Thoughts on writing 900 articles . . . reflections on the 10th anniversary of this blog

This is my 900th article in this blog. Its also the 10th anniversary of this blog.  As a result of this, I have reflected a lot on blog writing.  I have thought a lot on what I should write on this occasion but no one theme has appeared.  Instead, many themes appeared and no one theme was dominant.  Here are some of the themes that came up:

A Sort-of-an Experiment

In many ways, this blog is a sort-of-an-experiment.  I’ve been writing my thoughts down since the 1980’s.  But, one day, someone told me to write down my thoughts in a blog . . . so I decided to try it.  For 10 years I have written down many of my thoughts and put them down here.

Looking back on it now this blog has been both good and bad.  Its good in that I’m continuing to do what I was doing before . . . writing my thoughts down.  But, to put them in this blog, I have to spend a lot of time “dressing the thoughts up”, so they are presentable and readable, which actually takes a lot of work and is rather exhausting.  This tends to detract from the thought process, I’ve found, and can hinder the process.  It makes we wonder if I should end this blog or at least reduce the amount I put in it.  I guess we’ll see what I do next.

The Question of Purpose

The primary purpose of this blog was to ask myself “how do things truly appear to me?”  The intent is to reach down within myself and be truly honest, saying things bluntly, plainly, and without distortion, and without reliance on other points of view and explanations.  In short, I was trying to find “my explanation”.  In actuality, most people don’t use their explanation but, instead, use other peoples or societies explanation which they use wholeheartedly or as a basis for theirs.  Because of this, we are not truly honest with our own explanations.

Finding out what “my explanation” is may sound easy but its actually quite difficult.  I often described it as being painful, almost like giving birth.  It can also be very difficult and hard.  In many cases, I had to venture off into areas of interpretation and explanation that were so alien to me that it was like walking into a foreign country . . . and without anyone or anything to help me.  I often felt like I was walking into a land where no one else has been before.  Oddly enough, I often had difficulty trying to “digest” and accept my own explanations.  It was easier to accept generic explanations that were already established.  It took great effort to resist this impulse.  Overall, I’d say that it has qualities of excitement, fear, confusion, and pain, as well as a joy of discovery.  In addition, there is something that can be called the “fear of what I may discover”.

Continuing to Blog

I think I continue to write in this blog because I continue to think about things and write them down.  Since I write them down why not put them in this blog? I think that’s the main reason why I continue this blog . . . why not?  But, as I said above, it takes a lot of work to make them presentable and readable.  In fact, at this time, I have over 700 articles that are started but have to be finished and be made presentable.  Whether that happens, or not, depends on if I “get in the mood” and do it.  Unfortunately, that mood comes and goes and isn’t all that prevalent.  Its like there are stages before something is written down in this blog:

  1. I have the idea
  2. I note the idea down on a slip of paper (I always keep a slip of in my pocket to note an idea when it comes)
  3. I think about the idea and elaborate on it
  4. I start to write it in a blog entry in a simple way
  5. I elaborate on the idea but its not presentable
  6. I make it presentable and publish it on the blog

For every idea that is written in this blog there are probably over a 100 that don’t make it.  In this way, what is written here is only a fraction of what I actually think.  I would actually say its the “tip of the iceberg”.  There’s just so much . . .

The Amount of Material

I have gone through a lot of material these past 10 years. The material I’ve gone through is immense and varied, ranging through many fields and subjects. Its almost unreal. I’ve gone through so much material that I can’t even recall most of what I wrote! In fact, I’ve forgotten so much of what I wrote that I tend to restate things in articles. I often wonder how many articles are duplicates. In addition, its not uncommon for me to look at stuff I wrote years ago and I don’t even recognize it as something I wrote.

When I look at my old articles there are many reactions that I have:

  • Some of it seems naive or horribly simplistic
  • Some I don’t agree with anymore (I often wonder if I should remove them)
  • Some I don’t even know what I was trying to say
  • Some needs to be rewritten (which I have done)
  • Some seem stupid and dumb to me
  • Some seem absurd or ridiculous
  • I even feel embarrassed by some articles I wrote
  • I often wonder if I have revealed too much personal information in some articles
  • Sometimes, I wonder if I should of even written about some themes

In short, my own reactions to my own articles range from “good” to “bad”. I’m probably my own worst critic.

Writing to Myself 

To me, these articles are really personal thoughts that I am really writing to myself.  Much of these thoughts are, in a way, a means to offset the fact that there is no one to talk to.  I have found that there is really no one to talk to.  Many articles are initiated by thoughts I have when talking to people but are not based in the conversation itself as there usually is none.  The conversation initiates the thought process, basically, and I finish the thought on my own.  I guess one could say that, in a sense, this blog is a conversation with myself that is often motivated by the fact that there is no one to talk to.  Perhaps that’s why I like to publish them, as it gives an illusion of a conversation with people.  In this way, it describes a loneliness of sorts, of a loneliness for conversation.

A Desire to Share Thoughts

I do not believe that this loneliness for conversation is the only cause of my writing though.  These thoughts are motivated by a personal need.  I would describe it as a need to “share” my thoughts with people.  I often find it very hard to have thoughts and keep them to myself.  This more or less means that this blog is motivated by a desire to “share” thoughts.  Why I want to “share” my thoughts I don’t know.

This is further complicated by the fact that, according to my observation, thoughts really don’t mean much to anyone nor does it influence anyone.  It seems, to me, that thoughts and ideas have no real value anymore. They are a dime a dozen.  As a result, “shared” thoughts have no real worth or, at least, I see no evidence of it.  This often makes me wonder why even bother with this blog.

The Importance of Creation

I should point out that all that I write are my ideas.  I came up with them.  What this means is that I had to think all of it up on my own.  This means that the material I’ve gone through is the material I have created.  Its not like, say, going through material in the sense of reading a lot of books, watching educational videos, or taking classes at the University, which largely consist of prefabricated material that one repeats and maybe reformulates in a new way.

In that way, I tend to view this blog as a blog of creation.  I have to create everything.  I have to trudge through the discovery of something, the inquiry of it, the elaboration of it, the working through the details, and ironing out the wrinkles.  Frankly, that’s a lot of work . . . and I’ve done it god knows how many times and in god knows how many subjects.  I got to admit that this gives me a sense of pride.

The Motive of Creation . . . the Joy of the Hunt

To me, there is a great joy in creation.  There’s a joy in bringing things out, of self discovery, of hunting.  I’ve always felt that I was a hunter at heart.  I’m continually hunting and I love to hunt.  There’s something about the hunt . . . it seems to bring out a deep primal need.  I can’t really explain it.  But hunting is not the same as “looking” or “searching” or “learning”.  To me, that is like sitting in an armchair and “casting a glance” at things in a casual and safe way.  The hunt, at least as I see it, requires a person to walk into the darkness of life, into the midst of an awareness where one is exposed, disoriented, and vulnerable.  It requires more from a person.  In a way, the hunt entails a death.  To me, every true inspiration comes with a dying of self, at least in some way.  And this dying of self must be complimented by a rebirth of a new self . . . the inspired self.  In this way, inspiration isn’t coming up with new ideas but, rather, coming up with a new self.  This is why I have always maintained that “I do not seek knowledge but a new self”.

The “Intellectual Tradition” . . . Just a Matter of Interpretation

One thing that is apparent after pursuing the “intellectual tradition” for 40, or so, years is that its actually all a matter of interpretation.  Practically every idea, and form of knowledge, is an interpretation that someone does.  None of it is “written in stone”.  It seems that the “intellectual tradition” should be called the “interpretation tradition”.  That is to say, intellectualism is not the “quest for knowledge” but a “quest for an interpretation”.

I have always been particularly appalled by how science and the Universities, and some professions, state their knowledge as the absolute truth. I think that the idea that there is only “one interpretation” of things . . . as science professes . . . is ridiculous.

For me, the important thing is “what does it mean to me?”  That’s the critical thing.  Writing this blog has shown this to be very true.  Frankly, I don’t care if people disagree or think that something I say is wrong.  I’m not trying to solve the world or claim to give the correct and only interpretation.  I’m only describing it as it appears to me and in a way that has meaning to me.  Not only that, I know, from experience, that the interpretations that I do are in continual change.  What I feel is correct today I may not feel is correct a year from now.  And so, for me to say that I am correct, and what I say is the absolute truth, is ridiculous.  I think that the situation is no different for anyone else, any institution, any organization, any group, or any profession . . . we’re all just giving our interpretation . . . and it will continually change.

The Question of Authority . . . the Importance of Inspiration

I often mention how I have nothing to look up to in this society. There’s no authority, no mentor, no example, no direction.  These are the facts that I have found:

  • I cannot rely on society
  • I cannot rely on other people
  • I must rely on myself

As a result, I have to do these things:

  • I have to be my own authority
  • I have too look deep within myself, to look beyond myself, for any authority
  • I have to find what I feel is right

This society, and the condition of the mass society and the modern world, has made it necessary so that I must rely on myself.  The U.S., in particular, has done everything it can to destroy belief, culture, tradition, social hierarchy, and other human institutions . . . all in the name of freedom, democracy, and progress.  What it has left is a cultural, spiritual, and human wasteland with empty vacuous beliefs based in the unstable footing of political theory and idealism.  Not only that, the “intellectual tradition”, knowledge, science, and the education system, try to portray themselves as an authority but they’re really not.

As a result of this, I have found myself in a position (as many people do) where I have no choice but to abandon society and rely on myself which is, in many ways, all that’s left and all that remains constant.  There’s no one to look up to.  There’s no god.  There’s no leader.  There’s no authority.  All that’s left? . . . The authority within ourselves!

The problem is that I am very much aware of the fact that I am not authority.  Because of this, I take the point of view that I am only standing in the “stead of authority” that is absent but that is needed nonetheless.  As a result, I must “be authority without being authority”.  To put it another way, I must be an authority without presuming to be authority. This is a precarious position but a position I have found myself in.

I found that that the to “be authority without being authority” has caused a perception of two parts of my self:

  1. The “outer me” . . . this is my normal self and does not contain authority
  2. The “deeper me” . . . here lies a form of authority

The “deeper me” is “beyond me”, out of reach of my normal “outer self”.  It is as if separate and removed from my normal self and mind.  As a result, I must find ways to “connect” with it.  One way this is done is the reflections that make up the articles in this blog.

When reflecting I must do these things:

  • I must abandon my self . . . I must become dumb . . . destroy my “outer me”
  • I must feel a need to inquire
  • I must not judge what I say
  • I must rely on intuition to determine what is correct

This sometimes appears almost like a “divining”, or consulting an oracle, in some respects.  I generally speak of this as “seeking inspiration”.  I’m basically seeking that inner part of me that “knows” and displays an authority.  This is basically an intuition.

In “seeking inspiration”, many of the thoughts “come as if from nowhere”.  Oftentimes, I am stunned by much of what I think and write.  They are seldom a result of deliberate thought.  In fact, many articles are written “off the top of my head”, the words just flying out.  I often struggle trying to keep up.  But it is through this process I’ve had some of the greatest and insightful thoughts.  More importantly, they seem to possess an authority that normal thought does not have.  Inspiration, really, has become one of the substitutes for a missing authority.  It has guided and helped me in many things.

Continual Change and the importance of “Pattern of Thought” and the Interpretation of the World

Its interesting how much has changed in these 10 years.  Contrary to what is often supposed, later thoughts are not necessarily “built upon” or “improvements” on older thoughts.  Some may be and some aren’t.

Overall, the thoughts of the past 10 years seem more like a meandering to me, through a great labyrinth of speculation about things.  But there are definite “patterns of thought” in many articles.  In many ways, that’s the most important thing.  Its not the thought, itself, that is important but the pattern of that thinking for in the pattern is the base of all thought.  In the pattern of thought is revealed the character of the interpretation of the world.  The thoughts, themselves, are like building blocks.  The “pattern of thought” is like the building.  In this way, the writing of these articles have helped to reveal the character of interpretation that I use.  That, really, is its main benefit, not in the actual ideas themselves.

At the base of much of this writing is the idea that I am really perplexed by the world . . . I’m not sure what to make of it.  I should point out that I still don’t, even after all this reflection and speculation.  I have often said, “I was thrown into the world and my reaction has been, “huh, what?””.   This is complicated by the fact that I was thrown into a world that has become a never ending war of “my explanation is right”.  I speak of the intellectual, philosophical, religious, and scientific wars of Western society.  As a result of this, I have explanations coming out of my ears . . . and they all profess that they are right.  To be frank, there was so much of this that I turned to the only real authority that remained . . . myself and my intuition.

The Importance of Organizing Thoughts

One reason I like to write my thoughts down is because writing helps me to organize my thoughts.  If I just think about things then the thoughts as if “go to and fro” like the wind, and most thoughts would pass away and be forgotten.  In addition, there would be no organizing of many different thoughts into a coherent whole.  Most certainly, writing helps me to organize my thoughts which has helped me a lot.


Writing is a form of explaining things to me.  It implies that I do not know, which I don’t.  In fact, I don’t care if I know.  I have found that the knowing is not what is important.  I find the act is what’s important, not the results.  In other words, the power is in the experience.  It is explaining-as-an-experience.  To me, there is great joy in this.

My form of explaining is to focus on the inspiration of explaining, not the use of established knowledge or explanation.  In this way, the explaining is always new.  In fact, seeking this “newness” is critical.

To me, thoughts are really a labyrinth of confusion.  In some respects, I’ve become dumber than when I started.  I’ve found that knowledge just clutters the mind.  Looking back on it now I think it would be safe to say that if it wasn’t for the explaining-as-an-experience the confusion of all these thoughts would of destroyed me.  

The explaining-as-an-experience implies the importance of two things:

  1. The expression passion – this refers to the yearning for something
  2. The establishing of the self – this refers to me as-a-reality

To me, these are intimately related and reflect two sides of who we are.

Both passion and self need a “form” to manifest itself.  They can’t just “sit there”.  In many ways, explaining is a creation of a “form” for the passion and self.  In this way, explaining-as-an-experience becomes something like an art.  But this form of art is really not for public show, its not an art to display to other people.  Display has no value in this art.  Its the experience, the doing, that matters, and how it is done.  What is written here is just the “after effects” of that process.

The Illusion of Thoughts and Ideas

One thing that has become very apparent, to me, is the illusion of thought and ideas.  If anything, writing this blog has made it apparent how vague thoughts and ideas really are.  By this I mean that they are “right in a way” and “wrong in a way” . . . and they are all that way.  I look at most of the stuff coming from the Universities, for example, and almost want to spit because of how they talk as if they are “right”, as if they have discovered the only truth.  Practically everything coming from the Universities is opinion, no different than what anyone else has ever done in history.  This is the same with all the books, studies, articles, etc. that are out there.  In other words, I found that to talk of thoughts and ideas as being “right” is hypocritical and nonsense.  No matter what we say today, and believe is right, it will change when a new point of view, and way of interpretation, appears . . . and it will.  Not only that, it doesn’t matter what you say, or believe, there is someone to contradict it . . . and they will have their proof, don’t you worry.

Going Beyond Thoughts and Ideas

With the failure of certainty caused by the illusion of thoughts and ideas I find that I tend to look beyond them.  I often speak of this as “seeking what is before the word”.  I found that thoughts and ideas are a product of “something” and that’s what is important, not the thought or idea.  Writing this blog has greatly shown me not to look to thoughts and ideas as if they are what one is seeking but, rather, to look for the “something” that inspires them.  In this way, writing this blog has actually led me further away from blog writing which is writing down thoughts and ideas.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Books, movies, and music, Education and learning, Inspiration, free association, and intuition, Opinions and things associated with them, Philosophy, Stuff involving me | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflections on the 1980’s – aspects of the “shadow era” which follows a “glory time”

Here’s a thought I had:


I was talking to someone about the 1980’s the other day.  I stated that there was a quality about the 1980’s that I couldn’t quite put my finger on.  There was something “different” about it.  After some reflection I began to say that the sense I got from the 1980’s was that we were living in the shadow of all the success that followed WWII.  For the youth that followed, it made us look incredibly small.  How could we ever compete with all that?  We simply can’t.  The generation before us was so successful that it was almost unreal.  During their time they increased the economy, created all sorts of gadgets and gizmo’s, rock’n roll music, fantastic movies, TV, automobiles, split the atom, created jets, landed on the moon, etc., etc., etc.  We were standing under the shadow of this big massive thing which none of us could even hope to compare to no less begin to outdo.  Another way I described this is like being the son of an incredibly wealthy successful father who pioneered something.  These sons tend to become very small insignificant people.  In many ways, that’s what many of us were like in the 1980’s.  No one discussed it or stated it outright . . . at least I don’t recall it . . . but the sense was in the air.  As I reflect on it now I tend to think that this sense had great impact on the 1980’s mentality and attitude.  I think this is one reason why I didn’t like the 1980’s that much.  I just felt so small (see my article Thoughts on the American scramble for the “inheritance” of their parents and grandparents – the fight for “post WWII glory”).

In the conversation I stated that I was of the 1980’s generation but, on reflection, I don’t feel that’s true.  I would say that I’m really of the 1970’s generation and reflect many attitudes from that time.  I think this is one reason why I didn’t fit into the 1980’s that well.  In fact, while living in the 1980’s I used to call it the “sterile 80’s” and looked down on it.  It was only in the 1990’s that I began to realize that there was a lot of unique and neat things that happened in the 1980’s.  It was also the last decade to have a unique style all its own.

I should point out, though, that most of the neat things were not done by the younger 1980’s generation, themselves, but the older generation before them who happened to do things in the 1980’s.  In this way, most of the neat things in the 1980’s were not done by the youth of that era (I don’t recall us doing anything).  The younger generation was following along, so to speak.  The “sterile 80’s” point of view was from the perspective of being one of the youth (who lived under the shadow of the success of the former generation and was small as a result).  It was only when I looked at it from a greater and broader angle (that is, no longer from the perspective of the youth) that I began to see it was a neat era and that it was the previous generation that caused all that.

In actuality, the effect of the youth of the 1980’s era would happen in the 1990’s and later.  And how did that appear?  I first began to see the signs of it in the early-mid 1990’s.  I began to notice an almost obsessive tendency, sometimes to the point of abuse, for parents and society to force the kids to be successful.  What I saw the most was how every kid, and their dog, has to go to college and has to achieve in some way, and have some fantastic high paying job.  In effect, the children of the youth of the 1980’s generation were turned into “machines of the American success story”.  This mentality has continued on down to today.  I’ve often been appalled how parents of my generation, and later, treat their kids . . . often like show ponies or machines.

This “machines of the American success story” is reflective of the quality I described above for the 1980’s . . . living under the shadow of the post WWII generation . . . and then trying to recreate it (see my article Thoughts on some origins of many ridiculous attitudes of the American mentality – the ongoing effects of WWII, Cold War, and the Vietnam War era, fear, and on how the U.S. is living in the past).  In this way, the legacy of the youth of the 1980’s generation seems to be one of reenacting the post WWII glory time.  In particular, they forced this reenactment on their children.  Because of this, the children of the youth of the 1980’s generation are continuing this same mentality.  In fact, its actually gotten worse.  This seems largely due to the success of the so-called “digital revolution” which, in some respects, is like a “mini post WWII glory time”.  As a result, it only catered to and fostered the “reenacting” mentality making it worse and worse.  This mentality has gotten so prevalent that I often call the 21st century the “century of reenactment” and now assign it as a dominating trait (see my article Thoughts on how the 21st century is a reaction to the 20th century – the ongoing effects of the “dramatic century”, with remarks about “historical disruption”).

The “Small Generation”

I went on to say that we, in the 1980’s, were part of the “small generation” because we were made small by the success of the post WWII world.  We were looking up at this massive thing that we couldn’t compare to.

The “small generation” is primarily a result of a condition, a situation which made us small and insignificant.  Some of the effects that this had on us include:

  • A lack of ambition (why do anything? . . . its already been done)
  • This caused a tendency to apathy (we can’t surpass what’s already been done)
  • A blind continuation of attitudes and ways started by the successful generation before us, even though they may have no meaning to us or we didn’t really care (for example, one group tried to maintain the success theme by becoming “Mr. successful” – the yupi’s – and another group continued the rebellion started with the hippies – the stonies, and so on)
  • An attempt at trying to recreate or reenact the “former glory” in some way

These caused a lack of genuineness and originality which, in a way, made us even smaller.  About the only thing to make us “bigger” was to somehow replicate the post WWII glory in some way and many people made a life out of that . . . and still do.

The “Nobody Generation”

I then said that the generations that followed the “small generation” were the “nobody generation”.  The “small generation” are their parents.  Because of this, the “nobody generation” is really the next step after being made small.

Unlike the “small generation” the “nobody generation” were not reacting to a condition.  Instead, they are reacting to the instruction and guidance of the “small generation”.  Its as if the “small generation” were trying to force the post WWII glory and success, that they could not receive, onto their kids.  In this way, they would receive the glory and success through their children, so to speak.  But, in the process, they turned their kids into “nobodies”.  Basically, the “nobody generation” were made nobodies because they were treated like nobodies by their parents and society.  This happened a number of ways, such as:

  • Because they were treated like “machines of the American success story” having to reenact and display American success
  • As show ponies of their parents and societies desire to reenact the post WWII glory and the cult of success and achievement it created
  • As a result of having to be educated to death, spending a lifetime in school and cramming their head with information (remember that this is motivated out of the desire for American success)
  • As a result of being dominated by all the creations that success created (for example, becoming enslaved by the cell phone)

These as if degrade the individual person, making the person insignificant to the point of becoming a nobody.


All this brought up a subject which I call the “shadow era”.  This is the period of time following a “glory time”.  In this article, I am primarily looking at the glory time that happened during and after WWII (1940’s, 50’s, 60’s, and into the 70’s).  I generally speak of this as the “post WWII glory” as most of its effects became apparent after WWII.

The “glory time” has qualities such as:

  • It consists of new and novel things
  • It brings people together and has a unifying quality
  • Its massive in its effects
  • It has many positive effects

The “glory time” is something so impactful that the generations after it are “living under its shadow”.  In this way, the following era becomes as if enslaved to it (see my article Thoughts about “living in the shadow” and its effects).

The “glory time” has phases

  1. The phase of creativity.  This actually causes the “glory time”.  It tends to be overshadowed by what it creates.
  2. The phase of creation.  This is the result of the creativity.  Because it is something that is “grasped” this is often what’s remembered.

The “shadow era” is primarily a reaction to the creations of the “glory time”.  In other words, the “shadow era” tries to replicate the creations and, as a result, tends to not reflect the creativity that created them.

This replication is done a number of ways such as:

  • Imitation
  • Attempts at sustaining it
  • Recreating in some way
  • By reenacting it

The idea of the “shadow era”, generally, is to keep the glory alive by keeping what it created alive.  As a result, it tends to not display the qualities described above:

  • There is little that is new or novel
  • It does not bring people together nor has a unifying quality
  • It has minimal effect
  • It has minimal positive effects

The result is that things tend to slow down and, in a way, the society slowly falls apart.  This more or less means that the attempt at recreating a former glory actually tends to impair the society . . . it becomes as if “stuck” in a hole.  I have always felt that the U.S. is in this situation in the 21st century.

Some Effects

In the “shadow era” a measure of a person is often based in how well one can imitate the qualities of the “glory time”.

Success in this imitation can cause a number of things such as:

  • Many peoples “happiness” is often actually a result of success in this imitation.  That is to say, they are not happy because they are happy . . . they are happy “because they can imitate properly”.
  • It can create a feeling that one is entitled to the glory
  • It makes people view themselves as bigger than one actually are (for example, I am noticing that many females are now trying to make out anything the female did in the past as some great thing)

Not being able to do achieve this imitation can cause a number of things, such as:

  • Dejection and low self esteem
  • Lack of ambition and apathy
  • A tendency to rebellion and contempt
  • A tendency to become envious and feel hatred if one did not benefit from the glory (in the U.S. many people have begun to use politics as a means for this by claiming that they are being discriminated against, had their “rights” violated, and so on)
  • It can create a condition where people fight and scramble for “a piece of the pie” that the glory created

These are all common in the U.S. in the 21st century and are, I think, reflective of living in the shadow of the post WWII glory.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Historical stuff, Society and sociology, The "drones" and stuff associated with them, The effects of WWII, the Nazi's, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War era protests, The U.S. and American society, Twenty first century and post cold war society | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on my statement, “the femalehood is on the verge of extinction” – the “Regency Ailment” and the coming of new types of extinctions

In a conversation, recently, I stated something interesting.  I said:

“The femalehood is on the verge of extinction”

This means that a sexuality is becoming redundant and worthless and is slowly disappearing.

This, it seems to me, is a whole new idea.  We’ve seen the idea of the extinction of things such as animals, beliefs, cultures, etc. but I have never heard of something like a sexuality going extinct.

But, from what I have seen, the femalehood is slowly fading away.  As it appears to me, the female seems a degraded person whose life is often based in trying to be someone else (such as the male) or by becoming something else (such as seeking social ideals) primarily because the femalehood no longer has any value.  By “femalehood” I mean naturally appearing female traits and qualities that are developed and grown so that they have value both socially and personally.  

I first became aware of this problem in the late 1980’s and have been inquiring about it ever since.  I’ve stated many aspects of this inquiry in many articles in this blog.


I first became aware of this problem when I began to question why females seemed so preoccupied with abuse in the mid 1980’s.  This preoccupation appeared a number of ways, such as:

  • Many females want to be abused and will seek it out.  This is actually what started the inquiry.  I was quite stunned how many females wanted the male to “hurt” or abuse them in some way.  There is a small segment of the female population who desire and want this and will deliberately seek males out who will “hurt” and abuse them.  It didn’t take long to discover that the females desire to be abused was a reference to sex.
  • Then I found that many females found abuse in everything even down to everyday things like opening the door for them or even looking at them!  I saw females who could find abuse in anything . . . you name it.
  • Then I noticed that many females fabricated abuses.  The desire for abuse is so strong, in some females, that they will create abuses when nothing has happened.  The extent of this, and it is quite extensive, completely stunned me.
  • I then noticed how many females falsely accused people of abusing them.  Generally, when a female fabricated an abuse she falsely accused someone for it.  The male is the one usually blamed.  I was completely appalled by this observation.

It seemed that, every time I turned around, there was something involving abuse with the female.  It is so prevalent that it was sickening.

There are many ways of how this abuse appears, such as claims of such as these:

  • Sexual abuse
  • They are being degraded
  • They are oppressed
  • They are slaves

Oftentimes, it appears as a paranoia to the point that they think all the male population is plotting against them, or even the whole world is against them.

Overall, I found that there is really no difference between the different claims of abuse.  That is to say, they are speaking of the same theme and mentality but in different ways.  For example, a female stating a false claim of sexual abuse and a feminist claiming the male oppresses her is really nothing but different ways of saying the same thing: the male is “hurting” her in some way.  Some examples:

  • I always love to quote a statement I heard one feminist say . . . “the history of the world is the history of the enslavement of women” which more or less says that history is nothing but an example of the abuse of the female by the tyrant oppressive male.
  • A good example of a false claim of sexual abuse is an instance where a female claimed she had been raped by a guy.  She said she was traumatized and he should be put in prison.  It was shown to her that there was evidence that he was somewhere else at the time he was supposed to of raped her.  At first she denied it but finally she agreed that he wasn’t there.  She then went on to say ” . . . he should still be put in prison because I feel traumatized”.  But the man didn’t do anything!  She’s too convinced that a male has “hurt” her.

These are examples of the type of mentality that I was seeing.  The more I looked at this mentality the more fascinating it became.  But I must admit that, after a while, it sort of became sickening and disgusting.  It started to reveal a not-so-good quality of the female character and, I must admit, it made me lose some respect for the female.  Its prompted a number of statements by me, such as:

  • “You don’t come up to me, look me in the face, and tell me that half the population is trying to oppress, enslave, and degrade the other half and expect me to believe it!”
  • I sometimes will add something like this, ” . . . and what’s even more ridiculous is that you expect me to think that the male is doing this because they hate females!  You actually expect me to believe that?”  (As we’ll see below, behind a lot of this mentality is the females contempt for being female, which they often project onto the male making them mistakenly feel that the males hates her . . . actually, the females hate themselves!)
  • “You have the audacity to come up to me, quote the Constitution, and expect that this automatically makes you right and that I’m supposed to up and believe the nonsense your dishing out? (As we’ll see below, the themes of the Constitution, freedom, etc. play a big role in the “Regency Ailment”.  This is because it has a lot of origin in the effects caused by the French Revolution and the problem of the aristocracy.  As a result, they wield political theories like a weapon.).

A Psychological Inquiry . . .

Keep in mind that this came at a time when I was studying to be a psychologist.  As a result, I saw all this as a psychological problem, as I still do now.  To me, this is all psychology.  I say this as, for an insecure female, any statement about themselves that they don’t like will be viewed as . . . you guessed it . . . an abuse.  Because I’m a male I am obviously a tyrannical oppressive beast and hate females and am trying to degrade them by saying all this!!!  Don’t laugh.  That line of thought is very common and reveals a lot about the mentality behind it (as we’ll see below, there is an association between abuse, the male, and female self-contempt which that line of thought reflects).

For me, this was my first independent psychological inquiry with the intent at being a psychologist.  After I abandoned psychology I continued the inquiry primarily because it was so prevalent (I see it everywhere I turn) and because it became fascinating and interesting.  In fact, I’d say it is one of the more fascinating things I’ve inquired about.  This is because it entailed so many different things, such as general psychology, female psychology, sociology, and history, which I had to bring together to create a complete picture.  It also deals with themes no one talks about (such as female psychology, female problems, menstruation, etc.).  This personal inquiry has gone on for about 35 years now.

A Progression of Thought

Here is a brief progression of the themes I saw with this problem during this inquiry:

  1. I found that the preoccupation with abuse to be a reference to the desire for sex (for example, females wanting to be abused by the male reflects their sexual desire showing the association:  abuse<<<>>>sex)
  2. I then discovered that, behind the preoccupation with abuse, there was a victim mentality, a viewpoint that the female is being “hurt” or “damaged” in some way
  3. I found that the victim mentality is associated with menstruation which is viewed as “hurting” or “damaging” the female
  4. Menstruation eventually leads to childbearing and motherhood which, as we’ll see below, is also associated with “hurting” or “damaging” the female
  5. The problem that they had with menstruation/childbearing/motherhood is a result of a failing of the female identity which no longer gave meaning to these things
  6. The failing of the female identity tends to cause a contempt of the female, the female role, and what a female does
  7. This contempt of the female tends to cause a devaluation, degradation, or undermining of the female by the female themselves (but they usually blame someone else for it) . . . this can even appear as a desire to be a man or like a man
  8. The failure of the female identity began in the early-mid 1800’s in England and spread after that, permeating Victorian society and passing on into modern society

In other words, in the past 200 years there has seen a breakdown in the female identity and one of the ways it appears is a preoccupation with abuse and being “hurt”.  Further inquiry revealed even more manifestations and effects of this breakdown.

Abuse and Motherhood

What I found is that there is an association of abuse, and the female being “hurt”, with these themes:

  • Menstruation
  • Childbearing
  • Sex
  • The male

These can all be viewed as “abusive” to the female, or as a threat, and often has this uncanny knack at “hurting” them in one way or the other.

From an overall perspective we can see that being “hurt” is a reference to things associated with motherhood.  From menstruation to childbearing to sex, motherhood “hurts” the female.  In other words, there is a connection between abuse, being “hurt”, and the theme of motherhood in general. 

Keep in mind that this “motherly desire” entails everything associated with motherhood, such has the male, sex, childbearing, menstruation, etc.  Generally, there becomes a “fixation” on something specific, such as the male or sex, which tends to make it seem removed from “motherly desire”.

Looking at it closer, its apparent that motherly desire has become “repressed”.  There are a number of reasons for this, which include:

  • The failure of the female identity which does not allow motherly desire to manifest itself 
  • The Christian moral code which forces the motherly desire to be “repressed” (in other words, motherly desire is repressed just like sexual desire)

These then cause motherly desire to become repressed and to come out in other ways, such as feeling that they have been “hurt” or victimized by the male.

One thing that is often associated with this conflict is a great irony and dilemma which can cause great conflicts for some females.  There becomes a dilemma between these two things:

  1. The mother instinct makes it so that the female perceives herself as being “precious” (what she’s feeling is the “preciousness” of motherhood, so to speak).
  2. The problem is that she has to be violated or damaged in order for that “preciousness” to be realized (sex and pregnancy).

The dilemma then becomes much like “I’m precious . . . I must be hurt though . . . I’m precious . . . I must be hurt though . . . ” or something similar.  For many females this becomes the base of a victim mentality.  It also often creates in females a great sense of being “vulnerable” and “fragility” which is the source of the quality of being “feminine”.

The Drive to be a Victim = The Drive to be a Mother

My observation is that many females have a drive to be a victim.  This causes them to do things such as:

  • To see abuse in everything
  • To interpret the world as an abuse
  • To see the male as a threat
  • To want to be victimized or abused
  • To become obsessed with abuse and victimhood

Its as if they want to be a victim, deep down, but are as if denying it consciously.  But, as I said above, the theme of being a victim, abused, and “hurt” are references to motherhood.  As a result, the drive to be a victim really hides a drive to be a mother.

Many females, it seems to me, are no longer able to acknowledge these motherly desires no less know what they are about.  It seems, to me, as if the whole subject of “motherly desire” has been completely forgotten or neglected.  As near as I can tell, I’m the only one who talks about it.

Female Identity

What all this shows is that the female identity is necessary to deal with, and give meaning, to naturally appearing female impulses.  In particular, it shows that there is a close association with the female identity and the impulses associated with motherhood, which I generally call the “mother instinct”.  What I was seeing, in actuality, was a bunch of females who have become alienated from the mother instinct.  It often appears as a preoccupation with abuse and being “hurt”.

This began a long inquiry into female identity, how identity affects them, and why there was a breakdown in the identity, and its effects on them.  My further inquiry revealed a great conflict in the female identity.  Here are some quick thoughts on it:


Ever since a previous article I have written (Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female) I have stated as a description of this problem:

“This is the first time in the history of the world where a sexuality, meaning the femalehood, has failed to maintain itself as a distinct and viable institution in the society”

From what I have seen, that is very accurate and sums it up rather simply.  Here are the main words of that statement:

  • Sexuality.  This refers to naturally appearing female quality traits.
  • Failed.  This refers to an inability or inadequacy.
  • Maintain.  This refers to being able to keep ones self “constant”, and uphold ones self, even though things may try to change ones self.
  • Distinct.  This refers to keeping themselves as separate, unique, and removed from everything else . . . a distinct identity.
  • Viable.  This refers to the giving of ones naturally appearing traits value and worth, to both oneself and society.
  • Institution.  This refers to a collective social organization specifically catering to the female and naturally appearing female traits, and giving them value as a result.  That is to say, an institution is not a bunch of girls preaching how females are victims which has nothing to do with the value of naturally appearing female traits, such as we see with feminists.

From my observation, the female life, nowadays, offers only few paths for the female to be, such as:

  • A victim mentality – perceiving themselves as victims
  • Trying to be a man, or like a man, or even trying to replace the male
  • A female puppet – being a slave and puppet to society and social ideals
  • A false and exaggerated sense of superiority
  • Self-righteousness – becoming high and mighty, usually by using law and politics as a defense, which hides a deeper unconscious feeling of being a victim and a bad view of the female

We see a number of qualities:

  • An absence of natural female tendencies
  • An absence of any form of an institution
  • An absence of the value of being female

None of them promote any value in the femalehood.


At first thought I thought that this was a result of dehumanization caused by the modern world.  My inquiry has shown otherwise.  It revealed something worse.

As I said above, from what I’ve seen, this looks a failure of the female identity.  It would probably be more accurate to say that it describes a breakdown of the female identity.  This breakdown has been going on for over 200 years now . . .


It seems, to me, that the origin of this identity problem seems to of originated in England during the Regency years, or thereabouts (really from about 1790 to 1820).  This period of time became as if a pot that brought together all these ingredients and made a soup out of it.  One of the products of this soup is the female identity problem.  I often speak of this soup as the “Regency Ailment”.

Because it originates in the Regency years, the female identity problems tend to reflect much of the conflict of those times.  In fact, if one looks closely one can see that many females are still stuck in the Regency years and still continue its mentalities . . . some more, some less.  This means that many females are 200 years out of date and are still viewing things as if those conditions were still existing!  This is one reason why many of us listen to what some girls say and go “what?”

Some common qualities I see with the “Regency Ailment” include:

  • A self-righteous cause.  This is often to the point of an arrogance and pigheadedness.  It is generally rooted in the themes of freedom which originate from the ideas of the French Revolution (see below).  Its generally used as “justification” for what they do.
  • A preoccupation or obsession with status or doing what is socially esteemed.  This has origin in the aristocracy and the attempt at imitating the aristocracy (see below).
  • A preoccupation with oppression, rights, equality, slavery, etc.  This also originates from the French Revolution and the aristocracy problem (see below).
  • A tendency to be slavish, particularly toward society and social things.  This primarily originates from the desire to imitate the aristocracy so they become slavish so society and imitate it often to ridiculous proportions.  It also has origin in the growth of media which made slavishly following society more prevalent.
  • A victim mentality.  This originates from alienation from the mother instinct that the “Regency Ailment” causes (see above).
  • A tendency to view ones self as threatened.  This is part of the victim mentality but also has root in how the female feels threatened as a result of the fall of female society (see below).
  • A poor view of the female and female things.  This originates from alienation from the mother instinct that the “Regency Ailment” causes (see above).
  • A desire to be a man.  This originates from alienation from the mother instinct that the “Regency Ailment” causes (see above).  As I always say, “they are so insecure in being a woman that they hide behind the identity of a man”.
  • An inner insecurity which can appear like a mental instability, anger, hatred, etc.  This is largely an effect of the failure of the female identity.

Generally, a female will tend to focus on one, or several, qualities.  Seldom do you see all qualities though they may display all qualities occasionally.  The focusing on one, or several, qualities can be done to such an extent that it defines their personality.  In this way, the “Regency Ailment” often creates specific character types.  Some that I see include:

  • The “superior female” – she tends to think she’s on a higher plane than everyone else, particularly the male
  • The “social climber female” – she tends to want to do what is socially esteemed so she can be esteemed
  • The “oppressed female” – she is convinced she, or the female, has been oppressed
  • The “fighting for my rights” female – she is convinced that she has to fight for her rights for everything
  • The “male-want-to-be” female – she tries to be a man
  • The “social puppet female” – she slavishly does what society wants

The character types and qualities described above all originate from the conditions of the Regency years and the effects it caused.

It seems, to me, that the “Regency Ailment”, and the qualities it creates, has strong roots in what can be described as “the problem of the aristocracy” and its effects . . .

The Problem of the Aristocracy

The 1700’s, and into the 1800’s, which includes the Regency years, there was a great conflict of the aristocracy.  There became a conflict between two things:

  1. The aristocracy began to lose its value in society and even began to be viewed as a threat
  2. Despite this, the image of the aristocracy was so favorable that people wanted to emulate and be like them

Some of the themes associated with this conflict include:

  • The appeal of the aristocracy – This causes a tendency to be like and imitate them.
  • The effects of the French Revolution – This causes a tendency to be preoccupied with “oppression”, freedom, rights, etc.
  • The rise of the bourgeoisie –   It also in response to a growing wealth which eventually caused a desire for social climbing.  This is began a process where people began to imitate the aristocracy.
  • Nationalism caused by the Napoleonic Wars – This caused an arrogance and pride as well as a patriotism associated with the aristocracy which made people want to emulate and imitate them.

What we see is that this whole mentality is actually rooted in the social class problem of England . . . the aristocracy versus the common people . . . and reflects the common peoples desire to be like the aristocracy.  This reflects an irony that pervades the “Regency Ailment”, and is the source of many qualities of the Regency years.  These are:   

  • The hatred and dislike of the aristocracy.  This originates from the problem with the aristocracy which culminated in the French Revolution, which is like a war against the aristocracy, and the idea of being “oppressed” by them.
  • The desire to be like the aristocracy.  This causes a tendency to imitate and emulate them.

Its like they are trying to imitate and be like the people they despise and view as a threat!  This creates something like a weird irony.  On one hand they are all trying to imitate “proper aristocratic ladies” but, on the other hand, they are condemning the aristocrats as “oppressors”.  This irony eventually caused several tendencies:

  • A slavishness toward society and social ideals as they try to “ape” the aristocracy
  • A viewpoint of being “oppressed”, which would turn into a preoccupation with abuse and being a victim

The effect of all this is a tendency to things such as:

  • A concern over status and social climbing
  • A preoccupation with imitating the socially esteemed
  • A preoccupation on social image or how one appears socially
  • A slavish attitude toward society
  • Viewing themselves as “oppressed”, as abused and victimized in some way

These themes are very prevalent in the “Regency Ailment”.

“Oppression” and Abuse

In the “Regency Ailment”, several things are significant:

  • The conflict with the aristocracy and social class 
  • The French Revolution

These become intimately bound up with the idea of the “oppression”, abuse, and victimizing of the female.  These caused a number of things to happen:

  • It causes a tendency to exaggerate and blow any “oppression” and abuse, real or imagined, out of proportion.  Its like it gives them a license to exaggerate it.
  • It causes a tendency to make a political issue out of things. Some girls get really carried away with this and some have even made a life out of it.

I tend to believe that these are instrumental in causing the preoccupation with abuse.  In this way, we could say that the females obsessive preoccupation with abuse are a result of the aristocracy, social class, and the French Revolution.  Without these events, there probably wouldn’t be the obsessive, ridiculous, and exaggerated concern over abuse that we see today.

A Puppet Mentality

For the female, the “Regency Ailment” primarily created what I call the female puppet.  In many ways, the female puppet phenomena is the root of this problem and the fall of the female identity.

The female puppet does things such as:

  • They slavishly follow society and social ideals
  • They are so slavish that they abandon, and give up, who and what they are
  • Society takes the place of their “self”

In the most extreme forms of the female puppet mentality the female will literally lose a sense of herself as a distinct individual . . . she ceases to exist as a person.  Her sense of “self”, and who she is, lies in society . . . society becomes her “self”.  As a result, the female identity no longer lies in “being female” but in “slavishly following society”.  In this way, we see that the female puppet destroys the female person and identity. 

This is exactly what it did too.

The “Female Slave Cycle”

Basically, the slavish attitude of the “Regency Ailment” makes many females become utter slaves to social ideals.  They will utterly enslave themselves to them and seldom notice that this has happened.  But when the craze dies down their slavish attitudes continues with the net result that they now “feel slaves”.  They will then blame someone else for this even though they were the ones who enslaved themselves.  I speak of this is as the “female slave cycle”.  There are stages to this cycle:

  1. Something becomes popular
  2. It gets social support
  3. It grows as a mania in the females
  4. They become enslaved to it as a result
  5. It reaches a high point of popularity
  6. It begins to fall in influence
  7. The mania ends
  8. All that remains is their slavish attitude
  9. They then begin to feel “enslaved” or “oppressed” . . . they are actually feeling their own slavish attitude
  10. They blame someone else for these feelings of enslavement

The important point about this is that the female tends to enslave themselves to something, on their own accord, and then blame someone else for it when they realize that they are slaves.

This cycle became very prevalent with the “Regency Ailment” mentality.  This is because slavishness to society is so prevalent in this mentality and, in many ways, is a particular trait.

A New Way of Bringing Up Daughters

During the Regency years, this desire to be like the aristocracy caused many mothers to teach their daughters something like an “artificial female identity” which is based in the aristocracy but which has no real practical value.  This caused them to practically abandon the female identityThis is an identity that was already existing and which is the product of generations of females.  This tendency spread rapidly in the mid 1800’s.  It caused a number of effects:

  • The female no longer followed an established identity based on experience
  • The female identity was now based in “aping” the aristocracy
  • The abandoning of existing female identities undermined the femalehood, destroying it as a distinct and viable institution in the society
  • The female society, that replaced the destroyed female institution, became an imitation of the aristocracy and society

Because of all this the female life, really, became not much unlike a performance, a play acting, a theater performance.  This often gives the female a phony or superficial quality.  In fact, many females feel this phony performance quality and its not uncommon for them to refer to it in some way, often making fun of it.

As time when on they started a ball rolling that got bigger and bigger as time went on, completely destroying the femalehood, the female institution, and the female identity.  All that is left after 200 years . . . the female puppet.


It seems that a common trait of the “Regency Ailment” is a great self-contempt in females.  I am often amazed of the poor views that many females have of themselves.

This female self-contempt come from Christianity and the idea that we are all sinners and should be punished.  It has several origins:

  • The aristocracy.  The Crusades were influential in the rise of the aristocracy.  They were defending Christianity and, as a result, represented Christianity.  When females tried to imitate the aristocracy they also took on these attitudes of “representing Christianity”.  This is why many females think they are the representatives of “peace and love” . . . those are Christian values not the representation of the female character, as many claim.
  • The Christianity of the common people.  The normal Christian beliefs emphasized that we are all sinners.

With the failure of the female identity, and the problems it creates, it becomes an avenue for female self-contempt.  Because of this, female self-contempt is often a sign of a failed female identity.  

My observation is that many females with self-contempt feel a dislike of being female and then blame other people for it . . . usually the male.  This tendency to blame is often because of the female puppet mentality.  Remember that, in this mentality, the female gives up her self for society.  As a result, she has no sense of self, only of society.  Therefore, any problem she has cannot be hers but must be someone else’s fault.  This shows how the female puppet mentality tends to create an “innocent victim” viewpoint. 

Trying to be a Male Knight

Many females will try to be like a male or try to display male qualities.  In many ways, they are trying to be a “male knight” or aristocrat, so to speak.  They will try to emulate male ideals and basically be like a man.  For example, many females seem particularly preoccupied with being “strong”.  This is for a number of reasons such as:

  • The failure of female identity
  • Female self-contempt that makes them not want to be female
  • The males association with motherly desire . . . a manifestation of the repressed desire to be a mother . . . being a “male knight” satisfies this desire but in a neurotic way

Some females view this trying to be like a man as some sort of a cause, as if they are somehow going to be saved by it.  In this way, the females imitation of the male is really a continuation of the “knight in shining armor” theme, except that the female tries to be her own “knight in shining armor”.

From my observation a female trying to be a man or “male knight” has greatly undermined the female and their identity.  How, exactly, does it help the female identity?  In addition, it never helps them regain any self-respect or dignity.

The “American aristocracy”

Of course, in America, the aristocracy has been greatly replaced by American ideals.  Some of these include:

  • Work. The obsession over work often prompts me to say that “one of these days the female is going to wake up and find that all a female is is a person who has a job”.
  • Achievement.  They “have to” achieve that.  They “have to” achieve this.
  • Success.  They are all measured by success.
  • Materialism.  Of course, “whoever has the most toys wins”.

Because these reflect the “new American aristocracy” many females kill themselves trying to achieve these in much the way the English girls killed themselves trying to be like aristocratic ladies.

From what I’ve seen, nowadays, I would hate to be a female between the ages of about 10 to the late 20’s.  The slavishness, and puppet mentality, they are now displaying is probably worse than was seen in England.  In fact, this mentality may be worse now than it ever has been in 200 years.  One of the reason for this, I believe, is the prevalence of media and, in particular, social media.  These offer new avenues of slavishness and puppetry for the female with the “Regency Ailment”.

The Growing Problem

Some things that made this problem grow bigger include:

  • The growth of media.  This made the mentality spread and grow more easily.  Social media seems particularly damaging.
  • Consumerism.  This made it easier for females to imitate and follow society.
  • Overpopulation.  This gave a social environment for all this to grow.
  • Mass mentality.  The tendency to mass mentality, which many females are prone to, make many females blindly “follow along” mindlessly

These made it a greater social issue and problem causing it to spread and grow in force.  To me, the “Regency Ailment” behaves much like an infectious disease.  It spreads through the female population almost too easily and quickly.

The Fall of Female Society

The “Regency Ailment” undermined and basically destroyed female society.  By “female society” I mean a sub-society in the society that is made up only of females and that reflects their natural appearing qualities and mentalities.  In every society there is a male society and a female society.  These societies do not have physical boundaries, typically, though they can.  Their true boundaries lie in things like:

  • Identity
  • Unity
  • Value and worth
  • Dignity
  • Security, social, and personal

Its in these societies that each sex develops their naturally appearing qualities and traits and give it meaning, worth, and value.  Its in these societies that they have example and direction.  It is here that they develop a unity and an identity of who they are.  Because of all this there develops a dignity and a security in who they are.

The loss of this society undermines all the above and causes things like:

  • Loss of sense of who they are
  • Little sense of being part of a group and lack of belonging
  • Feelings of worthlessness
  • Feeling that one has no inner value
  • Insecurity

The “Regency Ailment” caused all these by undermining female society.  As a result, these are common traits of the ailment.  It undermined female society a number of ways:

  • By abandoning established female identity
  • By trying to be someone else (such as the aristocracy or male)
  • By becoming a puppet to society

In many ways, the conditions and effects of the “Regency Ailment” caused female society to disappear and to be replaced by a “society-as-a-whole”.  By this I mean that female society has been replaced by the greater society which encompasses everyone and everybody In this way, females are looking for an identity, meaning, and dignity in the greater society which has little to do with the female or female character traits.  The result:  an inadequate and failed female identity.  As a result of this, the female has had to force herself to “fit in” to “society-as-a-whole”.  The problems is that they don’t fit in.  This has caused many problems for many females.  In fact, this trying to “fit in” to the greater society has become one of the main activities and efforts of many females and encompasses many problems that females now face.  Overall, it has only intensified their alienation and identity problems making them feel more a victim.

In fact, this has created a new type of female character.  I often call it the “force-herself” female.  This is because they have to “force herself” to fit in to greater society.  These girls tend to put forth great effort and work to “fit in”.  As a result, they tend to be greatly strained, stressed, nervous, and uptight.  This is because female society and greater society are actually opposed to each other in character.  Because of this, the “forced-herself” female is trying to force an unnatural condition to take place.  Many “forced-herself” females hide behind things associated with social approval and status.  This isn’t surprising as the “Regency Ailment” is very much rooted in a slavish puppet mentality to society.  For many of these females, the measure of themselves will be based on how well they do what is “socially approved”.  This can become like an obsession and completely dominate their lives.  Despite how well they hide behind the “socially approved” they are actually insecure alienated females deep down, with an identity problem.  As a result, there develops a “social self” and a “deeper self”.  The “social self” generally appears stable but when the insecure “deeper self” appears it can be quite dramatic.  What comes out are themes associated with the “Regency Ailment” described above (for example, claiming that they are oppressed or are abused).

Much of this tendency to replace female society by “society-as-a-whole” is caused by things like:

  • The abandoning of established female identity
  • Trying to be someone else (such as the male or what is socially esteemed)
  • The slavish attitude toward society

It seems that the slavish attitude toward “society-as-a-whole”, in particular, plays a big role in the undermining of the femalehood.  This became particularly apparent with the “Regency Ailment” because it tended to turn females into puppets to society.  In some respects, one could say that the slavishness to society causes the female to “lose herself” in society causing the female to lose value as a person and society.  

The fall of female society often causes a sense of being threatened.  When the female replaces females society with “society-as-a-whole” they feel vulnerable to it.  This is further proof that female society and “society-as-a-whole” are opposed in character.  It also shows that females society offers a security for the female.  “Society-as-a-whole” does not offer this.

I tend to feel that the fall of female society is one of the main problems of this problem.  This is why I often say, “the fall of female society is the fall of the female”.

The Overall Effect

The effect of all this is that it undermined and slowly destroyed the female identity.  Basically, there has become a loss of dignity and value in the female.  This caused a number of reactions:

  • The female began to try to be like someone else, such as the socially esteemed, or a man
  • The female became a puppet to society
  • The deeper effect of the loss of identity which alienates them from things like the mother instinct and causes neurotic problems, such as feeling an abused victim or a paranoia that all men were trying to degrade the female

These all have eaten away at the female these past 200 years causing a slow deterioration and obliteration of the female both socially and as a person.


This brings up the question of the nature of this extinction.  It seems, to me, that the female, as a group, is making themselves extinct.  In this way, this is a new type of extinction, and in two ways:

  1. The extinction of a sexuality . . . femalehood
  2. A self-extinction . . . females making the femalehood redundant

I’ve not heard of either form of extinction.  They seem totally new.  To me, though, they seem very real.  I see examples of it almost every day.

This is how it appears to me at this time anyways.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Dehumanization and alienation, England, Britain, and all that, Feminism: a destructive philosophy, Identity and identity problems, Male and female, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Society and sociology, The U.S. and American society, Victorianism, Bourgeoisie, noble imitation, and sycophancy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on some aspects of opinion – the enigma of opinion and the problem of words, with remarks about the “stance toward words” and beingness

Here are some more thoughts on opinion that I had which build upon things I’ve previously said:

Recently, I have been emphasizing that opinion is really any mental fabrication.  In this way, “opinion” and “mental fabrication” are really the same thing, at least as I use it here.

Opinion, or mental fabrications, then includes things like these:

  • Religion
  • Belief
  • Myths
  • Stories
  • Thoughts
  • Science
  • Points of view
  • Knowledge

This means that opinions make up most of our life.  One could very well say that “life is built upon opinion”.


Opinions are really something of an enigma.  This is because of a conflict of two opposing qualities:

  1. Usefulness – We use opinions so much and they have a lot of value
  2. Vagueness – Opinions are variable, change easily, and can be proven wrong

These as if conflict with each other causing great problems and dilemmas.


Opinions have great value and use because of things such as these:

  • They allow us to deal with situations and life
  • They give one a tool to use in life
  • They allow a means to organize and plan
  • They can be proven right
  • They can have a unifying quality

In this way, under the right conditions, opinions have great and tremendous value.  It is through opinions that things have been accomplished in the world.  One could probably say that without opinions we would probably be much like cattle in the fields.

My observation is that “all opinions are correct . . . in some way”.  When I say this I mean if a person “believes” in the opinion and its not just some statement a person happens to say.  Basically, any opinion that a person believes is correct in some way.  Some ways that make it “correct” include:

  • The situation
  • The “mood”
  • A persons character
  • The “background” that the opinion rests upon

These all create a condition of variability that can appear in a trillion different ways causing, of course, a trillion different opinions.  This condition of variability also creates a condition of great vagueness . . .


I have another saying:  “All opinions are wrong . . . in some way”. 

This is because of things such as:

  • They are variable
  • Opinions conflict
  • What works in one situation doesn’t work in another
  • They can be proven wrong

In many ways, opinions are very fragile, much like smoke that blow away with the smallest breeze.  I don’t think people realize how fragile opinions are.  If one looks in the past one see’s all these opinions – beliefs, truths, religions, facts, etc. – that people thought were absolute, and once their time has passed they fell like they were nothing.  Do you think any belief that you have is immune to that?  I wouldn’t count on it.

The Importance of Situation

We can see that opinions are very situation dependent. Opinion needs the correct situation to give it value.  When that situation disappears or changes then the value of the opinion changes.  This is why I have sayings such as:

“Opinions work when the situation favors it”

“Opinion works when there is nothing to contradict it”

This means that opinion, mental fabrication, thought, knowledge, etc. is not “true”, in itself, but only in the context of the situation that it is associated with.  This reveals that opinion is a reaction to a situation.  It as if “follows” the situation.  To put it another way, opinion is secondary to a situation, which comes first.  In this way, we could say that the enigma of opinion can be described in this way:

“We treat something that is second as if it was first”

But the power of opinion is so great that we tend to think that it “is” first, as if it is the situation.  In actuality, opinion is only a describing of the situation.  The problem is that we take opinions too seriously.


Opinions have such an impact that they deceive us by making us take them too seriously.  In many ways, the words of opinions are like a big vacuum that sucks us into it, dominating us.  This tendency is caused by things such as:

  • It is a tool that we can use
  • It becomes an extension of self
  • It has great impact

In these ways, we as if “become” the opinion and identify it with our self and our life.  I speak of this as the “opinion identity”.  Because of this, opinions become more than opinions – words and ideas – they become “us” and “me” . . . they become our identity, of who we are and dictate our association with the world.

Much of human identity is based in “opinion identity”.  It has held humanity together, glued it together, and gave us something to build upon.  But, in actuality, it is vague and ever-changing.  It is rooted in the enigma of opinion.

“Wars of Opinion” – The Drive to Domination

All through history the vague enigma quality of opinion has caused problems.  One could even say that history is made up of many “wars of opinion”.  Society is made up of a multitude of opinions which are all vying to become the dominate opinion.  This drive to domination is a result of the desire for the “opinion identity” and the fear of its absence . . . alienation.  This shows that identity offers security and, accordingly, opinion offers security.  In this way, the “wars of opinion” are really “wars of security”.

What is feared is the loss of identity which is alienation . . .

Alienation – The Problem of “Opinion Rigidity”

The enigma quality of opinion causes a natural tendency to alienation.  This is because opinions are rooted in situation, as I said above, and situation changes so easily . . . “what was once right is now wrong”.

Once we accept the identity that “opinion identity” offers then we are as if “locked” into it.  That identity becomes “us”.  As a result, when the situation changes, the opinion changes, but we have a hard time changing along with it.  I call this “opinion rigidity”, a tendency where we become so rigid in opinion, because it has become our identity, that we can’t change.  

The amount of problems “opinion rigidity” has caused in the world is quite extensive.  I would even venture to say that much of the conflict of humanity is based in “opinion rigidity” or is somehow related to it.  There are people with new identities in conflict with people with established identities, for example.

This changing identities has become an increasing problem, nowadays, because every time you turn around the conditions has changed and, accordingly, the opinions have changed which causes a change in identity.

The Problem of Identity

According to what I see people can’t just “change identities”.  I often get a kick how people think that people are supposed to change identities like changing hats.  This inability shows a quality about identity, that once a person takes an identity they are as if “molded” into its particular form.  Because of this, one can’t just change.  Its like trying to change pottery, which once was malleable clay but is now hard and will break if you try to bend it.

Some common reactions to the inability to change identities include:

  • Stagnation . . . apathy
  • Forming “sub-groups”
  • Blindly agreeing with society
  • An “aloneness”
  • Living with a disconnectedness with life
  • Preoccupation with hobbies and activities

To me, these are common qualities in modern society and are primarily a result of the endless change of modern society and the upsetting of society.

A lot of this problem has root in what make up opinions . . . words.


One could say that the enigma of opinion is the enigma of words and what words create (thoughts, ideas, knowledge, etc).  In short, we have become overly dependent on words, and the creation of words, but words are not our nature.  As a result, there is a conflict between that part of us that uses words and our deeper nature that does not use words.  

A number of things have caused us to be too word oriented:

  • Writing things down, particularly with books
  • Reciting stories, myths, etc.
  • A natural tendency to rely on words because they are a means to communication
  • The prevalence of education and learning
  • The already existing effects of words and what they create

Words, and what they create, tend to make things “written in stone”, unchanging, rigid, and inflexible.


I’ve always said that once something has taken word form it has been degraded.  This states that there is something that becomes before the word, that motivates it.  In other words, words are motivated by something.

This is why I often say, “seek what is before the word”.  I generally speak of what is before the word as “passion”.  To me, passion is not necessarily an emotion, though it can appear as an emotion.  I would describe it more as a “force” or “movement” or “energy”.  It is “something that moves you”.  It is, of course, wordless.  As a result, it is hard to put into words.

When a persons “seeks what is before the word” then they are are primarily seeking an awareness of passion.  This is like a “pre-word awareness”.  Most of our awareness is based in words and what they create.  Even though we may not use words in our awareness the framework of our perception has a basis in words.  For example, when we look up at the sun we know that it revolves around the earth but we don’t think about it.  Our perception has already been “set up” by words previously in our life.

The “pre-word awareness” leads to beingness, which is like a “pre-word identity”.  It is an awareness not based in words or what words have created.  In this way, its like a “raw” awareness of seeing things “as is”.

Beingness is different than identity in a number of ways:

  • Its not rigid nor is it variable.  It has a quality of “constancy”.
  • Its not based in a situation.
  • A person more associates themselves with the “all” of everything.
  • There is an absence of self.

In many ways, beingness is something like a “spiritual-sense” that is not based in any religion, dogma, or belief as it is wordless.  Its a naturally appearing phenomena.


In this way, we see two paths:

  1. Word-based path words lead to opinion which lead to identity.  This is particularly prevalent in very organized and large societies such as modern society.  These tend to be societies where human creations are dominant.  They tend to view the world in a dead and mechanical way.
  2. Wordless-based pathpre-word awareness leads to passion which leads to beingness.  This path tends to be more prevalent in non-organized and small societies.  These are societies that have not created an involved network or system of word-based manifestations, such as organized religions, science, etc.  As a result, these are societies where the conditions of nature are dominantThey tend to view the world in an animistic way, as if were alive.

One of the things we see is that the prevalence of words, and what they create, tend to create a “dead” view of the world.  In a way, words rob the “life” out of life.  This means that though words and opinions fabricate an elaborate mental fabricated world for us, they actually destroy the life of the world.  The more one becomes engrossed in the words the more deader the world becomes.  This is an enigma of opinions, of words, of thought, of ideas, of beliefs, of knowledge, of science, and so on.


I’ve always felt that because of the problem that words and what words create, such as opinion, and the fact that we need them, there is great importance in what I call our “stance toward words”.  This refers to the need to have a proper attitude to words, their use, and their effect on us.  

Normally, we accept words, and what they create, without doubt, as if it they were gospel.  We primarily live in the world that the words have created, in the “word world”, as if that was the only world in existence.  We tend to forget the wordless world, the world of beingness, where the world is living and alive as a reality, of wordless awareness.

To have a proper “stance toward words” requires a person to be aware of the “wordless”.  This isn’t as easy as it sounds.  To me, to truly be “wordless” means that even your inquiry into it isn’t based in any belief or idea.  If you seek the wordless based on an idea then you are still following the “word world” which means you’ll view the wordless in a “word way”, so to speak.  For example, one will intellectualize about it and confuse the intellectualizing with the “wordless”.  The best way to understand what “wordless” means is when a person discovers it for himself.  I think that it the greatest thing of all but, for many people, I don’t think it comes easy.  In fact, that seems the hardest part.  How does a person discover the “wordless”?  I don’t think that is an easy question to answer.  Frankly, I don’t know how to answer that.


Some techniques of becoming “wordless” include:

  • Learn to relax.  Don’t get “wound up” with things.  Relax ones body and mind.  If you feel any tension “let it go”.
  • Have no thoughts.  Do no thinking whatsoever.  Try to be completely silent.  If a thought comes to your head just stop it.
  • Forget ones self.  Cease to see ones self as a separate entity.  Forget the “me” and “I”.
  • Be aware.  In a way, awareness replaces ones thoughts.  It becomes the canvas that everything is painted upon.
  • Practice a “presence of existence”.  Awareness as if “opens the self to existence”, so to speak.  That is to say, a person becomes very aware of “existence”, that one is “there in the world”.  The emphasis is an awareness of existence, not on ones self or the world in particular.
  • “Become passion”.  This refers to the feeling of any passion or movement that appears.  Feel it as a part of ones self, not something that is removed from you.  One will find that “one is made up of passion”.

Even though I use the expression “wordless” this is a process of discovering beingness.

A common feeling with beingness is being bored, that one is wasting ones time, or that “there is so little”.  This is because beingness requires a slowing down and a limiting of things.  In many respects, one as if slows down to a crawl.  That’s not as easy as it sounds.

Another thing that comes out is hidden and repressed conflicts.  This often requires one to inquire about these conflicts and try to resolve them.  In this way, becoming “wordless” becomes a self inquiry and self exploration.  The need to resolve these problems can put great pressure on a person and can even bring qualities out in a person that a person didn’t know they had.

Rediscovery – Regression

One could say that beingness is like a new identity and a different self.  I think it would be more accurate to say it is a rediscovering.  It seems, to me, that beingness is our “original state of mind” as an infant (and, perhaps, even in the womb?) before life complicated it.  In this way, its actually a regression.  Because of this, it can give a quality of “starting over” or “looking at things with new eyes”.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Contemplation, monastacism, shamanism, spirituality, prayer, and such, Dehumanization and alienation, Education and learning, Existence, Awareness, Beingness, Consciousness, Conceptionism, and such, Identity and identity problems, Opinions and things associated with them, Philosophy, Psychology and psychoanalysis | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on knowledge, opinions, and interpretations – the “systemizing of opinion”, the “learning derby”, personal relevance, opinion as in-the-real-world phenomena, etc.

Here are some thoughts I had:


It seems, to me, that most of what is called “knowledge” is nothing but opinion.  That means that all the studies and research are just a form of opinion and are not some great truth.

The problem is that these opinions are being passed off as science or as absolute truth.  In fact, I think science, in particular, has created a great myth about knowledge and truth.  It has given this idea that if there is any form of “systemizing” of knowledge (such as through organizing information, research, and experimentation) then the results are true.  In actuality, all that is being created is a “systemizing of opinion”.  Its like creating a structure out of opinions much like building blocks.  This “systemizing” gives an illusion of truth . . . but it doesn’t mean that it is true.  In other words, the “systemization” of knowledge, that science does, is deceiving and misleading.

It seems, to me, that almost all knowledge is opinion.  Very few things are “sealed in stone” and absolute.  This includes things like biology, history, economics, and so on, that is generally viewed as being absolute.  It even includes everything I think and write.  In fact, the more I think about things, and look at knowledge, the less “solid” it all appears . . . everything starts to look like opinion. 


I’ve often said that everything should be considered opinion unless it can fulfill requirements such as these:

  • It can be measured
  • It can be controlled
  • It can be put in a controlled environment
  • It can be repeated

About the only thing that fit these requirements are some aspects of physics and chemistry and, even then, most of those fields are made up of opinion.

Opinions, as I use it here, are points of views that tend to be variable and are forever changing.  Because of this, they are not definite, solid, or a science.  This means that almost all the “stuff” coming from science, research, studies, the Universities, investigations, etc. are all opinion.  It also means that almost all of the classes at the University, textbooks, books at the library, articles, documentaries, etc. are all opinion.

Last year I walked through the library at a University and looked down the aisles at all the books.  There were rows and rows of books, one after another.  I thought, “and just think . . . these are nothing but opinions!”  I then went on to say, ” . . . and the University is trying to make a science out of all these opinions, as if there is some great order in all of them and that they will reveal some great truth.”  I wondered what would happen if you could get all those opinions and put them together, if a single image of the world would be created.  I felt that what you’d have is endless contradiction and conflict, many of which would have no solution.  In this way, I said that the library at the University is not a “library of knowledge”, as I was told, but a “library of irreconcilable opinions”.  The opinions that do “fit together” make up what can be called a “school of thought” or, rather, a “school of opinion”.  In this way, the University, and knowledge in general, is actually made up of different “schools of opinion” that, in actually, conflict with each other.  

I also tend to think that a lot of “new discoveries” are not discoveries at all but, rather, new opinions that offer new interpretations that only appear to be “new”.  This is why there are always new discoveries and they keep coming and coming, endlessly.

My feelings is that most everything should be viewed as opinion.  The problem with opinions, as I said above, is that they are not “solid” or definite.  How, then, does one view opinions?  Every day we are being bombarded with opinions that are portrayed as fact.  One way to explain how the situation of opinion should be looked at is an interesting thing I said about movie reviews . . .


I’ve never been impressed by movie reviews.  I seldom agree with them.  What I found is that it wasn’t that they were wrong or right but that, in actuality, movie reviews reflect the opinion of the reviewer.  As a result of this, I began to say that one shouldn’t believe just any reviewer.  Instead, a person should find a reviewer that reflects ones likes and dislikes and use them as a guide and disregard all the other reviewers.  To listen to anyone else is like being misled, in a way, and only leads to confusion.


I tend to feel that this same attitude should be taken with knowledge or, rather, opinion.  In other words, a person shouldn’t immediately believe any statement of knowledge that one hears.  A person needs to find the knowledge, or perspective, that reflects ones point of view and focus on that. What this means is that one needs to find a “school of opinion” that one can relate to.  Otherwise, a person is going to hear a bunch of “stuff” that is contradictory and confusing.  If a person does this then a person is only going to get confused listening to all the various opinions.  I tend to believe that all the opinions and interpretations people hear, nowadays, are why many people are so confused.


To me, assuming all knowledge – that is, opinions – are correct is like being in a demolition derby, with ideas flying here and there crashing into each other and ending up in a big massive heap.  As far as I’m concerned, knowledge is becoming one big massive heap.  In fact, knowledge and the learning environment, nowadays, is so much like a demolition derby that I jokingly speak of the “learning derby” or “knowledge derby”.

It seems, to me, that this “knowledge derby” is creating a particular quality of stupidity.  This is primarily because of the tendency where people believe whatever they hear.  But, as I said, all the information and knowledge has become a demolition derby of ideas and principles that clash and conflict with one another.  If a person believes all these conflicting ideas then one develops a perception of the world that is a mishmash of conflicting ideas.  The result . . . a particular quality of stupidity.


The reason why a person should follow similar points of view is because knowledge is opinion and opinions are a matter of how a person wants to interpret things.  This means a number of things:

  • There are different points of view
  • There is no single point of view
  • Interpretation depends on the person

The point of this is that knowledge, opinions, and interpretations are not a science or absolute.  Regardless of how we try to create a “one interpretation” there will always be variations.  The reason for this is that opinions are subjective because interpretations are “personal”, reflecting what is personally relevant to a person.  In some ways, there is a progression of interpretation, opinion, and knowledge that goes much like this:

  • Interpretation . . . find personal relevance in something
  • Opinion . . . a statement of what is personally relevant
  • Knowledge . . . a formal representation of opinion

In this way, we see that everything rests on personal relevance.  Once personal relevance reaches the knowledge stage it tends to become rigid and”dead information” and, as a result, often loses its personal relevance.  Because of this, it seems that a person should not seek knowledge but interpretation or, rather, personal relevance.  In short, a person must find a “connection” with knowledge, that makes it personally relevant . . .


It seems, to me, that a person “learns” by focusing on knowledge, opinions, and interpretations that one relates with and not by believing everything one hears and assuming its true.  Because of this, “learning” is closely associated with personal relevance.

In many ways, it is personal relevance that “opens” a person up to learning and exposes them to it.  When there is no personal relevance knowledge just become dead “information” and “stuff”.  In this way, the need for a relation to something, through personal relevance, shows that “learning” is something that is already “in” the person, so to speak.  Knowledge and “learning” basically “brings out” qualities that are already in a person.  I’ve always felt that this is one of the main powers of knowledge.


I should also point out that things like these don’t necessarily mean that its the best interpretation:

  • Experience
  • The time investigating a subject
  • Degrees or qualifications
  • Systems of measurement

Of course, depending on the subject matter, some of these things can play a critical and important role (such as with a medical doctor or chemist).  But, in general, they aren’t as important as it seems.  What this means is that nothing guarantees the best opinion and interpretation.  


Some of the best interpretations I’ve heard are from people who have only “casually” looked at the subject or looked at things for the first time.  I often think that there is often a point where a person has “looked at a specific subject too much”. I find that this happens to me often and I will literally cease thinking about a subject for weeks, months, and even years, almost forgetting it.  I then have to “rediscover it” and as if see it again with new eyes.  In other words, I have to keep seeing subjects with new eyes or else it becomes a “dead subject”.  To me, some of the most powerful insight I have comes from this “initial” reflection, when I look at things with new eyes.  Because of this, I tend to rotate through subjects, going from here to there, and not seeing some subjects for long periods of time.


I should point out that all this doesn’t mean that opinions are bad.  How can that be?  Everything is opinion.  The problem, really, is the tendency to take opinions too seriously, as fact, which is an easy thing to do.

To me, opinions are transitory and reactive.  This is because opinions are a phenomena that is reacting to the real world in real time . . . that’s its nature and purpose.  As a result, they are ever-changing and varied.  It also shows that opinions are a natural way of associating with the world and has helped humanity survive for centuries.  In other words, the transitory and reactive quality of opinion is natural and a part of self-preservation.  

My own observation is that I can say one thing one day and contradict it the next or that one seemed right one day is wrong the next day.  This shows that its not the idea of the opinion that matters but, rather, the reaction to the event-as-it-happens.  In this society, which worships knowledge, we are told that the idea is what’s important.  But, it seems to me, that it is the event that’s important and dictates what we do and how we view things.  This means that the nature of opinion is that it is a second-by-second reacting to the event-as-it-happens.  Things that affect this second-by-second reacting include:

  • The cause of the event
  • The subtleties of the event
  • Stress
  • The mood of the times
  • Ones mood
  • Ones character
  • Ones experience
  • Ones knowledge of oneself

All these can make opinions change from day to day.

The problem is that the “systemization of opinion”, which is so prevalent nowadays, destroys that in-the-real-world quality of opinion and turns it into rigid and dead information which causes a dilemma.  The more “systemization of opinion” we have the less in-the-real world we become.  In addition, we become less natural and lose the self-preserving quality of opinion.  In short, the “systemization of opinion” tends to alienate.


All this means that this point of view is a refuting of the authority of studies, research, knowledge, science, and education.  They are not what they seem or pretend to be.  In fact, I seem to feel that we need to begin to refute all these.  I know that I am.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Advice???, Books, movies, and music, Education and learning, Opinions and things associated with them, Philosophy, Science and technology | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on freedom, alienation, and rebellion in the past 200 years – the effects of being controlled by the “mass mind”, with remarks about culture and “mass loneliness”

Recently, I had some thoughts that are really a continuations of thoughts from this article:  Thoughts on on my reaction to social hysteria, with remarks about the self and other things.


In the early 1990’s I began to feel that something seemed wrong.  I felt that something was amiss or out of place.  I said that I felt controlled in some way or that something was controlling me.  I also seemed dissociated with myself as if I was removed from myself.  I also felt as if I was lost in life.  It had a weird quality about it.  I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

I began to question it and some thoughts began to came out of it . . .


I said that what I was feeling were the effects of the Vietnam War protests and Hippie movement on me.  I was brought up after these events and was naturally influenced by them.  In fact, I always thought that I was “hippie-like” in the 1980’s and took many hippie views.  As a result of this, I adopted a lot of its mentality and ways.

As I looked at it closer it became clear that the Vietnam War protests and Hippie movement were a form of mass hysteria that was greatly aggravated by the media.  It is here that I first began to use the term “media-induced mass hysteria”.  I was feeling the effects of the mass hysteria of these events.

This started my inquiry into the phenomena of mass hysteria and what it did to people.


Mass hysteria is really a condition of mass mentality which are a result of what I call the “mass mind”.  This is a a condition where one abandons ones mind to a social awareness which views the social situation in ways such as these:

  • It is perceived as a single “whole” or single entity
  • It is perceived as a separate living thing
  • It is perceived as an extension of ones self

These create an awareness where the social condition develops a quality of a separate and independent mind.  The “mass mind” creates several conditions:

  • Mass hysteria. This is when an emotion, or idea, has control over a population of people. It tends to be specific, appears in a dramatic way, and tends to be transitory.  In extreme cases, mass hysteria can be like a bunch of people acting like chickens with their heads chopped off.  Oftentimes, it appears more like a controlled “over-reactibility” (that is, people are overly and easily reactive).
  • Mass mentality. This is when the “mass mind” affects a person in an overall sense, being somewhat subtle, and tends to last a long time.  This mentality can be so prevalent in a society that we could speak of a “mass mentality culture”.

In mass mentality, and mass hysteria, the “mass mind”, takes on the qualities of a mind and replaces a persons mind.  In this way a person “loses their mind”, so to speak, to the “mass mind”.  One becomes subservient and a slave to it as a result.


The feelings, that I described above, describe the power of the “mass mind” over me.  In short, I was not controlled by my mind but by this other mind and these feelings are its effects.  In this way, I was feeling what could be described as a “forced splitting of the mind”.  My mind was as if split into two parts and, what’s worse, one of those minds isn’t even my own.

The effects of this “splitting of the mind” include these feelings:

  1. Feeling controlled – I felt controlled and wanted to not be controlled
  2. Feeling disconnected – I felt that I wasn’t myself and was not in control of myself and who I am
  3. Feeling desirous of change – I felt that I did not want to be in control or be disconnected

Overall, these caused a number of effects:

  • I felt as if something was depriving me
  • I felt deprived of being my own self
  • I felt deprived of not being able to live
  • I felt a sense of emptiness
  • I felt disconnected 
  • I felt an unhappiness
  • I felt a desire to change this situation
  • I do not know how to change it

Being controlled by them I was as if stuck in these feelings unable to get free from them.  This caused something like a dilemma, a problem has been created which I could not solve.  For me, it started an inquiry into it.  As I looked I found historical origins in this phenomena . . .


It seems, to me, that much of the events since the late 1700’s are really mass hysteria related.  This includes all the wars, social upheavals, conflicts, etc. since then.  I felt that mass hysteria has far more impact than people think and may actually be dictating things in the past 200 years.  In this way, we could say that, since the late 1700’s, we are living in the “era of mass hysteria”.  Typically, in Western mentality, we say that these things are caused by things like economy, politics, and such.  I tended to disagree with this.

Several important things has appeared during the “era of mass hysteria”:

  • Overpopulation
  • The growth of media
  • The fall of culture, belief, and social identity

These tend to promote mass hysteria.  They have grown a great deal since the late 1700’s and have continued to grow ever since.  They may be responsible for why it has become an era of mass hysteria.

As I looked at it closer I began to see that this condition was associated with several themes in Western thinking during this time . . .


Several themes dominate in the “era of mass hysteria”:

  1. Ideas of freedom – this is usually looked at from a political viewpoint
  2. Alienation – this is usually looked at as being a result of technology and the modern world
  3. Rebellion – this is usually a rebellion against society, morality, etc.

These themes are very prevalent during the “era of mass hysteria” and, in a way, dominate much of what has happened during that time, in one way or another.

If one looks closer one can see that they are reactions to the conflicts created by mass hysteria and the “mass mind”, as described above:

  • Being controlled >>> freedom
  • Being disconnected >>> alienation
  • Being desirous of change >>> rebellion

What all this shows is that what these themes describe are actually the effects of mass hysteria and the power of the “mass mind” over us.  In other words, they are describing a whole other origin than is what is normally supposed.


What all this means is a number of things:

  • Freedom is not about politics
  • Alienation is not a result of technology and the modern world
  • Rebellion is not rebelling against society, morality, etc.

This places a whole new angle on these themes.

What these themes are referring to is a fight against the effects of the “mass mind” and what it does to us.  They are actually attempts at trying to remedy its effects. In short, in the “era of mass hysteria” there is a great conflict, a prevalence of the effects of the “mass mind” and attempts at trying to destroy its effects.

This fact shows a couple of things:

  • The “mass mind” has a control over us which we are powerless to fight
  • That the effects of the “mass mind” are unconscious and no one is overtly aware of it causing us to ascribe its effects to other things
  • Because the effects are unconscious the attempts to solve it are haphazard and tend to not work that well (so far, none of the attempts have worked)

In short, the “mass mind” has control of us without our knowing.  This is, as I said, because we “lose our mind” to it . . . how could we possibly be aware of it?  I am the only person, as far as I know, who has acknowledged that we are controlled by another social “mind”.

Since the “mass mind” is so prevalent we could say that the “era of mass hysteria” could be better described as the “era of the mass mind”.


The “mass mind” has a great control over us and can literally replace our mind.  It does things such as:

  • It makes our decisions
  • It thinks for us
  • It dictates what we do
  • It determines who we are
  • It becomes identified with us

In these ways, it can have great impact on us.  There is like a spectrum to this impact:

  • It influences us
  • It dictates what we do
  • It becomes us
  • We lose our selves to it – A loss of self

This spectrum is much dictated by the strength of our self.  For the stronger self it only influences us.  For the weakest self there is a completely loss of self.  In this way, we see that there is a close association between the “mass mind” and the strength of the self.  In general, the stronger the “mass mind” the weaker the self.  In this way, people who are brought with the “mass mind” tend to have weaker self’s. This may be why modern people are more weak minded than non modern people.


I do not feel that society is a product of the “mass mind”, though it can resemble it at times.  Normal society reflects the “collective self”.  It has qualities such as:

  • Its based in a specific way of life
  • Its a unifying of people as a result of a condition, such as primitive people living in the middle of nature

The “mass mind”, on the other hand, tends to be a product of things like:

  • Being in a mass of people where there is no real sense of unity
  • Where its the media that unifies
  • There is no real reason for unity . . . any unity is based in the fact that people just happen to be living near each other

What this shows is that the “mass mind” is based in a unique situation and, as a result, cannot be considered a normal phenomena of society.


The above brings up several unique and important points about a society:

  • A means of unification – the importance of a way of life
  • A reason for unity- the importance of some condition holding everyone together

These seem to be necessary to make a healthy society.

When the means and reason are lacking a “mass mind” tends to develop.  In some respects, the development of the “mass mind” seems to suggest that it is an attempt at a unification with society when there is no means or reason for unity.  It is as if trying to force a unity to take place when it is not taking place naturally.  Since the “mass mind” is a reflection of an individual person it reveals that the person is trying to force this unity of society.  In this way, the “mass mind” can be described as “an individual persons forced unification with society”.  Its almost as if the person is trying to create what is not there.  This seems to suggest that the “mass mind” is a product of a failure of the social condition.  


In some respects, the “mass mind” shows that too much burden has been placed on the individual person and that society has taken a “back seat” in our lives.  To put it another way, we are expecting society to take much of the weight of life but its all on our shoulders.  This shows a number of interesting points:

  • We feel inadequate to deal with life
  • We look up to society to help us with this inadequacy
  • This is naturally appearing, as if an instinctual need

In short, there is an innate need for an individual person to feel a unification with society because our self is naturally weak.  More importantly, it shows that society creates something like a “greater collective self” to help us deal with life, as if an extension of our self.  This “greater collective self” has qualities such as:

  • It originates from a healthy society where there is a means and reason for unity
  • It satisfies a need
  • It is supportive of us
  • We participate with it

The “mass mind”, on the other hand, has qualities such as:

  • It originates from a society where there is no means and reason for unity
  • A need is left unsatisfied
  • It doesn’t support us
  • There’s nothing to participate with

The society, that we are expecting to be there, isn’t really “there”, so to speak, but is as if absent.  In this way, we are looking at a society that “is there but isn’t there”.  This the quality of “mass society”.  I also speak of this as the “absent society”, as it isn’t really there.

The “absent society”, and the innate need for unification with society, creates a dilemma . . . one looks to something that isn’t there but which we want to be there.  In this way, we start to look at the void of the “absent society” as if there is actually something there when there is actually nothing.  I call this phenomena the “mass void”.  One then does things like:

  • We continue to look to this void as a source of unification with society . . . it becomes our focus
  • We fill the “mass void” with a projection of ones self to make it seem real and alive

These qualities creates these effects of the “mass mind”:

  • We follow whatever it says as, deep down, we are seeking a unification with society
  • We see “mass society” as a part of our self, as if we and it are the same

The effect of these is that we “lose our self” in the void of “mass society” . . . the “mass mind” is created.  In this way, the “mass mind” is created to deal with the void of “mass society”.  In this way, its like an illusion or deception . . . it creates something when there’s nothing there.

The result of all this are the qualities stated at the beginning of this article:

  • Feeling controlled
  • Feeling disconnected
  • Feeling desirous of change

In some respects, these describe a conflict of the perception of self . . . when we project our self into a void we can no longer tell where our self begins or ends.  As a result, we see these effects:

  • Our sense of feeling controlled is actually our desire for unification with society but, because its directed to a void, its origin is unclear and we don’t know what’s controlling us . . . this means that whats actually controlling us is our own desire for unification with society
  • The self-in-the-void makes us feel disconnected
  • The problems created by the self-in-the-void makes us desirous of change

These are the origin of freedom, alienation, and rebellion.  What this suggests is that these problems are actually describing conflicts created by the “mass mind”.


Interestingly, as I look back on it I find that one of my responses to the effects of the “mass mind” was the emphasis on what I called Culture.   This refers to an aspect of society with these qualities:

  • A defined quality or way of being
  • A reason or cause that makes us feel a “united people”
  • A participation with it
  • A feeling a part of it, as if it is an extension of me
  • An authority that is Divine-like

Culture made society more than a society, a group of people, but created what I often called a “people”.  I used to say, “I yearn for a people”.

My observation is that the modern world has basically destroyed Culture.  This caused me great problems and I began to speak of Cultural Loneliness.  This refers to a desire for the qualities of a culture – a “people” – but in which conditions don’t or won’t allow it to take place.  Realizing this fact only furthered my sense of alienation.

As I looked at it closer I could see that what I called Culture was really a form of Tribalism.  In other words, what I yearned for was to be part of a “tribe”.  To be part of a tribe means more than belonging or associating ones self with it.  I found that what I called the “tribe” had this mystical quality about it, as if I somehow was transformed by it and made into a new person.  It seemed as if primal-like in quality, as if it originated from the very beginnings of time.  Interestingly, many primitive societies have rituals that transform a person when they become part of a tribe.


As time went on I found that a “tribe”, or a culture, was never going to appear.  I then found that I became more mystical-like and developed an emphasis on transforming the self.  This transformation of self refers to a desire to become a new person.

There is something like a progression in my reaction to the “mass mind”:

  1. A sense of alienation and feeling disconnected
  2. The discovery of the “mass mind” and its effects
  3. The yearning for a culture
  4. The yearning for a tribe
  5. The realizing that a culture or tribe is not going to appear
  6. A tendency to become mystical and seek a transform self and become a new person

So we see that the progression begins with an alienated and disconnected self and ends with a seeking to transform the self and become a new person.  In the process of this I sought help from society which seemed to reflect an innate need and tendency.  But, because of societies impaired state, it ended up hindering me.  In the end I had to rely on myself.  


This, I think, shows that the “mass mind” creates a bunch of people who are actually very “alone” and in different ways, such as:

  • Alone in alienation
  • Alone in feeling controlled
  • Loneliness in belonging
  • Alone in the reliance on self

This “aloneness” is very unique.  The “mass mind” makes it so that it doesn’t feel like loneliness.  In the “mass mind” people tend to blindly obey “mass society”.  This blind obeying gives the illusion that they are not alone.  Perhaps we could speak of this as “mass loneliness”?

I do feel that people are alone in “mass society”, though they don’t seem that way and that there are people all around them.  I often have said, “never have I been so alone than in mass society”.


I tend to feel that Protestant Christianity has had great impact on the development of the “mass mind”.  Its very likely that Protestant Christianity laid the foundations for the development of the “mass mind” in the past 200 years.  Several qualities found in Protestant Christianity seem to of helped promote the “mass mind”:

  • The emphasis on the person alone
  • The idea that everyone is “one”, the body of Christ
  • The attack of authority
  • The abstract way of looking at things

These had the effect of shifting the emphasis from society to the individual person and the undermining of society, culture, and the tribe . . . the individual person was now looking at a void society.  This seems like a basis for the “mass mind” that would develop later.


It seems, to me, that democracy also tends to have an impact on the development of the “mass mind” in ways similar to what’s described above in Protestant Christianity.  In some respects, democracy is just a continuation of the effects of Protestant Christianity but in political form.


It seems, to me, that what has become liberalism, recently, is a manifestation of the “mass mind”.  In short, liberals are generally people who have made the “mass mind” a way of life.  One could say that liberalism is basically saying, “lets give up our selves to mass society and let it run everything”.  In this way, we see several qualities:

  • There is the “loss of mind” that is a trait of the “mass mind”
  • They see the “mass society” as an entity
  • They feel that blindly following “mass society” will be a source of unification with society

In many ways, liberalism is making a whole life out of the “mass mind”.


As I said above, the “mass mind” makes people “lose their minds”.  In this way, people don’t feel “in control” of their lives.  One result of this is a particular quality is an insecurity which can cause other emotions such as:

  • Nervousness
  • Anxiety
  • Fear
  • Paranoia

In short, the “mass mind” tends to predispose people to these emotions.  These, in turn, can cause other problems to happen, such as:

  • Low self-esteem
  • Unhappiness
  • A sense of being threatened in some way

This means, more or less, that the “mass mind” often tends to weaken a person psychologically and predispose them to problems.  Its no surprise that these feelings play a big role in the themes of freedom, alienation, and rebellion.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, Culture, cultural loneliness, etc., Dehumanization and alienation, Freedom fanaticism and the freedom cult, Historical stuff, Mass communication: media, social media, and the news, Mass hysteria, mass society, and the mob, Modern life and society, Overpopulation and its effects, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Society and sociology, The effects of WWII, the Nazi's, the Holocaust, the Cold War, and the Vietnam War era protests, The U.S. and American society, Tribal society and the tribal sense | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More thoughts on the media – on how media is becoming a new form or avenue of gossip with remarks on how we never really know whats going on despite the media

Recently, I said some interesting things about the media:

In response to someone talking about something they heard on the news I said ” . . . and you assume that its true?  You never assume anything the media says is absolutely true.”  I then said that “one should treat the media as gossip”.

To me, media is becoming a new form of gossip or maybe it would be more accurate to say that media has become a new avenue of gossip.  Perhaps we could call this “media gossip”?  Frankly, the media is starting to sound like gossiping women to me.

Gossip is seldom motivated to seek or convey the truth, even though it usually begins with the truth and sounds like the truth.  It generally has some other motive that moves it along.  As a result of this, the truth seems to change along the way.

A number of things make this aspect of gossip particularly deceiving, such as:

  • It tends to portray itself as the truth to the public which causes people to blindly believe it as truth.
  • Most “media gossip” begins with the truth, typically, but is eventually distorted in some way.  This gives the “initial look” of what the media says a quality of truth which is deceiving.

Gossip creates a number of relationships with truth, such as:

  • It may be completely true
  • It may be a distortion of a truth
  • It may be fabricated

Of these, the highest probability is that it is a distortion of truth, at least in my experience.  As a result, one should treat anything coming from the media as having a high probability of being a distortion of a truthThis means that its usually based in a truth but its been distorted in some way.  This quality is one of the most deceiving aspects about the media . . . where does the truth end and the distortion begin?  Trying to figure this out is quite a project to do and is really a waste of time.  What I end up doing is not paying that much attention to the media at all, as a general rule, and I certainly don’t seek it as a source of reliable information.  As I go through my daily life I’ll hear things coming from the media and say to myself, ” . . . it might be true . . .” and leave it at that, not taking it too seriously.

It seems, to me, that there is less likely to be distortion when there are situations such as these:

  • Its something mundane
  • It involves local happenings  

The more it becomes something more than mundane (like a controversial subject) or involving the nation or world (such as national news) the more likely it is to be distorted.  This means that a person needs to be more cautious, and suspicious, when these subjects come up.  To be frank, when these subjects appear I often ignore what they say.

Because of the distortion of media it means is that we never really know whats going on despite the fact that the media professes to be telling us what’s going on.  To me, that’s a fact of life that must be accepted.  That’s just the way it is.  In fact, I’ve always said that “after any really big event, particularly if its political, it will probably be 10 or more years before the truth comes out . . . and it won’t come out through the media . . . so don’t be in a big hurry to find out.”  Many people believe the media because they are in too big of a hurry to find out what’s going on and the media is ready to dish it out, true or not.  I want to emphasize, again, that when the truth does come out it does not come through the news media.  That’s an important point.

That’s how it looks to me anyways.

I’ve written some additional stuff on the media in these articles:

Thoughts on how to watch the news media with remarks about problems associated with news media

Thoughts on the “media situation” and its effects

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Advice???, Mass communication: media, social media, and the news, Modern life and society, Twenty first century and post cold war society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment