personally, and only in the context of ones reality.  These qualities made it “hit deeper” than it normally would.  The effect of this is that it actually predisposes people to hysteria.   In other words, social media often makes people more easily susceptible to hysteria and panic.  Some people are more susceptible than others . . . liberals and females for example, and both of these would play a big role in this hysteria.

Because of the nature of the social media, people tended to be “responsive” to what came out of it.  In many case, people are more responsive to it than actual people.  They associate with it almost as if it is a living person (some day, I would not be surprised if people marry the social media in some way).  This “responsiveness” causes a tendency to be “oversensitive” to it and what comes out of it.  This seems to be the origin of the particularly strong oversensitivity that plays such a big part in this hysteria.

This oversensitivity caused a tendency where things like this would appear:

  • Blowing things out of proportion.
  • Distortion.
  • Fabricating false conditions, such as threats.

We saw many examples of this in this hysteria and in the examples above.  Oversensitivity made these particularly bad because it made them seem real to the people, as if a threat is imminent or has even happened.  A good example is the writing on the sidewalk in the examples above.  In other words, oversensitivity can create a condition where it seems so real that it appears to of happened. 

In ways, such as these, the social media appears to of played a large role in this hysteria.

THE FEMALE AND HYSTERIA

The female character is particularly predisposed to mass hysteria and its no surprise that they have played a role in this.  In fact, more than once have I said that females were a major player in this mass hysteria and that, without them, it probably would not of gone so far out of control.  In some respects, it is the female that has “pushed” it to extremes.

Much of the females predisposition to mass hysteria is rooted in aspects of the female character.  These include:

  1. The females lack of self, what I often call the ‘partial mind’.  This is a naturally appearing aspect of the mother instinct.  To put it simply, motherly love is rooted in the female having “half a mind”, so to speak.  The child “completes” her mind.  In this way, the ‘partial mind’ is an aspect of the mother instinct and the child “completing” her mind is really the base of motherly love.  Unfortunately, it causes a lot of problems for females, such as a lack of control of emotions, a feeling of being “incomplete”, a feeling of being “vulnerable”, etc.  See my article “Thoughts on the female ‘flight from self’ – The Principle of the ‘Partial Mind’“.
  2. The female need for the ‘other’, what I often call the ‘principle of the other’.  This is a need for someone else that the female has.  This ‘other’ is, in actuality, the child.

Both of these are complementary and are reflective of the mother instinct.  In other words, the females predisposition to mass hysteria is a result of the mother instinct.  These two qualities tend to make the female have qualities such as:

  • Dependency – a deep need for someone else
  • Mindlessness – a willingness to “lose themselves” in other people

These create a mentality of “mindlessness”, “blind following”, a “sheep mentality”, a “slavish attitude”, “blind imitation”, and such.  In this way, a condition that exists among females tends to “spread like wildfire”.  This is the “slavish mind” and, in this, the female blindly follows without thought.

If it goes further then the females will start to develop qualities and traits, that they don’t have, as a result of this “blind following” and “slavish mind”.  In other words, they start to “mindlessly imitate” to the point that they believe it and it becomes true.  This is “hysterical contagion”, which is common with females.  It is is a condition where a female, who has a physical ailment for example, goes amongst other females and, the next thing you know, they all have the same physical ailment.  Its like domino’s . . . one gets it, then the next, then the next, and so on.  But, the problem is that most of the females don’t have the ailment, they just think they do.  In this way, hysteria tends to create a “false reality” for females, many thinking they have problems and issues they really don’t have . . . the “hysterical illusion”.  In addition, many females will tend to “think” things are happening when they are not happening.  This is one reason why females claim things that aren’t happening when they are in a hysterical state.  We saw “hysterical contagion”, and the “hysterical illusion” it creates, in the so-called “women’s march”, for example, with the false claims they stated.

I see “hysterical contagion” all the time and it seems to be more prevalent than before.  I am under the impression that social media is aggravating “hysterical contagion” and making it more prevalent.  Through social media there is a much more easier way for “hysterical contagion” to spread.  In other words, social media has created a new and more effective avenue for “hysterical contagion”.  Through social media various conditions are spread throughout the “female world” like an infection.  Often, its very rapid and some females can get very emotional over it, even “traumatized” if its dramatic, even though nothing has happened to them.  Everywhere I turn, it seems, females are claiming something is happening to them that isn’t.

Because this predisposition is associated with the mother instinct various qualities of the mother instinct tends to be very susceptible to “hysterical contagion”.  One that is very prevalent is what I call the “female-as-victim” (such as see my article “Thoughts on the ‘female-as-victim-of-the-world’: “feminism”, a poor way to look at things” and others).   The “female-as-victim” is particularly associated with menstruation which is associated with the female feeling “damaged” or “victimized” or “enslaved” in some way.  This makes many females overly preoccupied and sensitive with being a “victim”.  When it gets to this stage I call it the “female-as-victim syndrome”.  I consider this an epidemic in the U.S. and it surely came out in this election as many females become very overly preoccupied and oversensitive to any form of what they think is “victimizing”.  It dominated many females whole mentality and point of view.

Something that is closely associated with the “female-as-victim syndrome” and the American female is the fact that in the U.S., and other British societies, there has developed, in the past 200 or so years, a progressive failure in the female identity.  This is why I speak of the American female as the ‘failed sex’ (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female” and others).  This has put the female in a precarious situation.  As they lost their identity they lost their value, worth, and meaning as a female, as a person, and in society.  Much of the dilemma of the American, such as seen in this election, has origin in the problem the failure of the female identity.  This is why many American females are so eager to do things like these:

  • See themselves as “victims”, whether it be oppressed, enslaved, or what have you.
  • Try to be like men.
  • Fanatically follow social trend and ideals.  A good example of this is the ridiculous obsession over going to the University and/or having a job . . . the American ideal of success!  Another one is this maniacal idea that they need to be leaders . . . again, the American ideal of success.
  • Blaming and accusing other people, and things, for their problems.

In actuality, the American female is scrambling to find some identity and value as a result of this failure of identity.  The problem is that none of what they are doing works.  As a result, the American is as if “hanging on a string”, unable to find security in who they are, what they are, and their place in society.  This ends up causing things like a low self-esteem and a poor view of the female.  These tends to make many females particularly oversensitive to any criticism and prone to be easily insulted.

This “hanging on a string”, low self-esteem, and poor view of the female has played a major role in this election and is a significant contributor to the “uptightness”, complaining, and feeling a “victim” that we have seen in the female.  Many females felt that a female President will somehow solve many female problems including this “hanging on a string” situation that they are in, their low self-esteem, etc. (see my article “Thoughts on some aspects of female identity problems“).  This is one reason why many females took this election so seriously.  Of course, it would not of solved their problems as it is a whole lot more deeper than that.  Remember, we’re dealing with a mentality that is so shallow that it thinks that having a job will solve their problems!

I should point out that the female is largely responsible for the failure of their identity, and they are still playing a major part in its destruction.  I’ve spoken of this in other articles in this blog site.  This is a problem that lies within the femalehood itself.  The male, society, politics, or law is not going to solve their problem.  In other words, a degree, a job, “equal rights”, acting like a man, etc. is not going to solve it.  The tragedy of the American female is that they will only look in one direction and its the wrong direction.

This sense of being “victimized” is based in the mother instinct and, as a result, is associated with things like menstruation, childbearing, and sex.  In addition, it often extends to playing the part and role of a female as well as anything to do with the female.  It also becomes associated, of course, with the male.  In addition, because the mother instinct is associated with other people there develops a “social” sense as well.  As a result, we see a strong association with these themes in the “female-as-victim” sense:

menstruation–childbearing–sex–playing the part of a female–male–society

Basically, these are all associated with the mother instinct which makes them prone to the “female-as-victim” sense.  Examples include:

  • The female feeling physically hurt, harmed, abused, etc.
  • The female feeling mentally “hurt”, “pain”, “traumatized”, etc.
  • The female feeling that “female things” are bad or harmful in some way.
  • The female feeling that the male has harmed her in some way.
  • The female feeling that society is “oppressing” her, controlling her, etc.

The “victimizing” sense that these conditions create can spread like wildfire among females because of “hysterical contagion” and its association with the mother instinct and the “blind following” tendency it creates.  But, because of the “hysterical illusion”, many females will really believe they have been “victimized” even though nothing has, in fact, happened to them.  This can get to the point that they actually develop mental problems as a result.  In other words, it tends to create a lot of “false trauma”, “false illnesses”, “false mental problems”, and such.  These do not, in fact, exist but the female believing they do makes them exist “for her”.  As a result, “hysterical contagion” tends to create self-created fears and threats that don’t exist. 

This is further complicated by a number of things:

  • The fact that once a female has convinced herself she is a victim she generally does not forgive it.  This creates a very strong pig-headedness as a result. 
  • In some cases, she will become “fixated” on being a victim and will sit and ruminate on it, even to the point of making a life out it. 
  • Some females will start to begin to accuse and blame people, such as the male or society, for being a “victim”. 
  • Typically, this accusation and blame accomplishes absolutely nothing This is the “bitching and moaning” of the female, so to speak, that becomes just that, as it does absolutely nothing.

What this shows is that the “female-as-victim” tends to lead to a dead end road that gets nowhere.  This is one of its problems and dilemma’s.  And because this is related with the mother instinct nothing, really, solves problems it creates . . . its all an aspect of the mother instinct.  This is why the “female-as-victim” tends to linger on and on.  To put it simply, you cannot really solve the problems the mother instinct creates in the female.  I often speak of this as the “female dilemma”. 

These themes of “victimhood” were further aggravated, in this hysteria, because of these things:

  • That a female is running for President.  For many females, they thought a female President was somehow going to solve “female problems”.  These are really referring to the feelings of being a victim that are inherent in the female and is associated with childbearing.  In addition, because it touched these issues more openly, it created a more “public quality” than before.  In other words, instead of “female problems” being “in the background”, it was placed in the foreground.  So, what happened is that the idea of the female President made “female problems” more “public” than before and, as a result, it as if aggravated these problems for many females . . . issues that were normally silent were no longer silent.
  • That Trump said some “inappropriate” statements that many females interpreted as a “threat” to the female.  This made females feel “hurt” and “threatened”, which touched on their sense of being a “victim”.  In addition, being that Trump is a male it referred to the fear of the male and the “damage” the male does to the female (sex and childbearing, as I mentioned above).

These conditions created a situation where many females saw “victimhood” everywhere.  As a result, they “played the victim” to its full measure.  These feelings of “victimhood” were greatly spread, propagated, and aggravated by the media:

  • The “media circus” which played on many of these feelings and exposed them to it.
  • The social media which allowed it to spread, becoming a “hysterical contagion”.

As a result of these, conditions were such to create “hysterical contagion” which would play a big role in the creating of this mass hysteria.  In short, many females in the country began seeing themselves as “victims” of Trump and, through “hysterical contagion”, it spread like wildfire and grew and grew.  Many females became engrossed in a “hysterical contagion” which began to dominate them, their mind, and thinking.  It caused things like these:

  • A tendency to over-react.
  • They took things too personally and deeply, becoming “emotionally traumatized” and such.
  • They claimed things that weren’t happening.

The best examples, above, are the “women’s march”, the incident of the writing on the sidewalk (it does not specifically state it was female students but the reactions sound so much like female hysteria that it has to be), and the “cry-in”.  It was like a bunch of people overwhelmed and controlled by their emotions and feelings of being a victim to the point that it controlled them.

This same sort of mentality was seen in the Vietnam War era and its protests by females.  As a result, the “female-as-victim” mentality is closely associated with “70’s liberalism”.  In this way, the female “victim”, seen in this mass hysteria, is related to the “liberal temper tantrum” described above.  In some respects, its hard to tell the difference between the two, the “female-as-victim” . . . the “liberal temper tantrum” . . . they seem almost the same at times.  Their thinking is similar.

The fact is that the female-as-victim played too much of a big theme in this election.  Many females became so preoccupied with being a victim that it dominated their whole stance toward everything . . . its all they talked about.  In this sense, they became fixated on it, making this whole election based on that theme alone.  This put great doubt in me about the female, frankly, and I wondered if they should be allowed to vote in the future.  It made me wonder if there was a wisdom in why they wouldn’t allow females to vote in the past.  What was one of the things they said . . . they’re too emotional?  Isn’t that what we saw here, they got too emotional to the point of hysteria?

The male reaction to the hysteria

The female hysteria, it seems to me, set a reaction or, rather, over-reaction, that set a “tone” in this election.  I have doubts that there would of even of been a mass hysteria if it only involved males.  Most males, I think, would of grumbled at what Trump said and forgot it (which is what I saw most males do, by the way).  But, the females found a reason to be “victims” and became “fixated” on it and this set the tone.  Once it was set, many males would “follow along” in the wake of the female hysteria and its tone of over-reaction.  In this way, it somewhat “spilled over” into the males.   There seems to be a number of reason for this “spilling over”:

  • Because the American male is pussy whipped and puts the female on a pedestal and sucks up to her (I call the U.S. the “pussy whipped capital of the world”).  Because of this, they blindly cater to all of her “problems”, whether they exist or not, and will “play along” with it blindly, as I’ve watched many males do in my life (this always disgusted me).  I believe this pussy whipped attitude played a far bigger role than it may seem.  (See my articles “Thoughts on the American pussy whipped coward male . . . ” and “A memory of a ‘femininist’ and thoughts about the pussy whipped male – being a slave to ‘femalishness’.)
  • Because they are liberal-minded.  Remember, this is part of the “liberal temper tantrum”.
  • They got “swept up” in all the commotion and hype.  For some, it was just “something to do”.

The male did not get “hysterical” in the same way as the female because their character and motive was different:

  • Because the male does not have the motherly based “victim” sense the idea of a “victim” did not figure in the male reaction.  In fact, I don’t see any reference to it at all in the male.
  • They male also didn’t become controlled by their emotions like the female did.

What more affected the males was the other side of it:  accusation, blame, condemnation, and villainizing . . . making Trump look bad.  As a result ,the male looks for fault with Trump, even to the point of twisting things out of proportion and inventing conditions that don’t exist.

In short, in this mass hysteria the female “played the victim” and the male “found fault”.  Both of these were done with great fanaticism and mania, as is common in mass hysteria.  Overall, though, it seems that it was the female who set the tone, which was one of over-reaction.

THE “WHITE MALE PANIC” – THE FEAR OF THE WHITE MALE AND THE FEAR OF THE MODERN WORLD

I tend to feel that this election causes a great resurgence in what I call the “white male panic” (see my article, “Thoughts on the “male panic”“).  Basically, this is a fear of the white male and what the white male created, namely, the modern world (see my article, “Thoughts on the unique association between the White Male and the modern world, as well as some of its effects” and “Thoughts on the “male creation”“).

The white male is the western European male and his descendants, such as in the U.S.  Particularly in the past 200 years, the white male has created the greatest “empires”, discoveries, inventions, and creations ever seen in history.  Because of this, the “white male panic” is rooted in the fact that the white male has become too successful.  He has created too many successful things in too short of a period of time.  This has caused a lot of problems and tensions.  These include:

  • Clashes between people, cultures, social groups, and even the sexes.
  • Weapons of war that have become too successful, to the point of being horrifying.
  • The undermining of society, cultures, and beliefs.
  • The favoring and/or marginalizing of specific groups of people.
  • The disruption, and even destruction, of governments and societies.

They have become so successful that they swept through the world like a storm.  In short, the creation of the white male would be world wide affecting much of the worlds population in some way or another.  In actuality, it had good and bad effects.  Sometimes it was good, sometimes it was bad, sometimes it was both.  Either way, the massiveness and effect of this creation would literally “shock” people.  I still feel that many people, to this day, still don’t know how to react to this “shock”.

The emphasis on the problems that it caused would slowly create a great fear of the white male and what he created . . . the “white male panic”.  In the early years, it seems this was more looked at in a religious way, of the “evil nature of mankind” and such.  It seems that the image of the white male was not really associated with this “horror of the modern world” until after WWII and, especially, as a result of Hitler.  The idea of “superior race” and the extermination of Jews would hit a deep chord, especially as time went on.  In some respects, Hitler gave the “horror of the modern world” a human face, a white male face.

As the years passed, and the cold war evolved.  In the U.S., the horror of the “superior race” would be influential in the creation of the Civil Rights Movement, which is basically “white against black”, and whose face was attached to this as the “bad guy” . . . the white male.  This point of view, having much influence from the idea of the “superior race”, would cause a reaction in non-whites, and eventually females, to the success and power of the world the white male created . . . white people, then white males, slowly being turned into bad people.  It created a point of view that basically assumed that things were “white male against everyone else” which is one of the reasons why we speak of “females and minorities” . . . implying that the white male is a threat.  This reveals how many people feel set apart from the white male and what he created (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘WAM envy’ – a success story turned bad“).

As the panic of the cold war progressed into the Vietnam War, with its emphasis on peace, the face of the white male would be further associated with the “horror of war”:  the political men involved with the war, the politicians, the soldiers.  The Watergate Scandal, with the white face of Nixon, would help even more.  By the 1970’s the white male became associated with many of the problems of society and the world.  In my life, I’ve seldom seen other people blamed for the problems of things, that the black people cause this problem, that females cause that problems, etc. (if I said that I’d be called a “racist” or a “sexist”).  Its always the white male whose at fault.  As a result, the white male would become associated with destruction, violence, hatred, discrimination, oppression, slavery, and such.

This caused a fear of the male in which there were actually attempts at trying to teach males to not do these things.  I can remember these things in the 1980’s, especially.  People would say how males were “aggressive”, “violent”, “assertive”, “controlling”, “tyrannical”, and “destructive” like it was some sort of an innate tendency to do these things and that males couldn’t help it.  There even became some philosophies and movements where they basically tried to “emasculate”, “castrate”, or “degrade” the male and teach him to be “loving” and “caring” as if he were unable to do these things.  I was appalled by this as it was treating the male like a wild beast.  Some of this still exist in the U.S. today and seems to be part of the way boys were brought up after about 1990 which is why many males of the younger generation are like passive nobodies.

Since liberalism became associated with the Vietnam War, in particular, there became a strong “anti-white male” attitude, as well as a general “anti-male” attitude, in the liberalism that followed.  As a result, the male is often automatically assumed to be violent, oppressive, and discriminatory by many liberals (as I, myself, have seen and which has appalled me).  This line of thought, of course, would be taken quite heavily by feminists as part of their “the females a victim of the male” campaign.  In addition, the “anti-male” attitude is seen in the emphasis on favoritism of “females and minorities”, where the white male is conspicuously absent.

From what I have seen it appears that the “white male panic” has figured in this election and with Trump.  It seems like a “hidden influence”.  I can see a number of things that has caused this panic in this election:

  • The fact that we have had a black President . . . not a white male.
  • The fact that a female was running for President . . . not a white male.
  • The fact that Trump had a blunt manner and said some “inappropriate” things which upset, unnerved, offended, and frightened people  . . . portraying the image of the “bad” white male.

These all seemed to aggravate the “white male panic”.  Accordingly, it became associated with Trump.  I,n this way, it appears that the “white male panic” lies behind much of the “Trump panic” and may be its base.  

The association of the “white male panic” with Trump means that Trump is associated with the various fears and forms the “white male panic” has created through the years.  Since the white male created the modern world the modern world is associated with this panic.  An association is then made:

Trump = white male panic = problems of modern world

In this way, the panic surrounding Trump is really made up of a combination of all the panic, fears, and problems that the modern world has created.  This means that a lot of the panic, condemnation, and attacks on Trump is not against Trump, himself, but what he is associated with.  As a result of this, a lot of the attacks on Trump are really revealing a fear of the modern world. 

The fear of the modern world is for things that it has caused in the past, such as the fear of war, the fear of oppression, and the fear of discrimination.  It also includes the fear of the various issues of today.  It also includes fear of the future and what it will bring.  The fear of what the future will bring I often jokingly call the “new world blues”.  This is because people are “blue” over what the new world will be.

What all this shows is that the “Trump panic” is bringing out fears of the “world situation” more than anything else would of.  In this way, it may possibly be a good thing as this fear is largely suppressed, unconscious, unexpressed, and not really spoken of.  The problem is that no one is looking at it in this way nor is there any attempt at addressing this unconscious fear of the modern world.

THE IMPORTANCE OF HOW ONE REACTS TO AN EVENT

In any situation there are two things:

  1. The event.
  2. The reaction to the event.

Of the two, the reaction to the event is the most important and often reveals the most.  What this more or less means is that how you react and respond to an event is more iThemportant than the event itself, regardless of what the event is.  But there is a tendency to downplay the reaction and treat it almost as if it doesn’t matter.  As a result, people tend to not look at how they react.  This is what is happening in this hysteria.  This is why  I emphasize the need to “stand back” and look at what is happening and how we’re reacting.  In my opinion, many people need to do this.

The tendency to only notice the event, and not take into consideration our reaction, is further increased, in the U.S., by the idea of democracy.  This gives this mistaken notion that “any reaction of the people is correct” and that “the people are always right”.  This, of course, is not true.  Just because people react in a riot, a march, or mass hysteria does not make the people right.  But many people, in the U.S., seem to believe that.  All it does is hide the “wrong” of the reaction.  Its one of the reasons why many people cannot see what they’re doing.  Its like they’ve become blind to what they do.

MASS HYSTERIA IS A MANIFESTATION OF THE PEOPLE

There are thousands, probably millions now, of examples of things involving Trump being blown out of proportion by this hysteria.  And we must remember that this is all behavior coming from the people.  Trump isn’t doing any of this.  The people are the ones who are blowing this out of proportion and seeing the worst that can be.  In other words, this is not about what Trump did but what the people did.  It is an act of the people and reflects them and their mentality.  The question now becomes ‘what does this say about the people?’  Do you think it says anything good about the people?  Or do you think the people are without fault and without malicious intent, that they cannot have bad motives?  Or are you going to tell me that only Trump has bad motives, that this is all because of him?  I don’t think so.  The people are not saints.  They have bad motives too, just as leaders do.  And they are not immune to blame.  I hold the people accountable in all this (see my article “Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election“).

MASS HYSTERIA AND ITS EFFECTS

A lot of people have become swept up in a hysteria that has spread, like an infection, through the media, and which is controlling them.  Several good examples is the Vietnam War protests, in about 1970, and also the hysteria over the radio program “War of the Worlds” in 1938.  In both cases, the people were “convinced” that all these bad things were happening or going to happen.  We must also remember that much of this panic was based on threats that “appeared” convincing and true, at the time, but which turned out to not be true I believe we are looking at a similar scenario here.

When mass hysteria happens a number of things take place, such as:

  • People tend to lose a “common sense” and control of their thinking.
  • People become “overwhelmed with emotion”, usually a form of fear or apprehension, which often dictates their thought and behavior.
  • People do things they normally wouldn’t do, even to the point of being “insane”. 
  • People blindly follow the mob, even though they may not agree with it or know what its about. 
  • Because its often based in fear or apprehension people tend to villainize, be accusatory, be condemning, and sometimes violent.
  • The fear the hysteria provokes often creates an elaboration of the threats to the point that it creates self-created threats and self-created fears.
  • The self-created threats and self-created fears can become so extreme and elaborate that it often creates what can be described as a “false hysterical world” that does not exist but seems real in the peoples mind. 
  • When the “false hysterical world” is created, and seems real in the peoples mind, people start reacting to these fears, not what actually started it all.  In this state, they are no longer reacting to “real world” realities.  This is one reason why mass hysteria has the quality of being “detached” and “insane”.
  • The self-created fears, self-created threats, and “false hysterical world” can get so out of control that the hysteria develops a life of its own.  Truly, it is “mass hysteria” at this point.

Examples of these are seen in Trump bashing and include:

  • Many people are protesting and don’t even know what their protesting for when asked.
  • Many people have fabricated threats that don’t even exist.
  • Some of them have even gone so far as to use self-created threats and fears as a reason to protest and march.   See the article on the “women’s march”.
  • Many people are all-too-willing to make Trump look bad.  See the articles referenced above.
  • Many people aren’t even willing to give him a chance.
  • Many people are fabricating stories that don’t exist.
  • Many people are seeing bad when there is no bad.  See articles above.
  • Many people are assuming intentions that aren’t there.  A good example is the article above, with the “photoshopped hand”.
  • Many people are putting words into his mouth.  A lot of the news is nothing but putting words into his mouths.
  • Many people nit-pick everything he says, making things out more than they are.
  • Many people are exaggerating things to unbelievable proportions.  I always joke that if they had footage of Trump swatting a fly they’d probably say it shows his “hatred and violent nature” and then go on to say that this proves that he is “unfit to be President”.
  • Many people come to conclusions way too quickly and without proof.
  • Many people are over-reacting and getting too emotional over things.
  • Many people have become paranoid and overwhelmed with an unrealistic fear and apprehension.  See the “women’s march” article above.
  • Many people are acting like the world is going to fall apart and may even come to an end.  See article about Ivanka Trump above.
  • There is too much condemnation, villainizing, and belittling going on.  People mention what he said but they ought to stand back and look at what their shoveling out.  Anything Trump has said pales in comparison to what this mass hysteria has created.
  • Many people have used this hysteria to complain, moan, bitch, or express their unhappiness and disappointments in life See the article on the “women’s march” above.
  •  Many people have used this hysteria to express the disappointment in the election See the “women’s march” article above.

This mass hysteria over being “offended”, as I said above, might be the first in history.  I’m not aware of it ever happening before.  I think this is significant.  I tend to feel the social media has played a large part.  I, myself, have noticed that the social media has made people too over-receptive, over-sensitive, and over-reactive to anything on the news and social media.  Its caused a tendency of blowing things out of proportion that, at times, has stunned me.  They take what comes out of it too seriously and personally.  In some respects, people have become “puppets” to social media.  I tend to believe that this quality has helped turn this into a mass hysteria.  Basically, Trump said some “inappropriate” things, people were too over-sensitive and over-reacted.  This was portrayed in the media.  People were too over-sensitive and over-reacted to it.  This kept going and a mass hysteria was created.

To be frank, with all this nonsense and villainizing, I can no longer tell if what the media, and anyone else for that matter, says about Trump is true or not.  With what I have seen, I’m more inclined to think that its not true or its at least distorted.  In other words, my observation, so far, is that there is now such an extensive campaign of villainizing that I cannot fully believe what is said about Trump at first.  This is true with the media and with people alike.  Not only is that sad but its pathetic.  In my opinion, it has given the Americans a quality of being pathetic.

THE PROBLEM OF MASS HYSTERIA

In my opinion, mass hysteria tends to be destructive, and in many different ways.

  • It causes an undermining.
  • It has a blind attitude.  Literally, the blind is leading the blind.  In this way, it has no direction.
  • It can cause rioting and havoc.  This can cause property damage and even the death of people.
  • It can cause accusation, blame, and the creation of innocent victims.
  • It creates blind fear and panic.
  • It creates many false fears and false threats.
  • It causes a general sense of panic and fear when there doesn’t need to be.  I many cases, there is no reason for the panic and fear.
  • It creates an apathetic attitude.  People in the hysteria primarily “follow along” like blind sheep.  People who are not in the hysteria will sometimes do whatever they want to make it end.
  • It easily get out of control.
  • It offers no real solutions.  Since its based in fear and panic, and the blind reaction to it, there is no “sensible” mentality to guide it.  Because of this, it tends to be impulsive, narrow, and limited in its thinking.
  • Its hard to end.  There’s no way to make it stop once its started.

In some respects, a mass hysteria is like a runaway train . . . its forceful and directed.  This gives it the appearance of heading in a good place.  The problem is that it is actually heading to the wrong situation, a crash.

One could say that there are several forms of mass hysteria:

  1. “Free hysteria”.  Most mass hysteria is free and unguided.  That is to say, it is a generalized reaction in the society that tends to affect certain people.  It seems, to me, that it tends to pitter out easily in this state.  Mass hysteria begins in this free and unguided way.  I tend to believe that there are many forms of mild hysterias that appear in society that, because they are free hysteria, they vanish quickly.  As a result, they are not really recognized as hysteria but more like “trends” or “fads”, for example.
  2. “Herd hysteria”.  This is when there is a “common quality” in a population of people that tends to create a unifying quality in the hysteria.  Its not really organized, though it can appear to be, but the unity makes it appear that way.  In some sense, the unity of the “herd” makes it appear organized.  These, it seems to me, can have moments where they can get out of control (rioting, for example).  But once this fades it tends to quickly disappear.  It seems that, in order for it to continue in a population, there needs to be an “impetus” or some condition in society that keeps it relevant in the population.  That is to say, something needs to make it relevant to people.  Otherwise, it tends to pitter out.
  3. “Organized hysteria”.  As the hysteria grows, certain people find a “logic” in it, and a cause.  As a result of this, they end up creating a philosophy based in it, even to the point of a formal belief which they may publish.  This philosophy can develop into an organized thinking, in like-minded people, creating something like a “movement”.  The organization can lead to a number of directions, depending on how the organization leads it.

It seems, to me, that “organized hysteria” seldom leads in a good direction.  This is for a number of reasons:

  • It is fear based.  As a result, fear lies at the root of everything it does.
  • Its logic is based in its fear.  As a result, it does not take into consideration other qualities, points of view, and such.  This makes it limited and narrow in its mentality.
  • It tends to only see things in relation to its point of view.  In other words, it does not see things from other points of view.

These give hysteria a restricted point of view and action.  Since the world is not based in these narrow and restricted points of view it tends to become “detached” and “alienated” in relation to the world.  This “detached” and “alienated” viewpoints are often seen by other people who are not influenced by the hysteria.  People that are influenced by the hysteria tend to not see it.

The overall effect of mass hysteria is that it creates a bunch of frightened paranoid people who are looking at the world through a tubeTo complicate it further, they are trying to deal with their fear and paranoia through this tube.  The result is that they think they have succeeded but they have not.  At this time, I’m not aware of any instance where a mass hysteria was solved by the solutions offered by the people experiencing the hysteria.  In other words, mass hysteria is a dead end street that gets nowhere.

Since there is no solution to mass hysteria it is much like an epidemic.  It starts and spreads and grows.  As far as I know, no one has ever figured out how to end a mass hysteria.  Generally, it must pitter out on its own accord.  It appears that is what must happen in the Trump panic.  It seems that they pitter out when the “impetus” tends to fade.  I see several things that may hinder it in this case, such as:

  • The already established fear based in already established political ideology and belief (such as “Trump’s a threat to freedom and democracy”).
  • The female hysteria (they are too eager to be the “victims” . . . see the section on the female and hysteria above).
  • The continual spreading of hysteria by the media.  I tend to believe that if the media would cease blowing things out of proportion and just look at things as “news” then a lot of this would slowly end.

These will probably make it persist for some time.  At this time, it does not appear to of become an “organized hysteria”.  It has become a “herd hysteria”, though.  This is primarily because of the media, both the news media and social media.  These have caused a “unifying” effect on the hysteria in a number of ways:

  • By making the complaints, stories, and such similar.
  • It keeps the hysteria “alive” by perpetually keeping it on peoples mind.
  • By giving a medium of expression it gives the hysteria a means to manifest itself and appear.

In this way, we see that the media has played a major role in keeping this hysteria alive.  This brings up a question that, in mass hysteria, which is these is most important:

  • The “issues” of the hysteria.  In this case, the statements of Trump.
  • The “medium” that causes the spread of hysteria.  This would primarily be the media, in this case.

My feelings is that, once it becomes a mass hysteria, it is the “medium” that causes the spread of hysteria that becomes the most important issue.  Oftentimes, once the mass hysteria has spread the “issues” are practically forgotten anyways and are usually so blown out of proportion that they have lost context.  In this case, it seems the best way to end the hysteria is to somehow curb the media, both news and social media, then it will lose its steam.

WHAT TIPPED ME OFF TO THIS HYSTERIA?

I knew we were dealing with a mass hysteria months before the election.  In other words, it had begun before the election and as part of the election process.  I also had concerns that it would get out of control, which it did.  I was particularly worried about the liberal and feminist influence, based on my experience of their mentality and how they are prone to hysteria (and which I described in sections above).  This turned out be to be true.

Some of the things that tipped me off include:

  • Many claims seemed exaggerated, asinine, or “out-of-place”.  My reaction was often statements like “what?” or “are you kidding?”
  • People were taking a statement and offering explanations that didn’t match.  I first noticed this with many claims about the so-called “racist” remarks that Trump was supposed of made but which seemed to have nothing to do with it.  A common statement I said in this election was “where did they get that from?”
  • Many people had a “frenzied” and “panic” quality in their voice.
  • My own reaction:  I found myself acting in a “frenzied” manner for reasons I didn’t understand.  This is because I, myself, was reacting to the “frenzy” and “mania” quality the hysteria had created and was starting to feel its control over me.  This, to be frank, its this that made me say “something’s going on?”  It was through this same tendency that I began to see that the Vietnam War protests was a hysteria and that the cold war, as a whole, created a hysteria.

All this was more than the normal “election bashing” that takes place.  It began in that way, and developed from it, but it progressively got worse and worse, slowly turning into the hysteria.  The normal “election bashing” consists of one group of people trying to discredit another, typically.  It can entail some underhanded things, such as distorted or fabricated facts, but it tends to remain “limited” in its scope.  Generally, it doesn’t go beyond the people involved and doesn’t go into the media and general population.  That was what struck me so much with this, of how the media and general population were “going into a frenzy”, and very early too.  It all seemed far more extensive than it should be.  As a result, I took more notice and watched what was happening.  Over time, I could see a hysteria develop.

I noticed that the media, in particular, was taking sides, which it really shouldn’t be doing.  I was not the only person who noticed that.  In fact, many of us were complaining how the media was portraying Trump as “obviously bad” and Clinton as “obviously good”.  This was very biased and unprofessional for the media to be doing.  I lost a lot of respect for the media because of that (which I don’t think I will ever regain).  I could see, early on, that the media was a major player in this hysteria and that they were basically responsible for its creation.    This is why I call this a media-induced hysteria.

As I watched it progress I could see something like this happening:  fabricated stories turning to fabricated fears turning to fabricated threats turning to “false hysterical world” to people reacting to the threats they created.  And, during this, a growing sense of “frenzy” and “panic” that seemed out-of-place and growing more and more ridiculous.  Basically, I was watching the hysteria grow and develop.

AFTERTHOUGHT

It looks as if a great wave of media-induced hysteria has spread across the U.S. and is now starting to spread over parts of the world.  Much of this, of course, was begun by the news media but the effect of the social media probably has more influence now.  It seems that, the more forms of media are involved, the worse the hysteria becomes and the more it spreads.

As I’ve said before, this has gone beyond Trump and, really, has nothing to do with him anymore.  He’s nothing but a target for the hysteria.  It is now a reflection of mass mentality, the “mob” . . . mass hysteria and a ridiculous villainizing that is so shallow and cheap that it is blatantly obvious.n


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in 2016 Presidential election and things associated with it, Current affairs and events, Government and politics, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Society, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on villainizing

Here’s a thought I had:

I have often been fascinated, and disgusted, by villainizing.  Its a weird mentality that seems particularly prevalent in the U.S. (though I’m sure its all over the world, in varying degree’s and forms).  Interestingly, we are seeing this quite extensively in the 2016 Presidential election . . . to the point of being utterly ridiculousness (frankly, its this that made me inquire into it more – also see my article “Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election“).  Not only that, living here in Utah where there are a lot of Mormons, I have often told people to “watch how people try to debunk Mormonism and portray it as bad . . . its hilarious”.  Both the attacks on Trump in the 2016 Presidential election and the attacks on Mormonism are often hilarious, ridiculous, and asinine.  They are actually very good representations of villainizing.

This hilarious quality reveals, I think, unique qualities found in villainizing.  Basically, villainizing is hilarious because it has a quality of a farce-that-tries-to-pretend-that-it-isn’t-a-farce.  Typically, villainizing amounts to being a “cheap” or “low” attack on someone or something.  Typically, its said in such seriousness that it almost sounds legitimate.  Oftentimes, they will use “accepted logic” to make it sound even more legitimate (that is to say, they take points of views that are commonly “accepted” in the society).  In addition to that, they act as if I am supposed to automatically believe what they say.  This gives villainizing this quality of someone “trying to pull the wool over my eyes . . . and believing they did”.  Its for this reason that, for me, a common reaction to villainizing is “are you kidding?!”, which is like saying “are you actually expecting me to believe that?”  This gives villainizing a joke or farce-like quality which, at times, can sound hilarious.

VILLAINIZING

By “villainizing”, I mean a particular point of view or stance that has qualities such as these:

  • Devaluation  The portraying of some person, institution, belief system, etc. as something “bad”.  Often, it has a quality much like”cutting a person down” or a degradation or a belittling.
  • Bad intentions – Oftentimes, they are villainized, and viewed as “bad”, because it is assumed that there is some form of “malicious intent”.  Its not uncommon that whatever is villainized is viewed as harboring “bad” or “evil” intentions.  Typically, the standard of what is “bad” is based on the social standards.  As a result, villainizing often has a quality of a social or moral condemnation.
  • The use of accepted logic – The villainizing uses “accepted logic” to give it an aire of legitimacy.  They tend to use logic that is accepted in the society.  This often becomes the basis of their attack.  In the U.S., for example, it often fits a political or “democratic” logic.  Other forms of accepted logic include social manners, etiquette, morality, religion, socially accepted common sense, and such.  This shows that villainizing has a great reliance on society as “authority”.
  • Warping – They tend to twist or warp things to fit it into the “accepted logic”.  This is often the quality that makes villainizing hilarious and tends to reveal that villainizing is taking place.  Oftentimes, one can tell that things are being warped.  At other times, one can sense it intuitively.  Its also this twisting and warpage of things that shows that there is something “hidden” behind villainizing.  That is to say, it shows  that villainizing is actually a demonstration of a “hidden” intention in the person who is villainizing.  It does not necessarily reflect anything about what is being villainized.  To put it another way, when someone warps a situation to fit a certain way it reveals that there are other “hidden” intentions in the act. 

In this way, villainizing tends to create what can be described as a “lame attack that sounds legitimate but seems to lack substance“.  In this way, its really a form of hypocrisy.

Villainizing has great influence in society which is why it uses society as “authority”.  This is because it is really rooted in what can be called a social monitoring.  It really has a basis in the maintenance of social standards, which is a naturally appearing phenomena in society.  There is a point where that is what it is.  But villainizing is when this attitude as if strays off the path and goes in another direction.  This is because personal issues and dilemma’s start to appear.  In this way, vallainizing shows a conflict between society and the person.  This conflict is manifested by the portraying of something else as “bad” (that is, its villainized).  This then shows that villainizing reflects unresolved conflict between the person and society. 

The effect of unresolved conflict goes even further.  Villainizing is directed to a specific person or thing.  When villainizing becomes very prevalent in a person (showing that there is great unresolved conflict between the person and the self) it turns into a generalized attitude in life and can turn into a world view.  This becomes contempt.  In this way, contempt is really a “generalized villainizing attitude”. 

And so we can see that this process goes in stages:

  1. Maintaining social standards. 
  2. There is a conflict between self and society.
  3. The conflict is unresolved.
  4. Villainizing – directed to something specific.
  5. Unresolved conflict continues.
  6. Contempt – generalized.

So we see that villainizing is based in a commonly seen social act that is actually good and beneficial (maintaining social standards).  But unresolved conflict forces it in other directions.  In this way, villainizing has this quality of seeming to be justified by the authority of society but is actually motivated by hidden unresolved personal conflict between the person and society. This unresolved conflict gives it its dark side and is also why they warp things to fit the social standard point of view, as that is where the authority lies.  This unresolved conflict can, at times, be so strong in people that one can sense it intuitively.

Some of the things that create the conflict between the person and society include:

  • An anger, hatred, or dislike of someone or something.
  • Feelings that a person cannot resolve, which they cannot relate to, or which conflicts with their viewpoints or beliefs.
  • Prohibited feelings or desires as well as being prohibited in some way.
  • Being shamed, shunned, belittled, or degraded in some way by society (often creating desires for revenge, etc.).

These conflicts, like many in life, tend to be resolved in one way or another and are actually common in life.  If they become unresolved then they can lead to villainizing and contempt.

Typically, these unresolved conflicts are hidden or unconscious to the point that a person is seldom aware of them.  In other words, the person who is villainizing generally has a conflict that they are unaware of.  Its often hidden being the mantle of social authority by the appearance of maintaining social standards.  In this way, it is kept “hidden” from view from the person.  Because of this, in villainizing they think they are upholding standards when, in actuality, they are not.

This “being unaware of the motive” creates a tendency of accusation . . . “they are bad!” . . . which practically defines villanizing.  This shows that villainizing is really nothing but the projection of ones unresolved conflicts onto someone or something else.  Instead of you being “bad” the other person or thing is bad.  Often, to accomplish this, the situation is often warped or twisted around so that it looks “bad” and to fit it into a form that can be condemned by the “accepted logic”.  In this way, villainizing often creates fabricated stories.  This can be as small as a “slight twisting” to a complete fabrication of a false situation.  Because of this, villainizing has created, over the years, many false and distorted viewpoints and facts.  This is seen a lot in religion and politics and other social disputes.

One of the effects of fabricating stories is that villainizing tends to falsely condemn innocent people.  In this way, villainizing tends to create innocent victims making it something like a “victimizing philosophy”.  In many ways, villainizing is an abuse.   This is one reason why villainizing is a serious issue as it can have serious consequences.

The warping and distortion of things often requires the “manipulation” of these two qualities:

  1. Logic – things are twisted and warped in such a way to still make it sound logical
  2. Morality and standards – once the twisted and warped logic is established it is used to condemn

In this way, we can see that villainizing really amounts to a “fooling of ones self”.  This is done by twisting logic and misusing morality and standards to make things appear different than they really are.  Once the “fooling of ones self” is started, and works successfully, its not uncommon for villainizing to “get out of control”.  This makes it easy for people to “find fault” in things and, of course, to easily condemn.  This is because once logic, morality, and standards are compromised there’s nothing to keep things on track . . . anything goes.  Once this point is reached, anything can be villainized and made to look bad.  This is why villainizing can easily turn into a world view and a generalized attitude.  This is the creation of contempt.

Because logic, morality, and principles are compromised, villainizing is often a sign of a person, or persons, who have lost their “principles”.  In this way, it shows that villainizing is often a sign of a “degraded” person and why people with “integrity” tend to not villainize.  This fact is rather revealing as it shows that “principles” tend to create a unifying quality in these different things:

  • Logical sense
  • Morality and standards
  • Conflict of the person and society

In a way, the unifying of these qualities tend to create an “integrity”.  That is to say, a balancing of the demands of the person with the demands of society.  When there are not “principles” there is no “integrity” and these qualities are not unified.  As a result, there is nothing to tie them together and something like a tension is created.  This tension, it seems, predisposes a person to villainizing.  In this way, it as if shows that villainizing is an “easy solution” to the tension that the lack of “principles” and “integrity” create.

CREATING THE “BAD”

There are many ways to make a something “bad” in villainizing.  Some examples include:

  • Exaggeration – The portraying of things worse than they really are.
  • Distortion – Twisting facts around.
  • Elaboration – Seeing more into it than is there.
  • Fabrication – The creation of false motives, actions, and events.
  • Taking advantage of the unknown – When something is unknown, or is speculative, it leaves something like a hole in which a person could “fill up” with anything they want . . . intentions created, words put in their mouth, etc.
  • Illusion – Making something that is unclear and vague into something that appears clear or obvious.  That is, making something that is vague look as if it is certain.
  • Seeking problems – Specifically looking for problems to make them look “bad”.
  • Limited point of view – Looking at things from a single point of view . . . not looking at the big picture.

I will often, for fun, take a fact about someone or something and use some of these techniques to make it look “bad”.  Its amazingly easy.  In fact, its frighteningly easy!  Doing this is one of the ways I learned how things can be twisted around.  Anyone can do it on just about any person or situation.

Some people will even develop a whole point of view in life that encompasses some of these qualities.  As a result, they end up finding “bad” in everything . . . and very easily.  We could speak of this as ‘villainizing-as-a-philosophy’.  Some people could even make this as a whole world view and, accordingly, villainize the whole world and life.

THE UNRESOLVED CONFLICT

As I said above, villainizing hides of a deeper conflict that a person usually is not aware of, by portraying of someone or something else as “bad”.  This conflict tends to be an unresolved conflict between the person and society.  Villainizing is its outlet.  I gave examples of some of the causes for these conflicts above.

The unresolved conflict seems to go through stages:

  1. A conflict – something that stirs up a conflict between the person and society and which one struggles with
  2. The need for resolution – the need to resolve the conflict
  3. The inability at resolution – attempts at resolution don’t work
  4. The “thing” – the finding of someone or something that one can project their unresolved conflict onto (this is the thing villainized)
  5. Projection – the unresolved conflict is projected into the “thing” . . . it now represents the unresolved conflict
  6. Fabrication – the situation is twisted or warped to make it look “bad”
  7. Condemnation –  its made out as “bad” by using morality, social standards, etc.
  8. Villainizing – the condemnation complete, the unresolved conflict remains hidden behind villainizing

If we look at it closer we can see that it is really a denying of a conflict one is not wanting to accept, for some reason or another.  In this way, villainizing has the quality of a “forced repression”, “disguised intentions“, or “hidden motives”.  Basically, by villainizing we no longer think there is a conflict.

The denying of this condition could be because of things like these:

  • They are unaware of it.
  • It consists of feelings that they can’t come to terms with or relate with.
  • It consists of difficult feelings, such as those caused by moral viewpoints.
  • Its a result of inner conflict, stemming from a personal dilemma.
  • There is an absence of self for some reason. 
  • It is rooted in a social hysteria.

Interestingly, all these describe aspects of the self where the self is struggling with the conflict.  In this way, it is as if the self hides the conflict from itself so it doesn’t have to deal with it.  That is to say, the conflict is disguised so that the self does not become aware of it.  In this way, a trait of villainizing is that the conflict is hidden from the self.  As a result, there is a disconnect between the conflict and self.   In this way, villainizing is an act of “half the person”, so to speak.  This is one reason why many forms of villainizing appears “ridicuolous”, “absurd”, and “hilarious” . . . because it doesn’t have enough thought into it.  This makes it so that villainizing often doesn’t make sense or that the logic is nonsensical.  Not only that, a person is acting without self, impulsively, and quickly using simple logic to justify it.  This often gives villainizing a quality of being “simple minded” and “stupid”.  Often, one can tell villainizing by these qualities alone.

ABSENCE OF SELF – MASS SOCIETY – SOCIAL HYSTERIA

The absence of self is one reason why there is a close relationship between villainizing and mass society phenomena, such as in social hysteria.  The “mass society” mentality is a situation where a person replaces ones self with the mob.  In this way, a person becomes not unlike a sheep or flock of birds, going in whatever direction the mass is moving.  As a result, a person tends to act without the self . . . the mob replaces the self.  Accordingly, one does things a person wouldn’t normally do and in which there is often no thought.  A good example is social hysteria, such as the type that is provoked by the media.  When people watch or listen to the media they tend to loose a sense of their self, replacing it with what the media says, a “media self”, so to speak.  In this way, they become very impulsive and reactive to whatever the media dictates or says, often to the point of blindly following things without thought or consideration.  This mindless and absence of self type of mentality is very susceptible to villainizing, particularly when there is some social conflict behind it.  We’ve seen many examples of this through the years such as the French Revolution, the Vietnam War protests, and the 2016 Presidential election (as well as the continual harassing of Trump that has followed).  In all these there was a mass villainizing which demonstrated some of the traits of villainizing described above, such as:

  • Innocent people were villainized and portrayed worse than they are.  In the French Revolution people were even killed.
  • There were fabrications of situations that were not true and which have created myths which have continued since.
  • Neither of these situations resolved the unresolved conflict.

FORCING BAD OR UNACCEPTABLE FEELINGS TO GO INTO “HIDING”

Interestingly, societies attempt to avoid or prevent bad or unacceptable feelings tend to help the creation of villainizing.  In other words, things like morality, social standards, etiquette, manners, etc. tend to cause a tendency to villainizing.  In fact, the stronger these are the more villainizing you often see.  This is because prohibition by society tends to cause a conflict between the self and society, particularly when it is strong.  This creates many unresolved conflicts whose only outlet is in villainizing.  Here are several examples:

  • Christianity.  Since Christianity was trying to convert everyone to Christianity it created a strict belief system, moral code, social standards, etc.  This created great prohibition and restriction and a lot of unresolved conflicts were created in people.  The result was a great tendency to villainizing and condemnation of people who do not follow Christian beliefs.  We could speak of this as “religious villainization”.  That is, the villainization and condemnation of people with different religious beliefs.
  • American democracy.  The democratic mentality of the U.S. tends to foster villainizing as it tends to frown on common feelings different type of people have between each other (such as hatreds, dislikes, discrimination, etc.).  Because of this, these feelings as if go into “hiding”.  They often resurface in villainizing and condemnation.  Often, this is supported by political theory and they even come up with special names (such as “racist”) to describe it.  We could speak of this as “political villainization”.   Basically, what happens is that they villainize people who do not follow their political views.  Its really a political form of “religious villainization”.

UNRESOLVED CONFLICTS AND POWER

The unresolved conflicts are typically based in differences between people and society that naturally appear in a society.  These include differences in things like:

  • Opinion – points of view a person takes versus societies points of view
  • Character – innate qualities that a person has that conflict with society
  • Beliefs – what one believes and if it conflicts with societies beliefs
  • Conditions – the way in which society forces a person to live and be (such as in poverty)

Not very often, in my observation, are we dealing with deep psychological problems as a source of unresolved conflict, though it can be.  Typically, these unresolved conflicts are based in common day-to-day situations that happen in society.

Common situations, in which unresolved conflicts appear, are things involving politics and religion.  If one looks closer, though, one can see that the reason why these are so critical is because they entail power.  In other words, unresolved conflicts often revolve around power issues.  More specifically, they tend to revolve around how powerless we are against society.  This creates something like a tension between the person and society that, oftentimes, cannot be resolved.  Perhaps we could call this the “unresolved conflict tension”?  Each of us, I believe, struggle with some form of “unresolved conflict tension” in our lives.  Its a part of everyday life.  A part of life is living with it and coming to terms with it.  But some people can struggle with it more severely than others because of things like:

  • Personality – their personality makes it more prevalent (perhaps even a psychological problem)
  • Situation – some situations cause an inability at resolution
  • Beliefs – some beliefs make people take points of view that don’t allow it to be resolved

Often, villainizing is a result of people who are struggling against the unresolved conflicts for the reasons above.  It becomes their outlet and means to deal with it.

The examples I gave above are good examples:

  • Trump. He has been villainized for a number of reasons.  Many people have villainized him because of “inappropriate” things he has said (this is “personality” – their too oversensitive – and, perhaps, “belief”).  Some people villainize him because they don’t belief what he says (this is “belief”).  Some people villainize him because its part of a media-induced social hysteria (this is “personality” – absence of self – and “situation” – media hype).
  • Mormonism.  People villainize Mormonism primarily because it conflicts with their own beliefs (this is “beliefs”).  Some people villainize it because it has a lot of control in society which they don’t like (this is “situation”).

These describe unresolved conflicts between the person and society whose outlet is through villainizing.

Also see:

Thoughts on an event that took place in a Facebook group: “media-based hysteria” and “America’s unresolved racial issues”

The west’s misinterpretation of East Germany


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in 2016 Presidential election and things associated with it, Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, Current affairs and events, Life in general, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the forgotten side of the saying “science fiction becomes science fact”: the warning of what science produces

In a recent conversation I made an interesting statement:

I said that people are always mentioning how many things in science fiction have come true.  How does it go . . . “science fiction becomes science fact”.  This usually is done in the context of glorifying science and “progress” as if its some great achievement.  Its as if something from a science fiction coming true is some great achievement bordering on a miracle.  How many times have I seen this glorified as if science fiction was “prophetic”?  A miracle!  I’ve seen people utterly “amazed” how the things portrayed in science fiction 20 years ago “have become true”.

Generally, it is primarily speaking of the products of science and what it produces:  submarines, spaceships, computers, etc., etc., etc.  In other words, it tends to be “gadget oriented”.  There is a fascination with the toys of science, overlooking everything else about it.  I often speak of this as “technological dazzlement”.  People seldom rave, or even consider, the social consequences of what science produces, its political effects, how it will affect our daily lives, and such.  In other words, seldom is the products of science looked at in a greater context.  It tends to only be looked at in a more limited and narrow context.  This limited and narrow viewpoint, and the lack of consideration for the greater context, may be the scariest aspect of all this.

Many science fiction plots, though, are often addressing the greater context.  That is to say, they address what no one seems to ever mention and which a lot of science fiction is really about:  the dangers of science.  In effect, a lot of science fiction, especially in the early years, was reflecting how science could cause problems.  In many cases, they were like warnings.  One could say that this is the real “prophecy” of science fiction as the warnings they often stated have come true to the point that we are now struggling with them and, in some cases, they have become a threat.  Many of these situations we are seeing, nowadays, have already been seen in science fiction.

I’ve always been stunned how these warnings are overlooked and disregarded.  Many science fiction plots, even today, are obviously a warning but no one seems to notice this . . . but they sure think the spaceships, laser guns, and TV wristwatches are neat.  The darker side of many plots, which are glorified as reflecting sciences abilities, tend to be conveniently overlooked or, more generally, not noticed at all.  I think that, if many people were to stand back and look at many science fiction plots, they will be stunned how many warnings are stated.  Shows, for example, where people rave about the robots, weapons, technology, and special effects are often nothing but a warning of what science can cause.  Many science fiction “classics” are also of this nature.  The fact is that many science fiction stories are not about glorifying what science creates but in stating a warning of what it might do.

Some of the warnings science fiction stated are:

  • The problem of the power of what science creates.
  • A dystopian society – scientific based societies that go awry.
  • Technology taking control.
  • The creation of things that shouldn’t be created.
  • The wrong people misusing the powers of science.
  • That once something is created it can’t be uncreated (see my article “Thoughts on the problem of inventions“).
  • How machines will control people and their lives.
  • The unleashing of unknown forces into the world by science.

All these have come true, and in many different ways and forms.  One could even say that a lot of the problems we have now are reflective of these warnings stated in science fiction.  Perhaps if we had listened to their warnings, instead of being fascinated with the toys, we’d be better off?


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Books, movies, and music, Modern life and society, Science and technology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on creation myths

Here’s a thought I had:

It seems that there are many reasons for the development of creation myths.  As a rule, older societies are not trying to explain the physical “scientifically provable” explanation of the worlds creation.  This is because this has no value to older societies.  It seems, to me, that older societies are looking for more deeper human qualities from creation myths.  In short, they are looking for meaning not explanation.  I always thought it was funny how Western society, and scientists in general, tend to look at creation myths like its an “explanation of the world”.  When it doesn’t work, of course, then they are quick to condemn it and ridicule it.  That shows, in my opinion, a very prevalent naiveness and shallowness in science.

Some of the meaning that creation myths offer include:

  • To establish identity of ones tribe.
  • To establish a relationship with the world. 
  • To explain awareness of life.

In general, these all describe a tendency where creation myths describe an association with the world.  It establishes how one, personally or socially, associates with the world.  In this way, they are not explanatory and are definitely not scientific.

CREATION MYTHS AND SOCIETY

It seems, to me, that as the society grows many creation myths lose their meaning and become ‘abstract explanations’.  In short, they are often remembered and recited but its original meaning and value become lost.  This suggests that creation myths are a product of a specific way of life.  I think this way of life is a more ‘primitive lifestyle’ having qualities such as:

  • Its made up of a small group of people.
  • These people are predominately alone in the world and must fend for themselves.
  • They are most likely hunter/gatherer type of people who must “look out into the world” for their sustenance (meaning they don’t grow their food).
  • They are not “settled” or remain in one area but move about.

In these conditions, there is a great need to feel a “deep association with the world”, to establish oneself in the general scheme of existence.  This is because they live actively in the world and, accordingly, actively participate in it.  As a result of this, they are more needing of an association with the world.

As societies grow, and become settled, the need for a “deep association with the world” becomes less and less.  This is because the world tends to “fade” in the face of a growing and settled society, becoming less and less an issue in peoples minds.  What eventually happens is that society replaces the world and people start needing meaning in the social association.  When this happens social structure, for example, becomes more and more critical and will often replace the world in peoples minds.  In some cases, the world literally disappears (as in modern society).

So we see these stages:

  1. World- oriented association
  2. Social-oriented association

Its not uncommon that the world-oriented associations, and the myths they create, persist in the social phase but they tend to lose their meaning.  They generally tend to become “traditional”.  When this happens they tend to lose the meaning and it becomes nothing but a “story”, something they don’t really understand or see meaning in.  Because of this, they tend to be neglected and, oftentimes, forgotten over time.  In many socially oriented societies creation myths can literally disappear.  Many have survived only because they were written down.

THE “AWARENESS CREATION MYTHS”

I often feel that another factor that effects creation myths is how influenced they are by shamans and shamanistic belief.  When this happens, it seems, creation myths can take on a more deeper human experiential quality.  This, of course, is a result of the shamans and their more deeper human experiential quality.  Because of this, their explanations take on a more personal quality.

The shamanistic orientation also tends to emphasize a stronger association with the world.  In other words, the shamanistic orientation tends to reflect a more world-oriented association.  Generally, as the society grows and becomes more settled the world orientation fades and so does the shaman orientation.  As a result, the creation myths tend to lack a deep human experiential quality.  Oftentimes, it becomes primarily social and generalized, such as that “our tribe originated from a specific tree”.

So we can see that creation myths can have these orientations:

  • Personal – generally reflective of shamans, world-oriented, deeper, experiential
  • Social – not reflective of shamans, not world-oriented, generalized, abstract

The more personal shamanistic based thinking often makes for a more complicated, and deeper, creation myth (the social based ones seeming more “simpler”).  In fact, a complicated creation myth may be a sign of the influence of shamans.

Another aspect of the shaman quality is that it can reflect what I often call an ‘intermediary god’ (see “Thoughts on the ‘intermediary god’ and the gradations of god“).  This is really a god that originates from a person, usually with a religious purpose, such as a shaman or King.  Generally, it is not a specific person that it originates from but, rather, an “office “or occupation they perform.  In an ‘intermediary god’, the “office” or occupation becomes the god, so to speak, and the myths revolve around what they do and create.  Because of this, the myths around the ‘intermediary god’ often becomes a repository of many generations of people which build on and add to the myths.  In this way, the myths are reflective a something these people do and, accordingly, reflect a more involved personal experience.   I tend to think that there are a number of gods that may reflect this tendency:  the Hindu god Siva, the Norse god Odin, and possibly Lao Tzu, for example. 

One of the things that it seems the ‘intermediary god’ creates is a quality of myth reflecting their awareness of the world.  We could speak of these as the “awareness creation myths”.  This is not surprising as much of shamanism, and religion in general, is nothing but a form of awareness.  In fact, I consider god as an awareness (see my article “Thoughts on my saying: “god is awareness” – the ‘dilemma of god-awareness’“).  Its probably for this reason that awareness tends to figure in the myths created by shamans, ‘intermediary gods’, and such.

We must remember that the “awareness creation myths” are not intending to describe the actual physical “scientifically provable” act of creation but, rather, the creation of a awareness of the world.  In this way, “awareness creation myths” often reveal the “coming into being of awareness” in their story.   This “awareness”, oftentimes, becomes the basis of a world view which may end up underlying much of the religion, belief systems, and how the culture interpret the world.  This is a good example of how influential shamans, ‘intermediary gods’, etc. can be on a society, where there whole world view has a basis in what these people do and how they perceive things.

It seems, to me, that the “awareness creation myths” tend to reflect a specific type of society which has qualities such as:

  • Its a more organized society.
  • There is an “office” or occupation that is well-defined (a shaman, for example).
  • A tradition of learning that is passed from generation to generation, particularly in that “office”.
  • Its a society that is still somewhat world-oriented but not overly social-oriented.

So we see that the existence of shamans doesn’t automatically create it but more is required.  In fact, the “awareness creation myths” seems to reflect a society in transition, from a world-oriented shaman society to a more social-oriented settled society.  Once the society becomes social-oriented the “awareness creation myths” tend to disappear.

THE LOSS OF CREATION MYTHS AND WHAT THEY MEAN

The loss of creation myths, and the meaning and association with the world they give us, tend to have great impact on us as a people, I think.  In many ways, it seems that what a lot of people are trying to do in modern civilized society, especially, is to regain what creation myths created, namely meaning and an association with the world.  The preoccupation with science, technology, knowledge, etc. all seem reflective of this “abortive effort” as none of them seem to be succeeding.  All it does is give an illusion of what creation myths offer.  Despite all the modern civilized world does, despite all the knowledge we create or discover, despite all the theories, despite all the science, despite all the technology, we will never regain what creation myths offered.

Why is this?

Because, as I said above, creation myths reflect a way of life.  What is needed is not knowledge, science, technology, etc. but a way of life, a way of life where the world figures strongly in life.  Modern civilized life, sadly, is like living in a shell protected from the world and what it is.  In this way, it as if “null and voids” any development of a way of life that is world-oriented.  The “modern shell” will always keep us away from the world and a way of life that actively associates with the world and which makes creation myths, with its meaning and association, come alive and have value.  In this way, we will never know the value of these myths.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Mythology, Religion and religious stuff | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Thoughts on boredom and depression – the importance of the self’s need for projection

Some time ago I found myself bored.  This made me think about it and what it was.  It also got me talking about some other things, such as depression.  Here are some of my thoughts:

PROJECTION OF THE SELF

Normally, we tend to feel that boredom is a result of “having nothing to do”.  I tended to feel that there was something more behind it.  I felt that boredom is actually related to what I call the projection/extension of the self (see my articles “Thoughts on the pre-self, primal self, world self, post-self, and the greater self” and “Thoughts on the progression of projection“).

Projection is related to a tendency where we see ourselves as the world.  In other words, the world is not just something “perceived” but a “part of us” or, rather, an extension of us.  It originates from our earliest years before the self has appeared.  At this stage we feel no difference between ourselves and the world . . . they are one.  As the self develops, though, we begin to feel a sense of the world and our self as a separate entity.  I often speak of this early phase when the self and world are equated as the ‘pre-self’.  The equation of self and world, during this time, is ‘projection’.  Since the tendency to equate the self and world – projection – is so rooted in our perception of things we naturally tend to continue this tendency after the self develops.

The tendency to equate our self with the world after the self has appeared I call ‘extension’.  Because ‘extension’ is so closely related to ‘projection’ I tend to speak of both of these tendencies as ‘projection’ unless I am being specific.

The projection tendency tends to create a strong sense and bond between the self and the world making the world very “real” and “alive” and a part of “me”.   In other words, the world is not just some inanimate object that is “just there”.  One effect of this is that it makes life something that is “experienced” and “lived”.  As a result of this, our association with the world becomes very influential and critical in how we view ourselves, the world, and our growth.  In some sense, projection becomes the “base of life” as everything rests on it.  This is because projection has impact on things like:

  • Self – how we view our self, as well as its development.
  • Association – how we relate with the world.
  • World – our views about the world.

In this way, we could say that these three things reflect three “self’s”:

  1. The “individual self” – this is the self, independent of the world, the self-as-self.
  2. The “association self” – this is the self that associates the individual self with the projected self below, the self-as-association.
  3. The “projected self” – this is the world as a reflection of the projected self . . . that is, our self-as-world.

Because of projection, the world is perceived as being part of our “self” which shows that our view of the world, and our association with it, is really a reflection of our selfAs a result, problems with the association with the world often tends to reflect problems with our “self”, not the actual world itself.  We basically confuse the world with our self.  This, it seems to me, is seen in boredom . . .

BOREDOM

Boredom, Projection, and the Self

Boredom seems to be when the self cannot find some means for projection.  This means that it is much more than “just having nothing to do” but, rather, it describes a problem or inability in the self.  In this way, boredom is a manifestation of a problem with the self, not just a lack of activity, though a lack of activity can instigate this problem in the self.  So we see two forms of boredom:

  1. Boredom as a problem or inability of the self.
  2. The condition above being instigated in the self as a result of a lack of activity.

Some of the descriptions of boredom include:

  • There is no “doing”.  That is, one is “doing nothing” or “there is nothing to do”.
  • There is nothing to associate with.  That is, “there’s no one to play with”.
  • There is “nothing” in the world.  By this I mean that “there is nothing to be a part of”.
  • There is the wrong state of mind.  One may, for example, be in an “apathetic mood”.

These descriptions show that there is more to boredom than “having nothing to do” and that it can hit deeper into the self.  As a result, they reveal much about the purpose of projection and how it affects the self.  In other words, these descriptions reveal some traits of what the projection does to the self.  These include:

  • Doing.  The self needs something to do.  It needs something to keep it active.
  • Association. The self needs something to associate with.  That is, it must see something ‘beyond itself’.
  • Part of something.  The self needs to be a part of something.  This could be things like a job, a family, a hobby, an activity, etc .  This shows how projection is a quality that instinctively needs something else.
  • State of mind.  The self needs a state of mind that facilitates the self.   This shows that the self needs the “correct” state of mind and that the “wrong” state of mind can hinder the performance of the self.

What these shows is that the self uses projection because it needs, and seeks, these things.  In this way, we can see that projection is a critical and necessary part of the self’s association with the world.  It also shows that the self needs to relate with the world and that projection is part of the relationship between the self and the world.  In this way, projection as if stands in between the self and the world.  Without projection the self is hampered.

Qualities  and Orientations of Projection

As we can see above, there are various qualities or forms of projection . . . it isn’t just “one form”.  These same qualities also varies with its relationship with the world and the self.  That is to say, qualities of projection that is closest to the world reflect more “worldly qualities” and qualities closest to the self reflect more “self-based qualities”.  In this way, we could could say that something like a spectrum is created with the world on one end and the self on the other:

world>>>doing—association—part of something—state of mind<<<self

We can see that the more “worldly based qualities” tend to involve association with the world.  The more “self-based qualities” tend to involve aspects of the self.  In this ways, we could say that there tends to be two orientations of projection:

  1. “World-oriented projection”
  2. “Self-oriented projection”

Typically, problems of projection tend to be one form or the other but they end up affecting the opposite form sooner or later.  For example, when some people become bored its because there’s “nothing to do”.  This shows a problem with “world-oriented projection” (that is, there is no “doing”).  This can eventually start to affect the “self-oriented projection” and a person could start to have problems associated with their self (such as getting depressed, frustrated, etc.).

Projection and the “Completion  of the Self”

Since the self needs projection to experience life it shows that projection “completes” the self.  The self, by itself, is only half a self . . . the self projected is what “completes” the self.  What this shows, of course, is that there is an innate need to see ourselves in the world, to make our self “live” by making the world “live”.  The loss or inability for projection prevents this happening.  This creates feelings such as “loss”, “frustration”, “stagnation”, etc.  Feelings, such as these, are really the base of boredom.  In this way, we could say that boredom is an inability of the self to “complete” itself because there is a problem with projection.  Accordingly, the self does not “live”, causing anguish, and the world does not “live”, making it seem “dead” . . . boredom.

But since boredom is much like a “frustration”, and can be painful, it shows that it also has another side to it.  Basically, the self is trying to rid itself of the problem.  In other words, the self is trying to project itself but is having difficulty achieving it.  Despite this, it continues to try.  It strives and strives making boredom feel worse and worse and more painful.  In this way, it shows that boredom is also the self trying to “complete” itself when its having difficulty.  In fact, one could say that boredom is when one feels this strongly.  In some sense, one could compare it to a “gasping for breath”.

Experiencing Boredom

There seems to be several ways boredom is experienced:

  • Boredom as an event.
  • An overall sense of boredom which often comes and goes.
  • A way of life that permeates ones life.

When we think of boredom we generally think of the former.  In this form, boredom is a transitory event.  Not only that, it is generally in response to actual conditions (such as the fact that you do not have anything to do).  In this way, it is a normal and common event in life.

The latter two, being more general, tends to show that there is a deeper side to boredom.  It tends to be more prevalent even to the point of dominating (in the later case)In addition, it tends to not be in response to actual conditions.  Often, this shows that there is something involving the self.  This can reflect several conditions:

  1. A problem with the self (such as a neurosis, psychosis, etc.).
  2. A naturally appearing dilemma that involves the self (such as growth, religious feelings, etc.).

In this way, we could see that extensive boredom can be “bad” (a sign of a mental problem) or “good” (a sign of growth).  Sometimes, the line between these is not easy to draw.

Boredom and Belief

The naturally appearing dilemma form suggest a relationship between boredom and belief.  In other words, when one does not have a belief one tends to feel a general sense of boredomThat is to say, belief tends to alleviate the more general sense of boredom.  This is because belief tends to offer certain particular projection qualities described above – association, part of something, and state of mind – to the self.  When belief is absent these are absent from the self hindering projection and causing a greater tendency to boredom.

Interestingly, when lack of belief causes a lack of projection, and boredom, people tend to seek the more “worldly-oriented projection” as if to compensate for it and alleviate the boredom.  That is to say, they tend to seek the “doing”.  They try to find activities that make them do things, such as bicycling, building models, etc.  Being more world-oriented they tend to be physical in form with an absence of self orientations.  For some people this can become a way of life.  But all it is, really, is a life of avoiding boredom by overemphasizing the qualities that best avoid it.  That is, by being “active” the boredom caused by lack of belief is alleviated and appears to be gone.  Deep down, though, the boredom remains creating a great inner “emptiness” within many people.

This situation is seen a lot in civilization.  Life in a civilization tends to, by its nature, cause a boredom in people.  One could even go so far as to say that a lot of the traits of civilization is a reaction to boredom or, to be more precise, an avoidance of boredom.  A lot of this, it seems to me, is a result of the absence of belief civilization tends to cause in people.  This as if cause a reaction such as this:

  1. The lack of belief . . . an inability to project . . . boredom.
  2. A moving away from a self orientation.
  3. A sense of emptiness deep within caused by the boredom.
  4. A moving to a more “active” orientation (the “doing”) as the only means to not be bored.
  5. The creation of an “active” based life to avoid boredom.

In this way, a life of avoiding boredom is created, though it doesn’t appear that way.  This is because their more “active” orientation hides it all making it seem that they are not bored at all.

Dealing with Boredom

Generally, the first solution to boredom is try to find something to do.  This often works for the simpler transitory form of boredom (“boredom as an event”).  But for the deeper forms of boredom it often does not work.  As a result, other techniques are required.

Because boredom is associated with the self a common “solution” to the deeper forms of boredom is to find some ways to forget ones self.  This often appears in ways such as:

  • A self loss – a “letting go” of ones self, such as forgetting that one exists (seen in something like Buddhism)
  • Passive action – some diversion like watching TV (the self remains passive)
  • Active action – finding something that one is passionate about (the self becomes active)
  • Inner action – developing a deep belief in something (such as religion or some cause)

Typically, several ways are used together and one complements the another.  Also remember that these are actions of the self, of what the self does.  This is because boredom is a problems of the self and the self must be addressed in dealing with it.

I should point out that since the self is stagnate in boredom it often has no “will”.  As a result, one often has to put themselves in a situation where they “find themselves” doing one of these activities.  That is to say, a person doesn’t just will one of these things to happen and boredom goes away.  In a state of boredom the will is weak and generally unable to will anything to happen.  As a result, a person often has to allow themselves to be put in a position where these things as if happen on their own and they are as if “swept into” these activities.  In this way, being “swept into” them as if takes the place of ones will.  In some cases, something like a friend, a commitment, or conditions, will end up forcing a person to do these activities . . . otherwise, they would never be done at all.

Sometimes, the solution to boredom is to be around other people.  These other people as if take the place of your stagnate self and lack of “will”.  In this way, they may help initiate one self out of boredom.

DEPRESSION

Boredom can affect how one views these things:

  • Ones self (“I feel worthless”).
  • The world (“the world is empty”).
  • How one associates with the world (“there’s nothing to do”).

Sometimes one is felt and sometimes many are felt.  These problems, typically, are transitory and only last as long as the boredom lasts but can be somewhat severe at times for some people. What these show is that boredom tends to have a depressive quality and can even cause a depression.  In this way, we can see that depression is a form of the failure of projection. 

Some qualities of depression include:

  • A lack or inability of projection – “inhibited projection”
  • A projection turned inward – “inward projection”

Generally, these tend to go together.  As a result, depression is the self’s tendency to a projection that is turned inward because it is unable to project itself onto the world.  In other words, it is “the need for projection gone in the wrong direction”.  And, like boredom, it has the impetus of the self trying to project but having difficulty achieving it.  In this way, depression entails a drive of the self to find a means for projection.  This gives depression, like boredom, a drive that can make it worse and worse.

“Inhibited projection” and “inward projection” tends to cause sensations similar to the senses described above (doing, association, part of something, state of mind).  They reflect common feelings in depression.  These sensations include:

  • A desire to do nothing – a lack of “doing”.
  • A sense of being detached from the world and people – a lack of “association”.
  • That what one does has no “value” – a lack of being “a part of something”.
  • An instability of mind – the wrong “state of mind”.

These all describe a failure of projection, which causes an inability of the self to “complete” itself.  This tends to cause reactions of the self that can be quite dramatic.  These include:

  • A feeling of death
  • A feeling a loss
  • A feeling of failure
  • A feeling of inability

These all show a dilemma of the self and that the self is as if “failing” to work.  This is because the self cannot project itself and is not being “complete”.  In extreme depression, the self is as if dying and failing to maintain itself as a separate entity because of this.  This causes several senses:

  • That the world, and everything in it, is not living and is dead
  • That the self is dying and ceasing to exist

If these are strong enough it can create a desire to die, which can even lead to suicide.  These are common problems in depression.  The former sense is caused by “inhibited projection” which causes the later, “inward projection”, which fails.  When both of these fails the self has nowhere else to project.  Having nowhere to project the person see’s “life” nowhere and begins to seek to “not be”.  This eventually turns into a desire to die.

Because depression causes one to turn inward, toward the self, it often tends to create a form of a narcissism, or a strong self concern, in depression.  This can play a big part.  It tends to add a new “force” that can do things such as:

  • It can “push” a person deeper into depression.
  • It can prevent a person getting out of depression as the depression has begun to satisfy a narcissism.

In this way, narcissism has this odd effect that it can give depression a quality of getting into a hole one can’t get out of.  Because of boredoms association with depression it often takes on a similar quality, of a hole one can’t get out of.  As a result, one often feels “trapped” by boredom as well, and unable to get out of it.

AFTERTHOUGHT

Overall, boredom and depression tends to described a “poverty of self” or, more precisely, a “poverty of self experience” primarily by an inability to projection.  In this way, they are really a form of self dilemma and are reactions that can end up doing more damage.  In some respects, one could compare them to an inflammation . . . it is a natural reaction to an adverse condition, and usually helps, but the reaction can get out of control and end up creating more problems than the condition that caused it.


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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

Some thoughts on the relationship between identity and the mother instinct

Here’s a thought I had (some of which I’ve spoken of before):

There is a close association between identity and the mother instinct.  This is no surprise as one of the purposes of identity is to take impulses, desires, and drives and direct them into a healthy and meaningful direction.  As a result of this, the mother instinct is very dependent on identity to make it useful and productive.

ASPECTS OF PASSION AND IDENTITY

Identity does several things to impulses, desires, and drives.  It seems to do these things:

  • Direction – the “directed identity”It takes the impulses, desires, and drives, and directs them in a product place.
  • Molding – the “molding identity”.  It changes them to fit the situation and conditions.

We can see, then, that there are really two forms of identity.  Generally, an identity fulfills both qualities.  That is, the identity that leads a passion somewhere also ends up automatically molding it to the situation.  But there are cases where this is not true.  In other words, there are times when an identity may lead you somewhere but stops there.  A person will then have to discover another identity to make the passion valuable.  Sometimes, this may appear as a self-questioning, of “why did I want to do this?” or something similar.  In this way, we could see that there are two ways in which identity works:

  • The “unified identity”.  This is where the first identity finds its place and automatically molds it to the conditions.  This appears almost like a reflex action, without the self.
  • The “detached identity”.  This is where the first identity works but the second one doesn’t.  This seems to require an effort of the self.

In general, the “detached identity” does not entail an automatic molding of passion.  As a result, the discovering of this identity requires deliberate action of the self.  This deliberate action, though, may be unconscious or conscious.  In other words, a person may not “know” that they are seeking identity if its unconscious.  When it requires conscious effort, though, it often puts great demands on the self, often causing great pain and turmoil.  As a result of this, the conscious discovering of identity can foster great growth of ones self.  In this way, identity is associated with growth and development.

The two identities seems to be part of a greater process in the passion/identity association.  It appears to go like this:

  1. Passion.  These are the impulses, desires, and drives.  They primarily consist of a force within a person.  Its a force that needs to go to a specific location (the “place” . . . see below).
  2. “Directed identity”.  This is what gives the passion – the force – a direction and to make it find the “place”.
  3. “Place”.  Its here that the passion is needing to be, so to speak.
  4. “Molding identity” – This is identity that molds the passion to fit the “place”.
  5. Productivity.  When the place is found the passion, and passion molded to make it useful, the passion then becomes “satisfied” and “complete”.  This then makes the passion productive and useful.  It does this by making the passion productive and useful but also in giving a sense of productivity and usefulness in the person.  In this way, productivity of the passion is very critical in a persons sense of satisfaction, usefulness, and productivity in life as well as making them feel “complete” as a person.  This is one reason why identity is so important in life.

One can see that, in this process, its as if passion is “seeking” the proper place to go and is needing identity to get it there and make it useful.  Perhaps we could call this the “passion seeking tendency”?  This is the principle that passion is always seeking a specific place to be.  This fact shows that there is specific “place” for each passion.  This makes passion particularistic and “touchy”.  In other words, passion can’t just “go anywhere”.

A big part of identity problems is that it is leads passion in one of these places:

  • The wrong place.  In this case, it can be placed where other passions should be or its mistaken for another passion or it conflicts with another passion.
  • No place.  Here the passion has no way to be “completed” so it can literally disappear and, after a time, “die off”.

The effect of these is that it tends to cause problems such as:

  • It leaves a person feeling “incomplete” or “empty” in life.
  • They are always “scrambling” or “desperately seeking” something, in which they generally have no idea what it is.
  • They struggle with various passions, impulses, desires, and drives.  Often, the ones they struggle with tell the passion that has problems.

In these ways, a person with identity problems tends to “struggle with themselves”.  Much of this is seen with females with identity problems.

Overall, one of the effects of identity is that it fosters growth of a person, both as an individual and in society.  Its absence tends to leave a very unstable and unhealthy person who is often controlled by these impulses, desires, and drives.  Females, in particular, are particularly prone to this condition.  Because of this, identity plays an important and unique role for the female than it does not with the male.  This primarily has to do with the power and effects of the mother instinct.

THE POWER OF THE MOTHER INSTINCT

The mother instinct is not something to look at lightly as, despite how females may appear to be on the outside, the mother instinct has a great influence on them interiorly and, in many cases, it has a controlling and dominating influence on them.  Interestingly, very few females are aware of its power over them.  To say that many females are slaves to the mother instinct would not be far from the truth.  What this reveals is a number of things:

  • The power behind the mother instinct, that we are dealing with a controlling and dominating impulse.  This is a power that many females cannot control.
  • That many females aren’t fully aware of the mother instinct consciously.  I’ve seen few mention it.  For many females, there even develops a deep inner fear of this “hidden and mysterious” mother instinct that they may sense but can’t perceive.
  • The deep, and instinctual, sense of the importance of motherhood in the female.  We must remember that motherhood, and childbearing, is a sense that “hits deep”, far deeper than many people may realize.  Perhaps one could even say that it is one of the deepest senses in the female.  Sadly, many females, particularly in this society, have completely lost “contact” with the mother sense (see my article “Thoughts on female identity problems – an example of how females are losing the ability to interpret their own naturally appearing motherly feelings, the ‘alienated mother desire’, and other things“).  Despite this, deep down in their minds, it lies and exerts a deep-rooted power over them.

Because of the powerful deep-rooted nature of the mother instinct it is associated with many impulses that contain much force.  I should point out that these are not just little “desires” and petty “wants”.  These are powerful instinct-based impulses.  As a result, the mother instinct is one of those powerful impulses that needs to be “directed” in the right direction.  This is why identity is so important for the female as it offers such direction.  Because of this, there is a close association with identity and mother instinct.  With the lack of identity to give the mother instinct a purpose, place, and a role the deep instinctual impulses of the mother instinct have no definite direction.  Many females become overwhelmed and controlled by the mother instinct impulses as a result.

I should point out that, since the mother instinct is so powerful, and deep, almost all females struggle, at least to some extent, with the power it has over them.  In general, this struggle tends to create something like a “fragile” or “unstable” quality in the female.  This quality creates what is often called “femininity”.  These tendencies, though they may create a “fragility”, usually do not get out of hand with healthy females.

In addition, because menstruation is associated with childbearing and the mother instinct these “fragile” feelings often become more pronounced during that time.  How females reacts to it varies.  Again, identity helps a lot in directing all these impulses in a healthy direction.  But, for some females, they will alternate from being “in control” to “out of control” during this time.  For other females, this sense of “fragility” will impress upon themselves a great sense of great “instability” that can cause problems for them.  This often predisposes girls to low self-esteem, for example.

When identity is lacking the tendency to be swayed by the mother instinct becomes strong and can overpower them.  This can cause a great conflict with the mother instinct that many females have.  In some respects, its almost like they are fighting with themselves.  A whole war is often being waged within themselves.  In some cases, they drag other people into it, often blaming and accusing them for the problems they have.  In this way, conflict with the mother instinct often has a tendency to cause false blame and the villanization of innocent people.

SOME EFFECTS OF FEMALE IDENTITY PROBLEMS

There seems to be something like a progression that often takes place with many females who struggle with the mother instinct as a result of identity problems (at least in the U.S.).  It goes something like this:

  1. They begin to see themselves as a victim or victimized.  They often develop a “victim world view” where they see victimizing everywhere and in everything.  The femalehood, and being female, becomes associated with being a victim.  This develops a poor view of the female, as well as “feeling bad with themselves”, which leads to the next phase . . .
  2. With the “victim world view”, and the poor view of the female it creates, there develops a contempt for being female and everything female (see my article “Thoughts on some aspects of female identity problems“).  Since much of this conflict is not conscious, as I described above, many females are not overtly aware of this contempt.  It appears in things like problems they have, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, and points of view they take.

With this contempt it can go in a number of directions, such as:

  1. The growth of contempt creates a tendency where they flee everything female.  The best example of this is how many will try to be a man.  They will also avoid things associated with being female.  As a result, they often “despise” things that are “traditionally” associated with the female, and view it in a bad light.
  2. As a reaction against the self-contempt they feel they “go in the opposite direction” and develop a tendency to a sense of superiority, self-glorification, conceit, and vanity.  I’ve seen this so bad that they start thinking the world revolves around them and that they are the answer to the worlds problems.  Most will not go this far but will develop a very inflated and exaggerated view of themselves.
  3. They see themselves as always fighting some threat.  They sometimes will act like the world is plotting against them.  In other cases, they act like they are fighting against an imagined “threat from the males”.

At the base of all these is the sense of being a “victim”.  How far they progress, and the direction they take, often varies with their personality and conditions of life.

THE “VICTIM”

The reason why being a “victim” is so critical is, of course, because it is associated with the mother instinct.  Because of this, the sense of being a “victim” is a result of a number of things created by the mother instinct, such as:

  • The sense of being controlled – This refers to the power of the mother instinct has over them and how they feel powerless to it.
  • Fabricating false abuses – This refers to the need to have a grasp on the problem, regardless of how they do it.  In this way, this tendency shows how they feel that they are not in control and is an attempt to feel that they are in control.  In many cases, they get “carried away” with these abuses, almost as if they are going into a fantasyland world. 
  • Feeling that they are being “hurt” in some way – This is a reference to the sense of “damage” associated with menstruation and childbearing.  As a result of this, females tend to make a deep unconscious association between menstruation, childbearing, sex, the male, and being a victim (in other words, anything associated with childbearing “hurts” them in some way).  This sense of “hurt” can be so bad that they get to the point of paranoia, even to think that the world is trying to hurt them.  Because the male is associated with childbearing, it not uncommon for them to think that the male is plotting against them (see my article “Thoughts on female identity problems – an example of how females are losing the ability to interpret their own naturally appearing motherly feelings, the ‘alienated mother desire’, and other things“).
  • The sense of a lack of control – This refers to the lack of a complete self . . . what I call the Partial Self (see my article “Thoughts on the female ‘flight from self’ – The Principle of the ‘Partial Mind’“).  The mother instinct is actually rooted in an absence of self for the female.  Nature has as if given the female an incomplete self and, accordingly, a perpetual need for something else to “complete” it.  It is the “child” that “completes” the females incomplete self, the ‘Partial Mind’.  In this way, “motherly love” is not really an emotional attachment but the result of the child being perceived as part of their self . . . the child being perceived as “a part of them”.  One effect of this ‘Partial Mind’ is that it makes the female self always lacking and in need for someone else to “complete” them.  This tendency predisposes the female to a tendency of never having complete control (as they do not have a “complete” self to do it).  This makes them never in control creating a sense of having no control.   
  • Blame and accusation – This refers to the instinctual sense of what I call the “other”, which the mother instinct creates.  In actuality, the “other” is a reference to an innate sense of a “child”, in particular, but can also refer to the male as he is associated with childbearing (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘mystic child’“).  This mother instinct based sense of the “other” tends to give females a sense of their always being “someone else involved”.  As a result, it makes them tend to blame and accuse people for their problems. 

These all contribute to the sense of being a “victim” which seems so prevalent with the mother instinct.  When females are exposed to these on a large scale, as is often the case with identity problems, it creates a need to defend themselves from it.  Its for this reason that they find various means to deal with it, as described above.  What this means is that the lives of many females consist primarily of reacting and defending themselves from the effects the mother instinct has upon them.  This is particularly so with identity problems where the effects of the mother instinct are more pronounced.  In this way, their reaction actually amounts to a symptom and, for some of them, this determines and dominates their life.  A good example are feminists with their world view of “being oppressed by the male since the beginning of time” and such, as I mentioned above.

THE CREATION OF A FALSE WORLD

One effect of when the mother instinct dominates the female is that it causes them to fabricate a false world in their mind.  This primarily consists of two fabrications:

  1. Fabricated abuse.  They see abuse that doesn’t exist or they make something out as abuse.
  2. Fabricated blame.  They find people to blame for their abuse.  My experience is that the male is first, then society.

These are part of a “victim world view” that the mother instinct often creates in females.  This can appear in a number of ways:

  • Sporadically – Its often seen during menstruation but can appear in some females from time to time or in certain situations.
  • Mild – It is a generalized attitude that affects some of their views of life.  It can create neurotic-like symptoms.
  • Severe – This can reach the point of a paranoid delusion.

However it appears, this fabricated world tends to make many females live in a non-existent world.  In this way, it shows that the mother instinct is so powerful that it can disconnect the female from the world and create a false world.  If it gets bad it tends to take on a quality of a paranoid delusion.  This tendency, I believe, tends to be a result of some basic traits associated with the mother instinct:

  • The sense of being a victim
  • The sense of the “other”

These naturally appearing tendencies predispose the female to paranoia . . . for example, “he’s trying to oppress me!”

This same paranoia can appear in different ways as there are many variations of the “victim” mentality.  In some cases, it doesn’t appear to be a “victim” mentality.  A good example is that they feel that “no one likes me”.  It doesn’t seem like it but this still reflects the “victim” mentality.  One could say that the “victim” mentality can be stated in this way: 

“Some one else is adversely affecting me!” 

In other words, someone else is doing something that is bothering me.  Knowing that this is a manifestation of the mother instinct one can’t help but note that this has a quality of a “mother responding to a child’s cry” . . . the someone else is the child who is calling for the mother and this bothers her.  I believe this to be the case.  Its a manifestation of the ‘mystic child’, the deep inner sense of the child “before it appears”.  In a way, the mother instinct is making the female respond to a child that is non-existent, being bothered by a cry of a child that isn’t there.  This fact shows a number of things:

  • Its another example of the female not being able to sense the mother instinct and its effects.  Because of this, they are unaware of it.
  • Its an example of the fabricated world the mother instinct creates as the female is reacting to a non-existent condition.

It also reveals how the “victim” mentality is closely associated with the “separation with the child” or, rather, the longing for a “missing child”.  In this way, it shows that there is an association between the “victim” mentality and the mothers longing for a missing child.  In a sense, they are “victims” of this “longing”.

What this “longing” shows is the deep pain of a “missing child” and the deep need the female needs for a child.  In effect, it causes a “deep hurt” that “victimizes” them.  Interestingly, this “longing” for a “missing child” often has no association with the real world (that is, they are often mothers and it still manifests itself).  This is because there is a difference between the deep unconscious instinctual world of the mother instinct and the real world reality.  In fact, the mother instinct seems to create an “independent world” within the female that is often unaffected or non-responsive to the “outer world”.  In this way, many mother instinct impulses continue to manifest themselves regardless of the “outer world” situation.  As a result, they will continue to “desire a child” regardless of how many children they have, how satisfied they are at being mothers, and so on.  Perhaps we could call this inner world the “interior mother instinct world”?  It is this interior world that is the source of the false world described above.

This tendency to the creation of a false world reveals a need for females to be “implanted” in the world.  That is to say, there has to be a “connection” between the world and the “interior mother instinct world”.  If this “connection” is not made then they can live as two separate entities, creating something like two minds in the female.  Identity creates this “connection” a number of ways:

  • As a medium for passion and impulses – this allows them to be manifested and displayed.
  • As a means for the creation of form – it gives it a “shape” and quality that is unique and “personalized”.
  • As a means for purpose and meaning – this gives the impulses a satisfaction and place.

Unlike the male the female is not “implanted” in the greater world by actively participating and doing things (such as biking, boating, etc.).  The female is “implanted” in the world in a different way because of her different character and mother instinct.  The effect of the mother instinct tends to create other needs, such as:

  • A “people orientation”.  The mother instinct makes the female more needing of other people.  As a result, they tend to need to be around people more.  They typically need to feel themselves “in the midst of people” and with a definite place and role.
  • The needing of other females.  The mother instinct does tend to cause a tendency for females to “congregate” together, almost as if to create a “greater female body”.  The example of older females (such as grandma) is also far more critical than is commonly supposed.  Also, since children are viewed as an extension of the female body, at least when they are young, children are also a part of this “greater female body” group.
  • A defined space – the ‘female niche’.  This is a “space” that females need all to themselves (see my article “More thoughts on the ‘female crisis’ – the need for self respect and the ‘niche’“).  This is usually both mental and physical.  It tends to reflect a more private aspect of the female.

With things, such as these, the “interior mother instinct world” tends to be blended with the outer world.  In this way, the female is more “implanted” in the world.  As a result, the mother instinct is more satisfied and productive in their life.

AFTERTHOUGHT

Overall, then, we see that identity actually protects the female from the mother instinct.  When identity isn’t there then females end up having to find ways to defend themselves from its power and control.  This gives female identity a very unique, special, and critical quality.

In America, especially, many females have lost their identity.  Because of this, many American females are struggling with the mother instinct (its almost a definable trait).  The result of this is that it has revealed many aspects of this problem, how it affects them, and how they deal with it.  In addition, it is revealing many aspects of the mother instinct that were previously hidden by behind female identity.  Interestingly, much of the qualities of the mother instinct were never seen because of female identity, which as if “hid” it and its qualities.  This made it very difficult (almost impossible) to see many aspects of the mother instinct.  This is one reason why the mother instinct receives such small notice, despite the importance it plays in life.  But, with the loss of the female identity, traits of the mother instinct are now being played out in open view for all to see.  Now, all you have to do is look . . .


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Identity and identity problems, Mother instinct, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The male and female | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment