Thoughts on the “D Affair” – the ‘reflected self experience’, the problem of being misled by people and society, the ‘pseudo-gay’, and some effects of liberalism

Here’s a thought I had:

In grade school something interesting happened.  I call it the “D affair” (“D” referring to the first letter of the last name of the girl involved).  This affair shows how easily misled we can be by other people, especially as children, and begin to believe in things that aren’t true.  For years I was misled by what people said but I now know what really happened:

It was in late grade school that I became fascinated with different qualities people had.  Some people had qualities that were almost mesmerizing.  It was often things like a mannerism, a way of speaking, an attitude, or even just a look.  This fascination could last for a couple of day, or weeks, or months.  In some cases, it would appear and vanish overnight.  This fascination with the different qualities in people began to appear, it seems, in about 3rd grade, or so, and lasted into 7th or 8th grade.  Typically, the people were boys my own age but, sometimes, it would be girls.  Other times, they could be teachers or just people I see here and there.

I tend to feel that this is a natural tendency that we all have.  What we are doing is “finding qualities in other people that reflected an aspect of me”.  In this way, we do two things:

  1. We discover innate qualities about ourselves.
  2. We establish these qualities in the society.

What it does is help to establish our identity, both as a person and socially.  Perhaps we could call it the “reflected self experience”?  This is because we are seeing our self reflected in other people (the social situation).  Everyone goes through it, at least to some extent.  Most people forget it or are not aware of it though.  I think this is because it is only a stage in the process of identity, one just “passes through it”.  This makes it easily forgettable.  I would have forgotten it had it not of been for the “D affair”.

There was a girl, “D”, who had a quality I was fascinated with.  This was, I think, in 4th or 5th grade.  The quality she had which fascinated me was this calm, composed manner as she sat there in class.  To me, it was quite neat and I often watched her for this reason.

One day, I remarked to a friend of mine that I really “liked” her.  By “like” I mean that fascinating quality of hers.  But that’s not how he interpreted it.  He went around telling people that I was in love with her and that I wanted to marry her and such.  It caused something like a little scandal at school.  Many of my friends, and people I knew, told me it was a “crush” and that I was feeling “puppy love” and all that.  Being a kid, I believed them.

Why should I question it?  What do I know . . . I’m just a kid?

As a result of this, I actually thought I was “in love” with her and actually acted the part, feeling “feelings of love” and so on.  I actually believed I had a “crush” on her.  What I was doing was following what my understanding of what a “crush” was in order to “play the part”.  In this way, I was trying to conform to society and, in so doing, establish my self in society.  This is quite natural as, remember, the “reflected self experience” is involved with social identity and is trying to place ones self in the social situation.  As a result, it tends to make a person try to conform to what one believes society wants.  But, in so doing, one tends to become alienated from the quality that instigated it.  Or, to put it another way, one goes from discovering an aspect about ones self to being strangled by it.  This often happens and is part of a dilemma that is inherent in the “reflected self experience”.

  1. Discovery – Seeing a quality in others that one doesn’t know one has
  2. Personal Identity – One begins to feel that quality as ones self
  3. Social Identity – The example set by other people establishes the quality in the social situation
  4. Conforming – The social example becomes the model of how one should be regardless of whether it reflects the quality or not
  5. Alienation – One ends up doing what the social situation demands but it does not reflect ones self

The path from Discovery to Alienation can happen very quickly and unknowingly.  It describes the conflict between personal and social identity.  Some people may struggle with this problem more than others.  For other people it can be a lifelong conflict.  And other people are not bothered by it at all.

But its all based in a natural process.  Its really just a question of if it gets out of hand, or not, that determines if it creates problems.  I did this same natural process when I was told I had a “crush” on “D”.  I was trying to fit it into the social situation by the use of social example (that is, what I believed a “crush” was).  In so doing, I began Conforming which actually Alienated me from the original cause for it and I lost a hold as to what it was all about.  As a result, I believed I had a “crush” on her for years but really didn’t.

But doubts appeared through the years.  For example, when I saw her some months later I had noticed I had no interest in her but pretended that I was in love with her.  Even then I could feel a discrepancy (that is, one part of me said this, another part of me said something else).  The next year I didn’t even notice her.  I saw her walk by and said, “oh, wasn’t that the girl I was supposed to have a crush on?”  As years passed the “crush” theme started to fade.  When I saw her in High School I recall seeing her walk in the hall and I thought something like, “I remember her, she had that neat calm way about her in grade school” (notice how I did not mention any feelings of love).  As time went on more of the truth sort began to surface.  I began to realize that it was not over love and that I did not, in fact, have any “romantic” feelings over her.

But it also shows another aspect to this phenomena – the effect of people and society.  What basically happened is that people and society misled me.  In other words, the social interpretation of ones qualities isn’t always right and can even lead one in the wrong direction.  In this case, it followed this path:

  1. I felt a common feeling that people feel (in this case, the “reflected self experience”).
  2. I mentioned it to someone.
  3. It was misinterpreted by them and by other people and society in general.
  4. I was misled into thinking it was something else.
  5. The tendency to conform made me believe it.

I think this scenario happens far more common than you’d think.

Interestingly, the year before the “D affair” I had a friend called Mike.  We got along really good.  We had a lot of fun at recess and I really grew to like him.  I particularly liked him because he had this quality about him that fascinated me, an easygoing fun-loving quality.  In a conversation with a friend I said, “I really love Mike”, or something similar (meaning that I really liked him).  My friend said something like, “are you gay?”, as a joke, and it was forgotten.  Can you imagine what would happen if a kid expressed something like that nowadays?  My God, everyone would probably of said that this shows I have homosexual inclinations.  Not only that, I could see this liberal society, nowadays, actually pushing me in that direction.  In the end, they could of convinced me that I was gay . . . and I probably would of started to believe it.  Even worse, I could very well of started to “play the part”, with all the mannerisms and such, similar to my acting “in love” during the “D affair”.  In this way, it could of dramatically affected and altered my life.

Thank God I’m not a kid nowadays!

The “D affair” shows how I was misled into believing that I had a “crush” on a girl.  Do you think its possible that other people are also misled to believing similar things?  Personally, I think this is true, that many people are being misled by people and society by showing a quality that people and society too easily misinterpret.  I think that we are seeing a lot of this in what I often call the ‘pseudo-gay’ or ‘acquired homosexuality’ (see my article “Thoughts on the new “pseudo-gay” or “acquired homosexuality” – another sign of the dehumanization of the modern world???“).  This is when people believe they are homosexual without actually being homosexual.  I think its probably particularly prevalent with people who claim that they are homosexual at a young age.  I have always questioned this (see my article “Some thoughts on gay teens“).  I think kids are too young to know if they are homosexual.  I don’t really believe that even teenagers have sufficient knowledge of themselves to know this or not.  From my observation, it seems that many young kids, nowadays, are being misled into thinking they are something that they aren’t by society.

It seems to me that the liberal thinking of this society, in particular, tends to promote this type of scenario.  More than once have I said that “many people’s lives are being destroyed by the liberal thinking of this society”.  It seems like it is misdirecting people in the wrong direction in life.  In this way, it is adversely affecting peoples lives.

Liberal thinking, particularly what I call “70’s liberalism” (see my article “Thoughts on liberalism, with remarks about “70’s liberalism”“), tends to promote anything that goes against societies norms (such as homosexuality) as some sort of a political cause and all “in the name of freedom”!  In so doing, it exaggerates and distorts many things because its part of their cause.  In this way, it promotes many lies.  In some cases, this can go so far that it can make peoples lives a lie, in my opinion.

For example, if a person shows (or appears to show) something like homosexual inclinations (which is not “accepted” by greater society) then liberal thinking will tend to do things such as:

  • They will emphasize that they should “embrace” their supposed homosexuality.
  • That they should display it with “pride”.
  • They may be pushed into it and encouraged to believe it (perhaps even forced in that direction).
  • They will be treated as if they are homosexual.
  • They will be “open” about it and only say good things about it.
  • That they should “fight for their right” to be homosexual as a “righteous cause”.

Things like these tend to end up making people start to believe that they are homosexual, even though they are not.  And this is all done, we must remember, to make a political point!  This means that it is done in great seriousness and as if it is some sort of a cause.  This political aspect gives it a particular quality of a “force” in this.  This is seen a lot in liberalism.  They profess “freedom”, “free choice”, and all that but they tend to do a strong “subtle forcing” in much of what they do.  I tend to see it with “gay youth”.  In fact, for some liberals I’ve seen, “gay youth” has become a “pet project” that they promote as a political cause.  Its like some of them relish the idea of a “gay youth” because they can now, through them, promote their political ideology.

But what I find revolting about this is that it is actually nothing but a deliberate misleading of people, all to support and promote their political ideology.  In other words, its not about the person . . . its about the politics.  People are nothing but a medium or puppet for their political ideology and theory.  People are used and manipulated to promote their political views.  This tendency is one of the examples of the damaging thinking of liberal thinking.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Government and politics, Homosexuality and the 'pseudo-gay' (aquired homosexuality), Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, Stuff involving me | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the effects of resentment by the South as a result for losing the Civil War, the effects of tribal mentality, the problem of democracy in social transition, and other things

Recently, I mentioned something about the Civil War and its influence on the South.  I started to write and one thought led to another thought and an interesting train of thought was  created.  Here are those thoughts:


I have always felt that the resentment of the South after losing the Civil War has had far greater impact than what it may, at first, seem.  It also seems to have been misinterpreted, particularly by the North.  Now, I’m no expert on the South or Civil War but it does seem like I can see some patterns.  Whether they are true or not I cannot say for certain.

To begin with, the South appears to of been made up of a very proud people.  They believed in their society and way of life.  Because of this, during the Civil War, many believed in their cause very strongly and saw it as a fight to preserve their way of life.  The policies of the North, instigated by Abraham Lincoln, was viewed as a threat to their society and way of life . . . it had to be fought against.  The North, of course, saw it differently.  They saw it as a fight to end slavery as well as the growth of democratic thinking and principles.

It seems to me, at this time, that slavery was never a convincing argument for many people in the South (and still doesn’t appear to be).  For a proud people, their way of life was what mattered.  Slavery was treated more like something that was “in the background”.  This, of course, was not shared by the North or black people.  This discrepancy, in many ways, can be described as the “dilemma of the Civil War”.

This proud attitude of “preserving our way of life” would continue after the Civil War ended, down to today, though its more diminished now than before.  It seems, to me, that mass media, such as TV and music, have decreased the severity and seriousness of this attitude primarily because it has, in a sense, taken the South out of its isolation.  As a result, it seems that this attitude has begun to decrease particularly since the 1970’s when mass media, music, etc. really got established.

One of the effects of this proud attitude is that it created a great and intense resentment that could become, at times, sinister and dark and have great strength.  The threat to the way of life hit deep for many people of the South and losing the Civil War only made it worse as, once they lost, a new fight to preserve their way of life began!  This fact, I think, has never been acknowledged.  In many ways, the Civil War was only the beginning of the South’s fight to preserve their way of life . . . its been going on ever since.

Some of examples of the resentment include:

  • The bad connotation of black people . . . using black people as an avenue for resentment for losing the Civil War.  I am under the impression that the resentment created by the South losing the Civil War caused a change in the perception of black people after the Civil War . . . it got worse.  Before, they were treated not much differently than cattle and referred to as “blackies”, for example (that is, they weren’t really hated or despised, just treated “lowly”).  After the Civil War they became hated and despised and were called “nigger”, which was said with a horribly bad derogatory connotation (the actual word, without the bad derogatory connotation, only means “black” . . . negro is a variation, and the same root word is used in the name of the country Nigeria).  What is the significance of this?  That the bad derogatory connotation of black people, such as in the name “nigger”, was not an attack of race but an expression of resentment by the people of the South for losing the Civil War.  If this is true, then it would change the whole conception of things, at least as I was told, in which it is all supposed to mean a blatant hatred of people with dark skin.  It would meant that words like “nigger” would not have a meaning like, “oh, there’s a person that I hate and despise because he has dark skin!”  It would actually mean something more like, “oh, there’s the people we lost the Civil War for and I hate them for that!”  In other words, it would mean that the despising attitude, such as seen in the name “nigger”, is not, in actuality, a racial attack as is commonly assumed but a statement of resentment.  This same tendency, of using black people as an avenue of resentment, would appear in many other ways, such as the slaughter, after the Civil War, of many innocent black people for no apparent reason.  It wasn’t done out of “racial hatred” but because the black people represented not only the cause but the losing of the Civil War . . . it was an expression of resentment.  In this way, it seems to me, that this resentment at losing the Civil War seemed to of created more attacks, hatred, despising, and bad feelings toward blacks than the issue of race.  This would mean that many things interpreted as “racial attack” have nothing to do with race at all!  The North just interpreted it that way to fit their way of thinking as, to them, everything was about slavery.
  • The development of organizations, such as the KKK, to express their resentment.  Many of these type of organizations, it seems to me, are really nothing but saying, “piss on you North!” and were acts of defiance . . . again, a representation of resentment at losing the Civil War.  I get the impression that some people deliberately targeted black people, for example, because they knew it went against the North.
  • A suspicion of strangers – the creation of a closed society.  Even I, living here in Utah, had an unusual apprehension of the people of the South.  We heard of stories of problems people had when traveling to the South as they are very suspicious of strangers and may even put you in jail if you do something (or they think you did something).  I remember hearing people who have been in jail for decades for doing nothing at all (it seems that there were even movies about this).  I was even told not to travel in the South, if I didn’t have to.  These facts shows how the South, after the Civil War, developed a very closed-like society that didn’t like strangers.  The fact that they did this is another example of their proud attitude of “preserving their way of life”.  Since their way of life was threatened they “stayed to themselves” and viewed everyone else – strangers – as a “threat”.  The result of this is that it created a closed society that could treat strangers badly.  Here we see how the resentment has now gone beyond blacks, again showing that this goes beyond race.
  • A rebellious attitude.  The Confederate flag, even in Utah, is often associated with a rebelliousness.  I, myself, have always associated it with a particularly violent type of rebelliousness, though I’m not sure why as I saw no proof of it.  Many people still fly the confederate flag in various ways (such as bumper stickers and shirts).  I still see it all the time.  Typically, it seems that the people who fly it are usually white males in their 20-30’s . . . the rebellious age.  I get the impression its often a sign of rebellion against the norm of society.  I am even under the impression that the character of Rhett Butler, in “Gone with the wind”, reflects this rebellious attitude.
  • A fascination of things associated with rebellion.  I tend to feel that this is why racing (such as NASCAR) is so big in the South.  Supposedly, this racing has origin in increasing the speed of cars in order to evade the police during prohibition so that they could transport their liquor.  In this way, fast cars would be a sign of a rebelliousness.  In fact, the prohibition appears to of been an avenue of rebellion for many people of the South.  It may be one of the reasons why the making of liquor, such as moonshining, was so appealing and flourished so well in the South.
  • The growth of religion and the creation of a new style of religion.  It seems, to me, that the helplessness of losing the Civil War, coupled with frustrated resentment, created a growing “religious fervor” in the South.  In some respects, the loss of the “proud way of life” turned into a “religious fervor” which many people sought refuge in.  I am under the impression that this tendency ended up creating a new unique form of religion after the Civil War.  Its probably what they call “old time Southern religion” that isn’t so old time as it sounds.  It seems, to me, that it is recent.  Perhaps the “old time” refers to the sense of “pre Civil War” society which is what caused many people to seek this type of religion?  I know that it could become very fanatical, at times, and can produce some odd things, such as TV evangelists who often took advantage of the blind following of the people to get rich and even would “stage” people who were supposed to of been cured.  The ease of how this was done may show how many people were so easy to seek refuge in religion as a means to “preserve their way of life”.

All these shows that resentment continued after the Civil War ended and went beyond race, slavery, and the blacks.  I get the impression that many people would not accept the fact that the South lost the war and are unwilling to let go their proud sense of a “way of life”.  It also suggests that, in actuality, much of the behavior of the South has nothing to do with a hatred of the blacks (racial hatred), as is often claimed, but seems more related with the maintaining of a proud way of life and a sense of dignity it offers.


The interpretation of the behavior of the South, and its resentment, was naturally misinterpreted by the North and given whole other meanings or so it seems to me.  Of course, the point of view of the North would turn into the point of view of the U.S.

This tendency of misinterpretation is not new, and has been a common thing when things are done “in the name of freedom” (for example, see my article “The west’s misinterpretation of East Germany“).  Its one of the reasons why the U.S. tends to misinterpret other countries cultures and motives so easily.  Oftentimes, these misinterpretations “in the name of freedom” tends to create myths that distort things and create erroneous views.  What this shows is the American tendency of what I call “forcing the interpretation”.  In actuality, the political ideology of the U.S. is actually limited and narrow.  It does not explain, or take into consideration, many realities of life nor does it have enough depth to explain them.  But, since it is the power in the U.S., it has to take on the role of explaining it.  What it ends up doing is taking situations of life and having to “force it into its political ideology”.  These may sound good but are often narrow and limited in their scope.  The result is a tendency to misinterpretation and the creation of myths.

Many of the myths associated with the South are based, of course, in the U.S.’s ideology and blend into other myths that they have already created.  Examples involved with the South include:

  • The “different people myth” – the belief that people automatically dislike people who are different.   Slavery and the bad treatment of blacks, that happened after the Civil War in particular, became a justification for the idea that people did not like people who are different and would become one of the reasons they used to support it.  My observations, though, do not support this myth . . . people don’t automatically dislike other people that are different.  Something else is usually required for this to happen (see my article, “Thoughts on the ‘impersonal unfamiliarity’ sense – the apprehension of people we can’t relate to“).  The South seems no different.  Initially, black people were treated as “primitive” or backward people, a commonly held view of non-European people by Europeans (who fancied themselves as “advanced”, which shows its really more rooted in a self-glorification than a “hatred”).  And when slavery began the blacks were despised as slaves or, rather, human cattle, given them a quality of being “subhuman”.  These attitudes, we must remember, is not the same as hatred.  As I said above, the intense hatred or dislike of black people seems, at least to me, primarily a result of the resentment at losing the Civil War (not because of racial hatred) and primarily came after the Civil War.  The U.S., it seems to me, promoted the idea that they were “hated because they were black and different” to fit their ideology.  One of the effects of this myth is that it created this idea that slavery is a result of a hatred of people that are different, not because of the real cause of slavery . . . the practical exploitation of people for economic means, much like cattle (which is not a “hatred because they are different” but is really more reflective of a lack of humanity).  This is a dramatic change in point of view.  This belief, or myth, has been greatly promoted by the U.S. apparently as an easy way to explain all the problems that have happened between people as a result of being the “melting pot of the world”.  To explain away any problems between people as “just because their different” is too easy of an explanation and can be applied to just about any situation.
  • The “racial myth” – the belief that there is automatic dislike of people of other races.  This “different people myth” would get a bigger boost and justification after WWII.  The racial policies of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s only intensified it and changed it a bit (see my article, “Thoughts on ‘living under the shadow of Hitler’ – the horror of the modern world“).  In fact, it seems to me, that it was after WWII that the word “race”, as a generalized term, first started to be used, showing the influence of the racial policies of the Nazi’s.  Before this time, the problems of the South weren’t really perceived as a “racial issue” but a “black issue”, so to speak.  But the acts of the Nazi’s would create this idea of a “problem of race”.  In this way, the Nazi’s were the ones who created the “racial myth”.  Once it was created it would then be applied to the “black issue” of the South with now became a “racial issue” which was now reflective of a “racial hate”.  This would be instrumental in the creation of things like the Civil Rights Movement which would be based in the idea of the “racial myth” and a “racial hate”.  As a result of these, the idea that “people just hate someone who is of a different race” has become a common belief in America and is often used as an explanation for problems between people.
  • The “hate myth” – humanity is full of hate.  The previous myths would be greatly associated with this.  This myth is really a product of the cold war.  This is because, after the cold war developed, it created a general sense of paranoia.  At about 1970, or so, this paranoia erupted against the Vietnam War and helped create the ‘hippi movement’.  Much of the hippi mentality is based in Christian ideals.  This is not surprising as the people who made up the ‘hippi movement’ were primarily from Protestant Christian America.  The Christian emphasis on love would create an emphasis on the need for love by the hippi’s and as a solution to the worlds problems.  The contrary to love is hate, hence they emphasized that hate was the cause of everything bad, including the cold war, slavery, and conflict between people.  In fact, there is the belief that humanity is full of hate and this hate was a threat to the world.  The result of this is the creation of the “hate myth”, that people hate each other and that this is a threat.  In addition, the paranoia of the cold war created the belief that things have to be done to prevent this hatred from getting out of control (often using the law and the Constitution).  This “hate myth” would be blended into the previous myths now making hatred as a motive.  This would be associated with black people probably having a lot to do with the Civil Rights Movement which was prevalent then.  So the line of thought becomes that we “hate” the black people because “their skin color is different”.  This, in fact, is the line of thought I was brought up with about all this.

Because of these things the myths that developed through the years and ended up distorting the interpretation of human behavior in the U.S., particularly when it involved conflicts between people.  This is why I never put much belief in many Americans explanation of conflicts between people (including law and politics).  It also created a distorted view about human nature.  This idea, for example, that people “hate people that are different” I do not feel is correct.  But these type of points of view are very prevalent in this country.

Many of these American points of view has always scared me as they are too simplistic and narrow.  They are also easy explanations that can be used too easily to explain away various problems between people . . . just call someone a “racist” and the matters done!  Because its so simplistic and narrow that it leaves out many other facts and things about life, people, and humanity.  In some respects, its like looking at life through a tube, only partially seeing things and not getting the big picture.  That’s how many of these points of view looks like to me.


It also seems, to me, that the effects of the myths created by the U.S. also helped to create identity problems for the black people that continue to this day (see my article “Some thoughts on the identity of black people: An example of identity misalignment???“).  Many black people have used these myths to define who they are and their position in life.  In fact, they’ve become something like a “weapon” that they use to deal with life’s problems.  I’ve always felt that this is something that is actually hindering the growth of black people as a group.  Its actually “keeping them down” and “stuck in the past”.  Some of the reasons for this include:

  • Its based on a narrow and limited thinking.
  • Its based in a political ideology and, accordingly, not human based.
  • It keeps them in a “stuck as a slave” mentality.
  • It makes them see hatred and oppression everywhere.

Ironically, the thing that seems to be supporting them (American political thinking) also seems to be hindering them.

In this way, we can see that the Civil War has impacted everyone in the South, white and black, in negative ways down to today.


The proud way of life seen in the South is most likely related to the tribal-based society from Europe.  This tribal-nature is primarily seen in north-west Europe, the Scandinavian/British peoples.  This would have great impact on the behavior of the people of the South.

“Tribal society”, to me, refers to an orientation of society in which there is a great sense of “us” above everyone and everything else.  It is a common sense seen in many parts of the world.  It is primarily a sense of self-preservation or, rather, social-preservation.  Its this sense that has allowed many societies to survive in the world.  Many primitive societies develop a tribal orientation out of necessity, as a means of survival.

The rise of a mass society (which could be described as civilization) tends to erode the tribal sense and can even destroy it.  Its appearance can cause many social problems.  North-western Europe was made up of many tribal societies up until recently.  When the Christians came northward to convert them they brought up a more mass society civilized point of view.  As a result, they were “forced” to go from one stage of society (tribal) to another (mass society civilization) without going through the transition stages.  This same thing happened with the American Indians but on a more dramatic scale.  For proper social growth, and transformation, society needs to go through stages as it develops.  When this transitioning does not happen there often appears something to as if “bridge the gap” between the stages:

  • A conflict or social crisis.
  • A stagnation.
  • A substitute intermediary stage (often a mixture of the old and the new stage).

For north-western Europe they primarily did the last form.  The substitute was a combination of the old and new in the image of royalty and nobility.  In other words, the mixture was:

  • The loyalty and emulation of royalty satisfied the tribal sense of belonging.
  • The image of royalty and nobility represented the ideals of mass society civilization.

The effect of these can be described as a “glorified nobility”.  In this way, they had the “best of both worlds” which as if created a transition from tribal to mass society civilization.

As a result of the image of royalty and the nobility, there became a great desire to emulate royalty and be like nobility in the population.  This was very common in the 1700’s and 1800’s when the U.S. was getting established.  With the early settlers of the U.S. they found means to achieve this in the south-eastern part of the U.S. which gave them many qualities such as:

  • The land to use.
  • Wealth from the land (such as from cotton).
  • An isolation from the bustling progressive north.  In many ways, this isolation allowed something like a “regression” to take place, as if to “slip back” into a more tribal-like orientation in the South, focusing on the group, developing a proud attitude, and the creation of a “way of life” worth defending.
  • The use of the new growing slave trade that was going on then as a workforce

All this gave them the land and the workforce to create a wealthy lifestyle as well as the free time to “freely imitate the nobility” (what I often call the pseudo-nobility and which is a common trait of this period of time).  Much of pre-Civil War southern society reflected this “imitating nobility” with the emphasis on manners, appearance, status, symbols of wealth, etc.  This developed and grew in the early-mid 1800’s, right before the Civil War.  In fact, it seems that it was at its height right before the Civil War.

The problem is that they were “free to imitate the nobility” only on the backs of the slaves.  They did not see this fact as the tribal sense tended to make people not of their tribe (the blacks) appear insignificant, a trait often seen in tribal societies.  This shows that the tribal orientation tends to differentiate between those in the tribe and those without.  Typically, those not in the tribe are neglected and are often treated as “non-entities”.  This is seen by tribes all over the world.  This same stance would be taken by the South (in other words, they used a commonly used stance in the world . . . there’s really nothing unique about it).  In this way, we can see that the tribal society sense created two stances in the South:

  1. The emphasis on the tribe – They emphasized, and glorified, their imitation of nobility which is the basis of their “proud way of life” which is the tribe.  Because tribal society is social-preservation, the defending of this way of life, which was threatened by the Civil War, had to be defended and takes first priority over everything including the welfare of the slaves.
  2. The neglect of those not in the tribe – This caused them to give a blind-eye to the problems and effects of slavery.  I get the impression that many people, in the pre Civil War era, treated black people as if they were non-existent . . . complete neglect.

These seems to describe the basic stance of the South.

In many ways, it shows that there is a point when tribal society not only fails but tends to develop horribly negative effects.  To put it another way, when the tribal orientation is maintained in a large mass society civilization there tends to develop problems, such as:

  • There becomes various forms of exclusiveness.
  • Many people are neglected or treated badly (meaning those people that are within the society but not a part of the tribe).
  • A narrow-mindedness is created and inability to see the ‘bigger picture’.  That is, they only have a limited view in respect to their tribe.

The societies created by the north-western Europeans – which is basically “western society” – have all displayed these problems  in the past 300 or so years, reflecting the problems of a tribal society in large mass society civilizations.  The tribal society worked effectively and efficiently many centuries before when they were a smaller secluded society.  This reveals some interesting points:

  • Tribal societies are good for small societies that are largely by themselves in the world. 
  • Tribal societies are not good in large mass society civilizations with many people, particularly if there are different types of people. 

The problem with Southern society reflected the problem of a tribal society in a large mass society civilization.  The North, being more progressive, was losing its more tribal society orientation which is why they conflicted with the South and tried to change them.  The North would take a point of view that reflects a growing sense of mass society civilization – democracy – as the basis of their thinking.  But it wasn’t as simple as that . . .


Ironically, though, the political ideals of the North, which sounded so good, would undermine it.  Democracy is actually a point of view that hastens the undermining of a tribal society orientation.  It does this by saying that “everyone is the same” and “no one gets special treatment”.  In addition, it destroys authority and the power of leaders.  This reflects a sense, in democracy, of a growing mass society, made up of many people, and its trying to take into consideration everyone.  The net result of this, though, is a blurring of humanity.  Tribal society, or any social bond, doesn’t grow much when people are a blur.  In this way, democracy undermines society as a whole (see my article, “Thoughts on how the U.S. is undermining itself with its own ideals – the ‘God-ordained democracy’ thats frightened of authority“).  Much of the problems of the U.S., now, are rooted in this undermining.

In some respects, democracy creates a problem in social transition.  This is because it generally takes an already existing society, with a form of social bond (whether it be tribal or not), and tries to force the mass society mentality (through democracy) upon it.  What I mean by this is that it makes it redundant and useless, if not villainized.  But democracy doesn’t offer anything substantial for the next stage.  In a way, democracy just “hints” at a new stage, or “suggests” it.  It does not create it.  Though democratic politic theory suggests a mass society civilization, its political practice is not the same as a stage in social change, hence it does not happen.  In a way, democracy is as if trying to force society into a new stage, through political practice, when the next stage hasn’t even appeared.  As a result, democracy undermines what is already there creating a society that is stagnant and without a social bond.  In this way, the society is as if “hanging”:  indecisive, uncertain, and vague with no defined leadership or meaning.  Interestingly, many people view this condition as “freedom”, believe it or not.  What all this means is that the social change democracy promotes is a change to a society that is “hanging in the air”.  In western society, we could then say that the social transformations have followed this pattern:

  1. Tribal society – this is a naturally appearing condition.
  2. The “glorified nobility” – a substitute stage because they were being forced from a tribal society to a mass society civilization.
  3. Democracy – an attempt to force society into a mass society civilization.
  4. A society “hanging in the air” – the undermining caused by democracy in which the next stage is lacking.

So we see that “glorified nobility” was a substitute stage to the mass society civilization, to help the transition.  Democracy, on the other hand, is actually a forcing of change that relied on its political practice to instigate it and which failed.  The fact is, and history shows this to be true, that political practice does not force social change.  This is the failure of democracy.

I would actually go on to say that democracy is a good idea for a small society.  Its not a good idea for a mass society.  Why is this?  Because democracy needs the unity of a tribal bond to work (that is, a unity in the population) . . . mass society civilization does not offer this.  What does this mean?  It means that, though democracy “hints” at a mass society civilization, it is actually tribal society rooted.  In this way, its as like an “in-between philosophy”.  It reflects a conflict of transitional stage.  Democracy, then, is just another aspect of the conflict of social transition that has plagued western society for over 300 years . . . it is not its solution.

Many societies that have been “democratized” (often with force) have had this “hanging in the air” problem.  Democracy is forced upon them and they find their traditional leadership gone, their traditional authority gone, their social structure gone.  Many societies have literally been “gutted” by “democratization”.  Its probably no surprise that many problems in the world have been instigated by this condition.  Once their society and authority structure is destroyed by “democratization” it leaves a void in the society for questionable people to “take over”.  This has caused the creation of many governments that are violent, destructive, and threatening.  Its created many of the “problem regimes” of the world.

As I said above, the maintaining of a society “hanging in the air” is often viewed as a form of freedom.  This is because it becomes a society where there are many “absences”, such as:

  • An absence of authority.
  • An absence of unity.
  • An absence of morality.
  • An absence of belief.

What this causes is a quality where one “has no ties” or “responsibility”, which is often perceived as a “freedom”.  What it is, in actuality, is a nihilistic society in which the society and people are “nothing” (which is another way of saying, “hanging in the air”).  This “nothing” is thought of as “freedom”.   The U.S. has become such a “nothing” society.

But a “nothing” society creates a “nothing life”.  This is not a freedom at all . . . its more of an illusion.  It tends to create a bunch of bored, shallow, and meaningless people.  Its sort of like someone brought up on a wealthy family where they have servants do everything for them.  It seems great but its empty.  To me, this describes American society as I see it now.  In this way, its as if American society has gone from one extreme (tribal-like with strict rules) to a “nothing society” (where there are no rules) in less than two hundred years.

Here are some other articles that involve similar issues:

Thoughts on matriarchial societies: Africa, slavery, and rebuilding – the effects of non-organized society

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

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Government and politics, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, Royalty, Society, The U.S. and American society, Tribal society and the tribal sense | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the post cold war generations – some observations . . .

Here are some observations I’ve made: Beginning in the early 1990’s I noticed a change in the kids.  To me, this was rather dramatic.  In fact, it was so dramatic that I kept making this statement over and over again:  “where did all these foreign kids come from?”  It took me awhile to figure out that they were the younger generation.  The problem is that they were so different that I thought they were foreign kids.  What most startled me about it, though, is that I had only graduated from High School just some years before!  How can there be a change that quickly, I wondered? This change created a new “style” of people that I have never seen before and they had qualities that were new to me.  One of the first senses that I got from them is this sense that they seemed to be living in something like a “shell” or what I called the “mantle” (see my article “Thoughts about “living under the mantle” – aspects of the recent generations“).  This is like a big rock the younger generations live under.  In other words, one of the first sense I got from them is a “sheltered life, detached from life”.  As the decades would pass, this would grow more and more. It seems, to me, that there has been very little change in the generations from that generation of about 1990 to today.  That is to say, the past 25 years has seen what can be described as a “single generational era”.  In other words, as a group, they have not seemed to of created a unique style that is unique to them and which they created.  This shows that they are no longer in control of their “style” and have not created their own.  This is because they live a “controlled” life, by technology, social media, and such.  This prevents the development of their own unique “style”.  In this way, the style of the generations seem almost stagnant.  If there is any change its usually not them who did it . . . its usually a change in the times, technology, or some new gadget. This is very different from the previous generations.  From at least WWI to 1990 we have seen each decade, at least, create its own unique “style” that set it apart from the decade before and after.  This happened so frequently, in fact, that it actually created problems as trends and fads changed too rapidly.  As a result, people would find that the era they most relate to quickly passed away which made them disconnected with the current times.  The generations since 1990 does not appear to have this problem as there has practically been no change in “style” in the past quarter of a century!  In this way, they have become somewhat stagnant as a group. I should point out that, in the past quarter of a century, there have been changes, of course, but these have been rather mild and seem to reflect historical conditions that have happened during that time and not actual changes in the actual generations themselves.  In other words, the younger generation, themselves, didn’t create these changes. I speak of these generations as the ‘post cold war generations’, as they appeared after the cold war ended (about 1990).  I believe that this is no mistake for the traits of this generation were molded by the ending of the cold war, as I’ll describe below.


Over the years a number I have found myself giving the ‘post cold war generations’ a number of nicknames.  This tendency, I think, reflects some character traits that seem common with them, such as:

  • They seem a “mass” of people, all alike or similar.
  • They lack an “individuality”.

Because of this, they tend to have an overall general quality about them.  Its this overall general quality that I refer to with the nicknames.  Its like saying, “oh, they are like this or that”.  In other words, the nicknames are much like a description.  Because of this, they tend to reflect certain aspect or qualities that seem prevalent with them from time to time. These nicknames refer to their robotic-like nature and tendency to follow blindly:

  • The drone generations
  • The robot generations
  • The sheep generations
  • The assembly line generations
  • The “appendage” generations

These nicknames refer to their protected nature (that is, that they are as if living in a shell):

  • The mantle generations
  • The “spoonfed” generations (this really refers to how things like technology and schooling tends to give them their experiences and ideas without them having to do much . . . for example, they are “spoonfed experiences from the computer game” or “spoonfed information a school”)

These nicknames refer to how they are as if a medium for nationalistic feelings:

  • The show pony generations
  • The indoctrinated generations

These nicknames refer to how they seem lacking in some way:

  • The dud generations
  • The generations without “style”
  • The “next-step” generations (that is, they don’t create anything new, they just take the “next logical step”)

These nicknames refer to how the males have been degraded:

  • The suppressed generations
  • The castrated generation

All these, I think, are revealing observations about their general character and are in response to their behavior. Over the years, though, I most commonly refer to these generations as the “drone generations”, the “show pony generations”, the “indoctrinated generations”, the “dud generations”, or the “castrated generations” depending on the circumstances, as these classifications seem to display specific dominant qualities in these generations . . .


I believe a significant element in these generation is that it is post cold war.  One effect of the cold war is that it has caused very strong nationalistic feelings in the adults.  This would be felt very strongly after the ending of the cold war and the feeling that we had “won”.  In fact, one could say that the ‘post cold war generations’ have largely been influenced by the feelings of cold war victory by their parents.  My observation, though, is that few people are consciously aware of these feelings or how they have imposed them onto their children (I’ve never heard anyone refer to it, for example).  Despite this, the children would become an “avenue” for these nationalistic feelings.  Basically, the parents, and society, would use the children as a medium to express their ideals which glorify their nationalistic ideals and as a means to glorify America.  In effect, they ended up forcing their kids to follow their ideals.  This would end up having great impact and, in a way, define these generations.  Interestingly, this same thing was done after WWII with the “baby boomer generation”, at least to some extent.  In this way, it almost appears like a post war reaction. I first began to really realize the extent of how kids were avenues for their parents ideals when I watched this talk show which had a short segment showing a 4 year old girl.  She was in a classroom with a chalkboard behind her.  She even had big distinct glasses on her.  She would sit there and say things like a teacher, “did you know that Siberia is so and so many square miles?” and such.  After the segment ended, the host of the talk show said, “can you believe it? . . . she’s only 4 years old!”  I was so outraged by this I just about complained to the producers.  I wanted to say, “All you’re doing is turning the kids into show ponies to portray your ideals.   Anyone can see she was coached in all this.”  And there is where I first used the words “show pony”.  I began to realize that the parents were basically doing the same thing with their kids as shown in the talk show.  Basically, the parents turned their kids into show ponies, as a means to glorify their ideals (in this case, the ideal of education and knowledge). Over the years, I have been appalled how parents, many of which are from my generation, have treated their kids.  They treat their kids almost like objects.  They have done this a number of ways, such as:

  • As something to “train” much like a dog This has appeared under the guise of many forms, from “teaching values” to forcing kids to go to College or play in sports.  Education is particularly bad.  All this “training” of the kids is really nothing but to make them play the part of the “generation who emulate the greatness of America”.
  • By overvaluing them, usually without cause.  They assign them all these abilities and skills that most don’t have.  The so-called “millenial’s” are often treated this way.  I’ve even heard them spoken of as the “next great generation”, even though they haven’t done anything.  In fact, I’ve seen many books glorifying the younger generations before they’ve even done anything.  I recall one book claiming that “millenial’s” will teach us (meaning the stupid older generations) to develop a better society and social relations.  Another book claimed how the younger American females were so “great” that they will “change the world”.  Another described how great the “millenial’s” are, all so educated, successful, and wonderfully great people always wanting to emulate the national ideals, of course.  None of these, of course, has even come close to happening . . . its basically amounts to the parents glorifying their kids as a way to glorify themselves and America.  This overvaluing of the kids is also seen in all the awards they give them.  I’ve seen some kids get awards every time they turn around.  I even made a joke:  “if they can add one and one and get two they give them an award”.  I saw an article, written by a “millennial”, who had a picture of all the awards he had received in school (filled up a table!) and in which he said that he found it was all a waste and having no value in life.  Remember, its the parents glorifying themselves and America with their award-winning kid. 

In the end, all this is done as a means of the glorification of American ideals as a result of the end of the cold war.  The children have become the means to portray and demonstrate national ideals, to make their parents proud.  Because of this, this glorification of the younger generations tends to emphasize American values.  In other words, by forcing their kids to be a certain way they were as if saying “America is great . . . look at our kids”. Some of these American values, that tend to be emphasized, include:

  • The emphasis on achievement.   These include things like sports, schooling, accomplishing things.
  • The emphasis on schooling, education, and knowing things
  • The emphasis on jobs and making money.
  • The emphasis on peace and saving the world This is really a remnant of the influence of the ‘hippi movement’ of the 1970’s, of “peace and love”.  It often appears with the emphasis on being “green”, for example.

Overall, the emphasis on schooling is particularly prevalent with these generations, almost to the point of nausea (and something I tend to condemn).  It seems particularly prevalent for a number of reasons:

  • It reflects America’s worship of knowledge and education.  In this way, it becomes one of the great means to display American’s greatness.
  • The school system promotes it, as all kids have to go through schooling.  Through schooling the ideals of the parents would be passed to the school system, as the school system tries to take on the role of a parent to the kids.  As a result, the school system would continue the work of the parents and promote the glorification of American values.  No doubt, because kids spend so much time in the school system, nowadays, the school systems emphasis on schooling makes education and knowledge more marked for these generations instead of other things.
  • Schooling became important as it leads to other ideals (achievement, money), and can have direct obvious results of other ideals (fancy job, money).  In this way, the glorification of schooling would become particularly strong with the ‘post cold war generations.  Success at a job, especially, is one of the great glories of America.

This overemphasis on schooling and jobs has gotten so ridiculous that kids, at a young age, are having these things shoved down their throats.  Near where I live there is a grade school that had a sign on it that said, “college bound!”  Can you believe it?  This emphasis went into getting a job.  Recently, I heard of a grade school that had a “career day”.  Are you kidding?  Its because of things like these that I jokingly call grade schools “pre-college schools” . . . kids go to grade school to prepare for college and get a job.  Maybe, one day, they can get college credit in their second grade pre-calculus class?  Maybe they can start teaching business in kindergarten? Stuff like this appalls me.  If often seems, to me, that kids are treated, by their parents and society, much like a “consumer product” that is “designed” to “satisfy”.  This, I guess, is not that surprising as the parents generations are some of the first to be exposed to extensive consumerism.  It makes sense that this “consumer orientation” would pass onto their kids . . . consumer products please so the kids must please.  Children must be “cultivated”, like a garden, to be the way the adults want, huh? I was often appalled by this “show pony” tendency as many of the parents are greatly emphasizing a conformism after the cold war, which conflicts with their views when they were younger.  When they were their kids age, they were rebelling against such “control” . . . but their kids aren’t allowed to!  Its sort of hypocritical.  There seems a number of reasons for this:

  • One element of this tendency of conformism, I often thought, is the fact that the parents generations have no culture, no beliefs, with a dead materialistic view on life.  This wasn’t helped by their rebellious attitude.  When they became parents they found themselves without direction and authority.  As a result, they fell back on a conformist attitude because they had no other means of authority and it gave them a direction.
  • I’ve also suspected that the parents tendency to turn their kids into show ponies may reflect their own poor view of themselves.  Their kids doing “good things” compensates for their “bad” view of themselves.

Interestingly, many of the ‘post cold war generations’ have even begun to believe what they are told about how great they are.   That is to say, many believe that they are “great” and often display an arrogance and an excessive self-importance.  Its as if their parents glorifying them has gotten to their heads.  Oftentimes, this is a reaction to doing exactly what the system wants (such as going to college or getting a hi paying job).  The fact that they “did it” makes them great.


The ‘post cold war generations’ would have a lot of cold war perspectives, mentalities, and views imposed upon them by the older generations.  Since many of these originate from the cold war, and the condition of the cold war, the promoting of these points of view as if “kept the cold war alive”.  In fact, this has gone to such an extent that one could very well say that the ‘post cold war generations’ are more “cold warish” than their parents who lived during the cold war.  In this way, these generations have been “indoctrinated” to cold war mentality even though the cold war is over and the conditions of the cold war, which created these points of view, are gone. The effect of this is to impose upon the younger generations a number of things such as:

  • A false world image of what the world is.
  • A tendency to interpret the world incorrectly or in a biased way.

These are some of the things that keeps these generations somewhat detached and alienated from the “real world situation”.  In some sense, they are being “indoctrinated” into a fantasized world.  This makes it so that these generations often seem “out of touch” with things. Much of these points of view originate from the Vietnam War protests of about 1970 as well as the ‘hippi movement’.  In fact, if one looks closely one can see that many points of views are basically repeating this era’s point of view and interpreting things in the same way.  More than once have I almost said to them, “my God, we’re not in the 70’s anymore!”   With some of them, its almost like they are trying to “go back to the 70’s” in attitude, world view, and in the interpretation of everything.  I guess its no surprise that this point of view dominates most of these generations political viewpoints, especially. Some common traits of the thinking of the 70’s era are:

  • Fear and paranoiaThis is the base of the whole mentality . . . the fear of nuclear annihilation in a world war with the Soviet Union.  As a result, fear and paranoia tends to seep into many aspects of life and their views of life.  There is a tendency for them to become frightened of things too easily.  They also become paranoid about things at the drop of a hat.
  • A preoccupation with hate.  They tend to see hate where there isn’t any and assume its everywhere.  Typically, they become frightened with any form of hate and blow it out of proportion, whether its real or imagined.  This preoccupation over hate originates from things like the Nazi’s and the Civil Rights Movement.
  • The overuse or, rather, abuse of the principles of freedom and the U.S. Constitution.  They quote freedom and the Constitution like quoting the Bible and as if they are its only representatives.  Using the Constitution, they often say things such as that everything “violates their rights”, “enslaves them”, and such.  Its got to the point that one could say that just about everything is unConstitutional.  They also tend to think that their views of freedom and the Constitution are the only ones.
  • They think they are trying to save the world.  Much of this has to do with the ‘hippi movement’ where this was their belief.  This often develops a self-righteous attitude.

These are used as a basis and framework of a whole world view.  As I said above, these are not naturally appearing but, rather, something that has been imposed by them by the older generations and society.  Not only that, they reflect another time and era.  In this way, much of these generations “think” they represent the current times but they are actually reflecting the times 40 years ago!


The tendency of conformism tended to cause a machine-like quality in these generations, a drone-like attitude.  This can be described as a tendency of “blind following”.  I’ve often been stunned how these generations just “do what they’re told” almost mindlessly.  One good effect of this, though, is that they don’t create a lot of problems. Several things have always scared me with this “drone” mentality:

  • None of them questions anything.  They just blindly “follow along” (be a drone).   Not only that, I’ve often been stunned how these generations believe everything they are told.  In fact, I’ve often said that this is one of the “signs” of the younger generations.  In other words, “if you believe everything your told then you must be from the younger generation”.  One effect of this is that they tend to lack a common sense in life.
  • There is a complete lack of a sense that “something is missing in life”.  In other words, there seems a lack of “interior reflection”, of “listening to your gut” or “following your heart”.  Its like they have given up their life to social media and computer games.

The main drone stance tends to be things like these:

  • They do what they’re told
  • They follow what everyone else is doing
  • They follow the ideal

The net result is an almost sheepish robot-like mentality with qualities such as:

  • A mindlessness
  • A slavishness and blind following
  • A lack of growth and personhood
  • A lack of genuiness and originality

In another respect, what we are seeing are generations of kids that are basically being “programmed” to reflect the societies ideals.  Much of education, it seems to me, is part of this “programming”.  In some respects, to be educated means to be “programmed” not only to do your job but to reflect the societies ideals. It seems a number of things have led to this “drone” tendency including things like these:

  • The influence of technology – a person “follows” whatever it does, creating a slavish-like attitude.
  • The power of the social media – it dictates peoples lives.
  • Being nothing but a “show pony” who do nothing but what they are supposed to
  • The emphasis on schooling – the ‘hear and repeat scholar’.   schooling is nothing but an assembly line  they should have the kids come out on conveyor belts
  • The emphasis on work by parents and society (see my article ” Thoughts on an aspect of the youth of today . . . the creation of “the machines of the economy”“)

This drone-like quality, it seems to me, is also promoted by things that are lacking such as:

  • A lack of social structure
  • A lack of culture
  • A lack of belief
  • A lack of human realities and institutions

The lack of these, which is so prevalent in modern society, seem to create a “void” in peoples lives.  The quality of being a “drone” seems to feel this void.  In this way, the “drone” creates something like a “pseudo-society” to as if replace the dying human society.  This is because being a “drone” mentality offers solutions to the void in ways such as:

  • It gives the illusion of purpose and meaning (such as computer games giving you something to do that is fun)
  • It gives the illusion of human institutions (such as Facebook being equivalent to a family)

My observation is that these have the quality of an aspirin . . . they help temporarily.  Because it works, for a time, it creates an illusionary quality that everything is OK.  In short, being a “drone” has the quality of a “security blanket”.   In this way, many people are not all that willing to let that “security blanket” go.  Because of this, many people become dependent and addicted to the “drone” life.  When it reaches this point we could probably call the “drone” life a “disease”.  Personally, I think a “drone” attitude and lifestyle is a form of dehumanization and a degraded life. Ironically, though, being a drone has become the avenue of success for these generations.  The more of a drone you are the more you get ahead.  This is because this system does not need human beings, it needs human robots.  A drone is a human robot, basically.  In addition, the more of a drone you are the more socially accepted you become.  This is because there are so many drones out there.


It seems, to me, that being a “show pony” and a “drone” turned much of these generations into something like a “dud”.  This is because these conditions basically made them into something more like an “appendage” to something than a human being.  They have to as if attach themselves to something in order to “be someone”.  As a result, they cannot really become human beings and develop much of a self.  This is further emphasized by the prevalence of imitation.  These generations, in many ways, have become nothing but generations of imitators.  Life has become one big act of imitation, of trend, of information, of learning, of following the path computers lead you, etc.  In addition, much of these generations are as if “spoonfed”.  What I mean by this is that all the gadgets of technology tends to “hand” them things like experiences, information, friendships, etc.  In this way, they sit there passive while they are given, in a sense, a “phony life” in which they don’t really participate.  Their association with life is through some medium, some object, not themselves.  In this way, they are not directly participating in life.  This inhibits the growth of self.  As a result, it causes things like these:

  • A lack of creativity
  • A lack of innovation
  • Having little energy (apathetic)
  • A lack of initiative
  • A lack of discipline
  • An absence of self
  • A lack of originality and genuineness
  • A lack a “style” (this is because they are an appendage to the system)
  • They primarily maintain the continuation of existing things and conditions (there is a lack of advancement)
  • A false view of themselves and the world (remember that they are show ponies who have spent a life having their minds stuffed with information)
  • A blind following attitude
  • A disconnected quality

These, it seems to me, are very prevalent at this time. Many years ago we used to say that young people offer energy, innovation, and such.  Often, companies wanted younger people for this reason.  It seems to me that this era is over.  The younger generation does not seem to offer this anymore . . . at least, I’ve not seen it.  I’ve also talked to people who have felt similar things.  Being a “dud” has taken these qualities away, it seems.  The post cold war generations I’ve seen at work tend to have these qualities:

  • They seem to have a blank expression.
  • They seem as if their mind is somewhere else.
  • They are not social.  Many will not speak to you and are hard to get in a conversation with.
  • They don’t offer anything but do what their told.
  • They don’t create anything new.
  • They seem stagnant and dead-like.
  • They are overly preoccupied with their phones, social media, toys, and such . . . everything else takes a “back seat”.

In short, the legendary energy, innovation, and vitality of the young people seem absent!  To me, this paints a picture of a bunch of people who are as if “sitting there looking at this massive system hanging over their head and which has power over them and which they are helpless against”.  In other words, they have become subservient to the system . . . they are not in control of their lives but they look to the system to give them their lives.  This subservience to the system even appears in their conversations.  In many cases, their conversations consists of nothing but repeating things they had heard almost like a tape recorder.  I had a weird experience with one of the younger generation that is quite revealing.  I was walking and a guy noticed that I had “Freud Museum London” shirt on.  He started talking to me about psychoanalysis and Jung.  What was weird about his conversation is how he spoke.  He seemed to do nothing but recite facts that he knew.  I’d say this or that and he’d remember some detail he had heard about something similar and recite it to me.  He didn’t even put forth any effort to make it fit the conversation and it generally was out-of-context, often having nothing to do with what I was speaking about.  It was like saying, “bacteria are small cells” and then he goes on about some fancy detail (no doubt to impress) like “E. coli means Escherichia coli . . .” that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.  I found this type of disconnected conversation very common with these later generations.  No doubt it has origin in how they have to sit for hours in class listening to information, having to remember it, and recite it on a test (and, remember, if they recite it properly on a test they get and A . . . special emphasis to repeat and recite).  In this way, this style of disconnected conversation is a product of  the schooling environment.  Its so common that I thought it would be funny if they wore a t-shirt that says, “I am the younger generation” and then, below it, the buttons for an old cassette tape recorder with the letters for each button prominent, “rewind”, “record”, “play”, “ffwd”, “stop”, “eject”.  For much of the post cold war generations, this comparison is very accurate . . . they are basically playing the role of a human tape recorder. From my observation, the main benefit of the younger generations are:

  • They know how to use all the gadgets.   they are a generation absorbed in gadgets.  though this may have a use in some respects, on the large scale of things it makes them almost useless.
  • The are a drones.  They do what they are told.  In this age where everything is a system, they benefit from this.

These, as near as I can tell, are their primary strengths . . . not energy, innovation, creativity, and such as we saw in the previous generations.


The male has been particularly suppressed in the post cold war generations.  I tend to feel that this has a lot to do with the association of the White Male, in particular, with the problems of the modern world, especially war (see my article “Thoughts on the unique association between the White Male and the modern world, as well as some of its effects“).  To put it simply, the male has been “blamed” for it all.  This point of view began in the Vietnam War protests of about 1970 and is therefore based in a male/war association.  This would later be extended to any problems of the modern world, such as environmental damage, political problems. etc.  The basic thought is that because the male is supposed to be the cause of it all the solution is his suppression and castration.  Its a point of view that is not overtly stated but its logic is seen if one looks for it.  Females, in particular, seem to promote this point of view. 

The castration of these generations is really a result of the effect described in the “indoctrinated” above, which has enforced the points of view of the Vietnam War era onto the post cold war generations.  Part of these points of view, as described above, is the blaming of the male.  In this way, we see can see that this is nothing but another “return to the 1970’s” mentality, which is so common in these generations, and part of their “indoctrination” to the values of the hippi’s (peace and love). 

As a result of this, the male, and male characteristics, have been suppressed creating something like a “castrated” male.  Some of the qualities of this male include:

  • They are apathetic.
  • They look down.
  • They are not active
  • They are passive-like.
  • They have little ambition.

In this way, its created a docile passive male that “does nothing”.  The effect of this is that many males no longer participate in society any more or play a role (see my article “Thoughts on “failing” boys and males “dropping out”: “the male exodus” . . . another account of the fight against dehumanization???“).  In some sense, they have “vanished”.  This has gone on so extensively that one could say that there has developed a “male vacuum”.  In other words, where the male used to be there now appears a void, which has created a vacuum and the result is that other people (in particular, females and minorities) are clamering to fill the void.  One could almost say that the “male vacuum” has created a great movement of everyone else to fill the void. 

But the male remains castrated and suppressed, forgotten and neglected, in the very society and system he created.  This castrated has become so ingrained in the post cold war generation male that I, at this time, have no hope that he will do something to end it. 


It appears that females are, by far, the ones that have most emulated the “drone”, “show pony”, and “indoctrinated” generations attitude.  In fact, the female has done it abit too well.  Many females are having problems as a result.  On could very well say that the female has become the great representative of these qualities on an incredible scale.  Much of this, I feel, has origin in things like:

  • A naturally appearing slavish-like attitude that females have.
  • The fall of the female identity which makes them more “in need” of something.
  • Of how social media sucks them in and they follow it religiously.

Stuff like these tend to make the female more prone to the ways of the ‘post cold war generations’.


Overall, these generations seem to largely be nothing but a product of the times (the cold war, technology, social media, etc.).  In other words, these generations are not a “product of themselves”, of something they created and which reflects them.  In this way, the times have completely overshadowed them and, in a sense, squashed them.  It has dominated them, dictated their lives, determined what they do, how they think, how they behave, how they view things and themselves.  Very little has been an expression of “them” as people, which has been characteristic of the generation throughout most of the 1900’s. I’ve talked to many adults about the younger generation and practically everyone has said something to this effect:  “I’m glad I’m not part of this generation”.  Most of this, of course, is because of the control things have over them, such as technology.  Sadly, very few of the younger generation are aware of the dominance and power things have over them which makes the older generations say that.  I’ve even talked to several of the younger generation about it and all they do is give you a blank expression . . . truly, they live under the ‘mantle’, the shell of the modern world.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Children and play, Modern life and society, Psychology and psychoanalysis, The 'system' and 'systemism', The Cold War, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on another statement from Hillary Clinton – some aspects of female identity problems

Here’s a thought I had:

I heard another statement by Hillary Clinton that revealed deeper darker issues.  In her concession speech she stated:

“And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and to achieve your own dreams.”

On the surface it “sounds good” but, from my experience at looking at female identity problems, I see a deeper darker meaning.  In actuality, its a commonly used style  of statement which reveals how females feel worthless and valueless deep down inside but hide it behind saying good things about themselves (I was surprised she used it in a Presidential concession speech which is why I think that the other side of its meaning should be stated).  She says, ” . . . never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving, etc.”  In response to this I can ask questions such as these:

  • “Who said that they are not these things?”
  • “Why do you assume that they are not these things?”
  • “Where do you get this idea that they are not things?”

In other words, why are these things doubted at all?  Basically, the reason why doubt is mentioned is because there is doubt.  People who have feelings of worth, value, etc. don’t emphasize them or note them . . . there’s no doubt so it doesn’t need to be considered.  When its mentioned its often a sign of someone who does have doubt.  Females with identity problems tend to feel that worth, value, etc. are lacking and, accordingly, tend to refer to it a lot, and in many different ways.  Some common ways it appears are:

  • Self-affirmation:  “I HAVE value and worth.” (they as if glorify themselves, or emphasize what they think is their good points, to make them sound like they have value and worth)
  • Self-negation:  “People are degrading me.” (in this case, people are blamed for their doubt about themselves, which is very common)

These are a good example of the range of its appearance.  They are actually opposite orientations (affirming and negating the self) and show that it can appear in many different ways.  It also shows that it can be rather misleading.  The self-affirmation (“I HAVE value and worth”) appears like a sign of confidence and certainty.  But self-affirmation is often nothing but a “hiding” of self-negation.  Its like saying, “I will pretend that I HAVE value and worth because, deep down, I feel that I don’t”.  This is seen a lot.

Females with identity problems (or any problem with themselves) are often saying things similar to self-affirmation, often to each other, as if to convince themselves that they have no self doubt and actually “feel good about themselves” (in fact, when they do this its often a hint that there are identity problems).  As with Hillary’s statement above, these self-affirmations are often accompanied by high cause and principles as if to make it sound even better (such as, ” . . . every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and to achieve your own dreams.”).   These are usually based on socially accepted viewpoints and ideals (for example, “to pursue and to achieve your own dreams” obviously reflects American ideals . . . “the pursuit of happiness”).  Its a really good example of how many females use “positive” stuff to hide a deeper “negative” aspect of themselves.  Because of this, one must be not always believe what some females say.

Another example of this logic, of saying something “positive” to hide a deeper “negative” meaning, is seen in some experiences that I had when I was studying psychology in the 1980’s.  During this time there was a great movement of “self-help” going on.  Me and a friend of mine used to go to these seminars all the time where what they would say things like, “yes, I am important . . . yes, I have value.”  Many people were attracted to this idea.  I knew, of course, that the people who were attracted to the idea of saying “yes, I am important . . . yes, I have value” are people who don’t feel important and feel that they have no value deep down.  It was like they were trying to convince themselves that they weren’t (for some, I think it worked for a while but only for a short time . . . it tends to have a temporary effect).  Its as if saying something great about yourself is going to compensate for the bad feelings you have about yourself deep down.  This is what this sounds like to me.  In this way, the statement from Hillary above is sort of like saying: “Deep down, I feel that females, including myself, have no value and aren’t deserving of anything but I’ll make it sound like we’re great people to hid this fact from myself.”

I believe this to be the case, and there is more reasons why I think this . . .


The assumption that the female is not valuable, etc. is an often automatic assumption that many American females make (it is also seen with many British females, as it has origin in British society).  Its rooted in the fact that many American (and British) females have a poor view of the femaleThis primarily appears as a deep hidden contempt of the female, of being female, and everything female.  Typically, this is not overtly known and is unconscious (that is to say, they are not overtly aware of it . . . you never hear a female say “I have a contempt for all things female”).

Since it is not stated or known, it comes out in other ways.  Because we’re dealing with an unknown unconscious feeling that comes out in other ways, which is a trait of neurosis and the source of neurotic symptoms, we could say that female identity problems can be described as a form of neurosis and, accordingly, it tends to display neurotic qualities and neurotic-style of symptoms.  This is often the case.  Some of the other ways it appears include (which are all forms of neurotic symptoms):

  • Self-degradation:  They see “female things” in a bad light.  This is a manifestation of “inner contempt”.  This got so bad that, at one point, that I even had to start defending the female from the females themselves! (see my article “Thoughts on appreciation – how the feminists taught me to respect the male, the female, and myself“).
  • Projection:  They feel that people are “degrading” them in some ways, often by making them be “female” or do “female things”.   They “project” their bad feelings of themselves onto other people making it sound as if they are a victim of them.  This becomes a basis for what I call the female-as-victim which is a common theme in female identity problems (see below).
  • Conceit and vanity:  They glorify the female and make the female as some powerful person.  I’ve seen this so bad that they think the female is this superior all-powerful person and with special magical powers!
  • Identity problems:  They try to be like men.  This is usually nothing but an attempt at “escaping the female identity”.  In some cases, though, this is accompanied with a desire to not be female reflecting their self-degradation of the female.

As a result, we see that the females deep inner contempt appears in other ways than you would expect.  This means that to find this inner contempt you don’t listen to what they say but watch for the motive behind what they do.  This is because it is unconscious and unknown to them.  This scenario is typical of neurosis.


This poor view and deep inner contempt of the female got so bad that a special philosophy was created to reflect it in the 1800’s:  feminism.  In many ways, this shows that the female identity problem, as a form of neurosis, had become a “way of life”.  In other words, the neurosis of female identity problems had become too implanted in themselves and society that it started to define who they were.  Feminism was an attempt to try to give this neurosis, which created inner conflicts and symptoms, some “meaning”.  In other words, they became “trapped” in the neurosis of female identity problems and felt inner conflict as a result.  The philosophy of feminism was an attempt at “solving” these deep inner conflicts that they were feeling.

Naturally, they used the social philosophy of the times as a basis.  After the French Revolution (late 1700’s) the idea of oppressor/oppressed was very popular in England (see my article “Thoughts on ‘secular oppression’“).  They used this idea as a basis of their philosophy.  This is not all that surprising as just about everyone in England, in the 1800’s, was using the oppressor/oppressed as an explanation for any social problem or problems between people (its even the source of Communism).  In this way, during the 1800’s their deep inner contempt of the female was blended with the political thinking of the French Revolution (oppressor/oppressed).  It created these points of views which are typical of feminist thinking:

  • The oppressed:  The female is oppressed or a victim. 
  • The oppressor:  The “male tyrant” is generally viewed as the oppressor or victimizer.
  • The “righteous cause”:  They are fighting for their “freedom”, usually against “male tyranny”.  They used politics (oppressor/oppressed) as a way to make their philosophy sound legitimate (for example, they are “fighting for their freedom against the victimizing of the male tyrant” . . . sounds good, doesn’t it?).

In this way, they created a whole philosophy of how being female and “female things” is nothing but a form of oppression.  More importantly, the use of politics made it sound “politically justified”.  Because of this, many people have been duped into believing this philosophy (even I almost fell to it!).  But, remember, this is nothing but a “cover” for a deep inner problem:  female identity problems.

Despite what they may think, feminism did not solve their problem.  The deep inner contempt of the female has not lessoned as a result of feminism.  In fact, it made it worse.  My own observations of feminists is that they become bitter unhappy ladies as they grow older.  This is because the feminist philosophy does not solve their problem.  All its done is made their life a catering to the idea that they are victims and the world is plotting against them . . . and all politically justified!  Maybe they can act like men too?  It still doesn’t solve it.  In short, the philosophy doesn’t work.  This is because the feminist philosophy is really a neurotic symptom and, like many neurotic symptoms, it seems to work as a solution.  It often does work, initially and superficially, but fails in the end.  This is because neurotic symptoms are a result of the conflict, not its solution.  They are often confused as being a solution because they seem to give a temporary relief to the conflict.  To put it simply, the feminist philosophy has been confused with being a solution.

Neurotic manifestations are found throughout feminist philosophy and the behavior of feminists.  Many of these are nothing but forms of neurotic symptoms, such as:

  • Nothing “solves” the basic problem, despite what they do.
  • It creates many absurd and weird claims and points of view (see my article, “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“).
  • Some females become “obsessed” with the philosophy to the point that it becomes a world view and almost religious in proportion.
  • Some females use the philosophy as a weapon to defend themselves against conflicts in life.
  • Behind the basic philosophy there are too many “other issues” that have nothing to do with it.
  • There is a “deep inner pain” or “deep inner conflict” that seems out-of-place or exaggerated.
  • They never take the blame for their problems and tend to blame others.

The more I look at feminists, their viewpoints, and behavior, the more neurotic they become.  Its probably no surprise that it is, in actuality, a product of the 1800’s or Victorian era – the “era of neurotics” – and there we must look . . .


Much of this problem is rooted in how the female, in the 1800’s, abandoned the female identity of their grandmothers and replaced it with trying to be like a noble lady.  In this way, the Victorian female became nothing but a “noble lady imitator” and, in so doing, many things happened:

  • They no longer had the growth and development that the identity of their grandmothers offered them (and which was based in centuries of experience).
  • They lost the value and worth the female has had in society for centuries.
  • Being “imitators” they lost their “genuineness” and became “phony”, “artificial”, etc.

It basically amounted to throwing everything away for an image of social prestige.  Its no surprise, then, that American (and British) females tends to seek social prestige as a motive even today.  In some respects, after the Victorian females destruction of the female identity of their grandmothers the seeking of social prestige became a “main occupation” of many American (and British) females ever since.  This appears in many ways, such as:

  • A desire for social prestige motivates many females to seek positions of status, responsibility, prestige, and so on (a good example is getting a degree and a hi-paying job).  I believe this tendency motivates Hilary to want to be President . . . the “ultimate” in social prestige in the U.S.
  • They cater to and suck up to the social ideals, whatever they may be.  Have you ever noticed how females are always doing the “acceptable thing”?  They always do things the “socially accepted” way, following the current (and I mean current . . . to the minute) views and ideals of society.
  • Because of the power they give social ideals, they often use it almost as if it were a statement of God.  In other words, they use it as “authority” and justification for everything.  They quote these ideals like quoting the Bible.  One could, at times, say that the following of social ideals is almost like a religion.
  • It makes many females slavishly follow trends like a bunch of sheep.  To “do what everyone else is doing” is like a form of social prestige as it “places you in with society”.  In this way, its created a slavish attitude in many females.

The problems is this:  trying to imitate a noble lady didn’t work, and neither does seeking social prestige.  The effect of all this is that it has made the female identity failMany females, though, will still try to at least hold on to various forms of the “noble lady” or continue to seek social prestige as its all that they have to give them meaning and worth.  In this way, many American (and British) girls are as if “hanging on a thread” as a person, scrambling for any value that they may have or find.  Usually, its not enough and, as a result, the female tends to feel at a loss in some way.  Because of this, it tends to create feelings such as:

  • That they are victims of something or someone.
  • That there is a conspiracy against them.

The effect of this is a sense of “we females are victims” which many females have.  In some cases, its like a club, they feel a “unity in victimhood”.  Because they often view the male as the victimizer it can create a sense of “us versus them” or “male versus female” mentality (which is common in feminism).  This unity if “victimhood” tendency is expressed in this statement from Hillary’s concession speech: “And to all the women, and especially the young women, who put their faith in this campaign and in me, I want you to know that nothing has made me prouder than to be your champion” This whole statement is a reflection of an awareness that all women, and especially young women, are all victims and that she see’s herself as their “champion”.  Apparently, Hilary is going to save them from their victimhood by being President . . . but she’s failed.  In some respects, its like saying, “yes, we females are all victims and I’ve failed you by not being the ultimate in social prestige . . . so we’re all going to be the miserable worthless females we always were”.  This, then, begs the question:

  • Why does she think that being President is going to change female value and worth?

Mainly, because, as I said above, there is a tendency where they think that the gaining of social prestige is “authority”.  Therefore, she thinks that in being the ultimate in social prestige (President of the U.S.) the female is going to finally have value and worth. The problem is that it will not. You see, this is nothing but a continuation of what their grandmothers in the 1800’s did that caused the whole problem!  The continuation of this mistake is common in American (and British) females (see my article “Thoughts on how females are continuing the mistake of their mothers before them . . . continuing the ‘failed sex’ and promoting alienation“).   What Hilary is doing is exactly what the grandmothers of the 1800’s did, except in an “Americanized” way . . . instead of being a noble lady (the ultimate in British society) she becomes President (the ultimate in American society).  In addition, as with the grandmothers of the 1800’s ,there is a belief that ALL their value and worth rests on the gaining of this social prestige. The problem is that the attempt at being a noble lady and gaining social prestige has failed these past 200 years.  In short, after all the high and mighty talk the experience of the past shows that this is just another dead end road for the females.  This mania girls have at trying to be “noble ladies” and seeking social prestige is only going to continue their problems.  Its not going to regain their value and worth “as a female”.   Its this inability at regaining value and dignity “as a female” that has become a major part of the female dilemma of the past 200 years. I should also point out that this whole phenomena is something that the females did to themselves . . . the mothers imposed it upon their daughters, and still do (notice how Hilary specifically spoke of “little girls” and “young women” . . . just like a mother)!  In addition, they impose it upon each other.  In this way, the real victimizers of the females is themselves and it is they that have conspired against themselves. In short, the females are their own worst enemies!


The 2016 Presidential election brought a lot of this mentality out.  I was often stunned at how many females were so eager to become “victimized” by silly statements from Trump . . . it was TOO EASY.  The overreaction to this was unreal and ridiculous.  To me, it had the quality of watching a bunch of neurotics on public TV.  People sat and blamed Trump, as if he was all at fault, but I saw another side:  THE GIRLS WERE TOO EAGER TO BE VICTIMS!  By being too eager to become victims the tendency to feel “victimized” got out of control and caused something like a mania in many females during this election which got to the point of ridiculousness.  I’ve talked to a number of females during the election and I was stunned how they were as if “fixated” on being “offended” or “victimized” by it.  I started to jokingly call it the “Trump name-calling pit” as once they got in the pit they can’t get out of it.  Everything, and I mean everything, revolved around how they felt “offended” or “victimized” by it.  Many females got so fixated on being “offended” or “victimized” that it dominated their whole viewpoint of the election.   Never mind any other issue . . . the only thing that matters is that she feels “offended”. Unbelievable! My personal favorite is how he called a lady “overweight” . . . God help us all!  Take a look at this: to see how far some of this has gone.  Notice the references of how Hillary stated things like how they (the girls) must be “proud”, “brave”, etc., emphasizing “positive” points in the females.  Also note the reference to “standing together” . . . another reference to “unity in victimhood” . . . as if they must stand up against some great horrible threat.  Interestingly, these reflect the two statements from the concession speech above:

  1. Reinforcing “good” and “positive” values in the female.
  2. The idea of “unity in victimhood”.

More than likely, this shows a pattern of thinking in Hillary’s thinking, and its a common one that I see.  From my experience, it shows a female that views and sees herself as a victim and uses the emphasis on their “positive” qualities and a “unity in victimhood” as a means of consoling this image of herself.  What they are doing is something like a “beating around the bush”.  It does not “solve” the problem as, despite what they do, they remain a victim in their mind . . . their self-image of being a victim does not change.  In this way, we can see that the female is a “victim of her own self-image” . . . that’s the real “victimizer” of the female.  Really, we’re looking at a problem with female self-image, of how they view themselves.  It reveals the need for the female to have a better view of the female, what a female is, what they do, and to develop a dignity “as a female” (not, for example, of a female aping and play-acting the male . . . a healthy female self-image needs to cater to natural feminine impulses).  Its probably no mistake, then, that in the “victimizing” stated above, of the Presidential election and the article, consists of statements of “overweight” and such, which refer to self-image.  Its almost like Hillary is consoling them because of the problems THEIR bad self-image gives them, as if one of her “roles” as President is that it will somehow automatically remedy this problem . . . another “beating around the bush” by the female. Some common ways females deal with their bad self-image include:

  • Viewing themselves as a victim.
  • Blame and accusation, such as that its the males fault.
  • A “unity in victimhood”.
  • Of trying to not be a female, such as trying to be like a male or doing what a male does.
  • Of conceit, such as emphasizing their “good” and “positive” points.

Females who have a bad self-image issues tend to be very neurotic and have great instability.  As a result, people like this are easily traumatized and quick to develop mental issues.  This is why this stuff is really a mental health issue, not a political issue . . . in other words, Hillary, or any other person, is not going to solve this with politics.  I should also point out that this is not a social problem either . . .  “social change” isn’t going to get rid of it either.  Its a personal issue of the female.  From what I have seen, a solution doesn’t look good.  Females are too busy “beating around the bush” to get anything done.  Because of this, the bad self-image of the female is going to remain, even get worse. We saw some of the effects of this bad self-image above, in the Presidential election and article.  We see examples of unstable neurotic characters that are easily “traumatized” by remarks by people (such, as “overweight”), which is getting worse and worse, it seems.  I’m not the only person who has noticed that people are getting so oversensitive to things that its ridiculous.  The little unpleasant things of life (such as name calling or belittling) is getting to the point that some people are devastated by it.   When I was a kid we had a saying in response to things like this:  “sticks and stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me”.  Apparently, this idea is foreign to the kids of today.  Nowadays, it should be:  “sticks and stones can break my bones but names will destroy me”.  In addition, when I was a kid “bullying” was for something dramatic, like some kid beating on another kid.  Nowadays, some of the things they are calling “bullying” is almost laughable.  I’ve seen cases where just “saying the wrong thing” is called “bullying”.  Many younger people, nowadays, are starting to paint the picture of an unstable, weak, over-reactive, neurotic, easily traumatized people.  When I was a kid people like this would be considered as “having something wrong with them”.  By far the worst are the females.  Many younger females are bringing this unstable neurotic character to a new level.  As we’ve seen above they show signs like these:

  • Of being too oversensitive
  • Of taking things too personally
  • Of being too “hurt” by things

This creates a problem of being horribly over reactive to things.  In other words, its not the thing that’s the problem (such as name calling) but the reaction . . . they are too over reactive and quick to make themselves “traumatized victims” as a result.  The question is not if something happens (such as name calling), which is what everyone emphasizes so much, but the question of “why are they reacting so badly?”  The answer to this, of course, is “because they have unstable characters”.  But this observation is neglected because the female-as-victim answer is not to question their own instability, that the problem originates from themselves, but to blame someone else for it, so they’ll blame Trump, or someone else, instead (in fact, in 30 years I never once saw a female question that their problems may originate from within them).  I should point out that this neglect is one of the reasons why females have these issues and problems.  In this way, Hillary’s supporting the victim point of view shows that she is really promoting female neurosis and instability and, in a way, making it worse (this is one reason why I felt that this article should be written, to show this other side and that all these apparently “good” statements are not what they seem). I should point out that self-image problems are a form of identity problems as self-image is part of identity.  As a result, what we have seen above are examples of identity problems.  It shows how identity problems tend to develop unstable, neurotic, and easily traumatized female characters.  It also stands to reason that the poor self-image leads to a poor view of the female.  This shows the importance of self-image is to the female and how it can have great impact (its much more important than for the male).


This tendency to see “victimizing” in everything under the sun (particularly when males are concerned) creates a problem which I call the “female-as-victim syndrome” and which I consider to be an epidemic in this country, and which came out in full force in this election.  Some of its manifestations include:

  • A tendency to see everything as victimizing them.
  • A tendency to easily make oneself a victim.
  • A tendency to fabricate victimizing that doesn’t exist.
  • A tendency to be “offended”, “traumatized”, or bothered by simple things.
  • A tendency to be overly preoccupied or obsessed with being a victim.

With this type of an attitude, they tend to be victimized by just about anything.  It creates a “victim attitude” which eventually leads to a “everything victimizes me” attitude.  I’ve been around many girls like this and its almost unreal.  You must be careful of how you speak, what you say, how you say it, the inflections of words, etc. or it will “offend” them or bother them in some way.  When it becomes extensive it often turns into a paranoia.  In some cases, females will start to see the world as threatening them and they will develop a fear of the world and everything in it. This phenomena is far more prevalent of a problem than, I think, it may first seem.  I see it everywhere in a myriad of different ways.  In my opinion, this “victim attitude” is eating girls up. The poor view females have of the females, that I described above, is actually a mild form of the “female-as-victim” attitude.  In effect, their poor view of the female is very much related to their seeing the female as a victim.  When you see yourself as a victim of everything you develop a low view of yourself. In this country there is a unique way females make themselves victims.  Much of this is based in the political and legal ideas of the U.S. and, in fact, uses politics to justify it.  It goes like this:

  • They find some restriction, prohibition, etc. in society. These are generally things that they aren’t allowed to do (such as that girls aren’t supposed to be like a man) or that they are supposed to do (such as, having and raising children).  Typically, these are normally appearing restrictions, prohibitions, etc. that are found in every society since the beginning of time and are a part of normal human society.  In their eventual criticizing of these things, they are really undermining human society as well as the role, value, and purpose of the female.  I’ve been around girls who find fault with just about every convention, tradition, and morals of society that you can find, especially when it comes to females.  Its almost like they search for it.
  • They find “offense” with this restriction, prohibition, etc.  They make it out as if it is some horrible abuse that somehow hurts them in some way.  Of course, this is their main intention, to be a victim of it.  Therefore, they MAKE themselves victims of it.  This is usually done by making it appear worse than it is (such as that cooking is some horrible enslavement) and putting it out of context (such as that it is “not right” that they can’t be like a man).
  • They then use politics and law as a way to villainize it as bad.  They will typically use politics and law like a weapon.  They will quote it like the Bible and fling it around like a sword.  Many females become quite adept at this as they learn that quoting politics and law gets them what they want.  That is to say, by quoting the Constitution, for example, they find that it shuts people up.  Its as if they are trying to defend themselves against society.
  • They then become the “justified innocent victims” of it.  They then wallow in their victimhood, justified and confirmed by politics and law.  I’ve seen many females make a life out of this, believe it or not.

As one can see, the net result of this is that they actually end up undermining the female as well as society.  In addition, they distort politics and law.  The eventual consequence of this is that a big gap is created by the things they destroyed.  They then fill this gap with these things:

  •  A “we are a victim” attitude, which becomes their life and world orientation.  Because of this, these girls see victimizing in everything.  In addition, they develop an attitude that life is a “keeping victimhood at bay”.
  • Law and politics becomes a basis of their life and world view.  In other words, law and politics take the place of things like culture, belief, religion, morality, and identity.  It becomes their god and authority.  In this way, the female is becoming nothing but a “beast of law and politics”, nowadays, whose whole role, worth, and purpose is based in legal and political ideas.  The effect of this is that very little, if any, of their life actually revolve around natural feminine tendencies and inclinations.  What determines what they do, their attitudes, how they justify what they do, etc. is law and politics.  In this way, the natural appearing feminine qualities are as if stripped from the female life.

In other words, they have taken a normal condition in human society, turned it into something bad and, in so doing, created a warped view of the female, society, and the world.  


All this tends to be hidden behind a façade of something “positive” or a “good image”.  Its just like clothes and makeup, they just “cover it up” as if it isn’t there.  This is why I call it the “female cover up”.  It tends to be idealistic and tends to cater to national or social ideals, often supported by politics and law.  Females generally live in this “female cover up” world and neglect, or refuse to see, the deeper issues.  As a result, they tend to be oblivious to them, despite the fact that they are suffering from the problems it creates (it can even dominate their life . . . but they still don’t see it).  Its seeing through this “cover up” that you can often tell the motives behind what many females do and say.  They basically say one thing and mean another.  This is exactly what happened with the statement from Hilary above . . . experience taught me that there was a deeper darker side behind the apparent “good” statement she said.  She basically referred, in a hidden way, to a deeper darker side to the femalehood in this country in particular.


A big question is why are these even mentioned at all in a Presidential concession speech?  To me, they seem out-of-place and inappropriate.  Not only that, it shows too much emphasis on the female and not on the rest of the country, which I would expect from a serious President.  Its like she made statements “only to girls” which seems biased and one-sided (I could even go on to say “sexist” if I want!).  In other words, it shows a very “female first” orientation.  In this way, it reveals a lot of her motives for wanting to be President.  As I said above, she thinks that her being President is somehow going to overcome the bad views females have of themselves.  The idea, from what I gather, is that by her being the ultimate in social prestige (President) it will somehow inspire or allow girls to seek social prestige for themselves.  This is done in these American ways:

  • To pursue the social ideal of success (such as being winners in everything they do).
  • To have a job (of course, it has to be  hi paying and prestigious).
  • To be in a position where they are “in charge” (it will be even better if they are “in charge” over men!).

We could also add:

  • To not have to be female and do female things (instead, they can act like men and do male things).

By catering to these nice American ideals they think they will solve the females problems. 

But will they?

I don’t think so.

This point of view I’ve seen many times and in many ways.  Its utterly ridiculous.  To even think that this is going to solve the deep psychological issues of the females is unreal and unrealistic.  In fact, after watching this mentality for decades I can see that all its really doing is turning girls into a bunch of “social ideal slaves”.  What I mean by this that females are becoming slaves to the social ideal, whatever it is.  Females are killing themselves to follow whatever the social ideal is, and they have to change whenever it changes.  Its like watching a flock of birds . . . one goes that way and they all go that way . . . another goes another way, and they all go that way . . . and they kill themselves to do it.  Its almost sad to watch.


This slavish mentality began in the 1800’s.  Since they abandoned the female identity they did everything they could to be a noble lady.  They were killing themselves to follow anything associated with being a noble lady (clothes, manners, rituals like having tea, mannerisms, etc.).  They slavishly followed everything required to get there.  This started a mentality that has continued on down to today.  Perhaps we can call it the “Victorian slavish mentality”?.  Through the years this slavish mentality seems to of gone through stages:

  1. Social prestige:  They take on the identity of the noble lady (social prestige) as a result of abandoning the identity of their mothers and grandmothers.  This took place in the early 1800’s.
  2. The “empty ideal”:  They discover that, for most females, the noble lady was an “idea” or “ideal”, and not really a social reality.  As a result, it became an empty ideal.  This seems to of taken place in the early-mid 1800’s.
  3. Blind following:  Because “female society” was already established emulating the image of the noble lady, and the females found that this was an empty ideal, the females started to slavishly follow what all the other females were doing in the society.  This seems to of taken place in the mid-late 1800’s.
  4. Social trend:  This slowly turned into slavishly following social trend, whatever it may be.  This seems to of taken place in the late 1800’s.

These seems to establish four different “forms of female identity” in the 1800’s.  In other words, these are all reactions to the abandoning of the female identity.  As a result, since they had no firm identity these became the basis for what can be described as the “new attempted female identities of the Victorian era”.  Since it was the only identity they now had, the females had to use what was given to them.  As a result, they developed them into what can be described as “female identity characters” each reflecting the stages above:

  1. The female identity character that seeks social prestige.
  2. The female identity character that feels the female is “nothing”.
  3. The female identity character that blindly follows whatever everyone else is doing.
  4. The female identity character that keeps up with the latest social trend.

All these forms have persisted down to today and still appear to be the main forms of female identity characters.  The basic “slavish attitude” and its “female identity characters”, begun in the 1800’s, is basically being continued in the Americanized version of today.  Hillary is following the character that seeks social prestige and, accordingly, thinks it will be the “solution” to female problems.  As I said above, this is the cause of the problem, not the solution!

Interestingly, there often becomes a time when the slavish attitude is all that remains.  As time goes on, and the hype of whatever is followed falls, only the slavish attitude remains.  As a result, they start to feel slaves, which is one of the reasons why females have complained of being “slaves” since (and is a basis for feminist claims).  It seems to go through stages:

  1. There is a need that needs to be fulfilled . . . the need for female identity
  2. There is a solution which entails doing what all the females are doing (that is, taking up the identity everyone else is emulating)
  3. There develops a slavish attitude at following the solution
  4. There becomes a height in slavishly following the solution, where they kill themselves to do what all the other females are doing (in which the slavish attitude becomes ingrained and strong)
  5. The solutions starts to fail
  6. The solution falls and all that’s left is a feeling of their slavish attitude
  7. They complain of being a slave, oftentimes accusing or blaming someone else for enslaving them

In other words, the females slavish attitude is not sensed as a slavish attitude until the solution falls . . . then they feel like slaves, and usually blame someone for it.  But, I must point out, that this is the slavishness they imposed upon themselves.  What this means is that the females are slaves of themselves . . . when they complain of being a slave they are feeling their own slavish attitude.  This is what happened in the 1800’s and we have seen it on and off since.  My guess is that we are going to continue to see it.

The “slavish attitude”, which is a hallmark trait of the Victorian and post-Victorian female, appears to have a lot of origin in the fact that, since the females abandoned the identity of their mothers and grandmothers, they were now desperately in need of an identity.  As a result, they were looking out to society to offer it to them.  This made them follow whatever what everyone else was doing.  In other words, the “slavish attitude” is an attitude of desperation, of needing the identity their mothers abandoned. Because of this, they are looking for society to give an identity to them.  The result of desperately needing identity is that they “slavishly followed” whatever the female mob was doing as well as social trend.  Many females, to this day, still do this and look for the female mob and social trend to give them their identity.  And here is a source of why female identity problems persist and never seem to go away:  the Victorian, and post-Victorian females, are looking for a “stable identity” in the wrong places (that is, in society:  the female mob and social trend).  These are not a source of “stable identity”.  Its turned many girls into a bunch of “trend puppets” or “society marionettes”.   The fact is that for a “stable identity” to work it must be rooted in the female character, not society or trend.  As a result, the perpetual Victorian tendency of looking to society and trend is actually hindering the female and preventing the development of a “stable identity”.

Feminist philosophy also hinders the growth of  a “stable female identity” in these ways:

  • Behind its mentality it see’s bad in female things (the deep inner contempt of the female).
  • It promotes females to not act like females.
  • It promotes females to act like men.
  • It portrays females as victims.
  • It blindly accuses and blames innocent people (such as the male and society) while portraying them as innocent (that is, they don’t take responsibility for their feelings).
  • It based in political theory, not human reality (their interest, then, is political not human).

In these ways, feminist philosophy actually steers the female away from the female character, the source of a “stable identity”.

The “slavish attitude” has now become so prevalent and for so long that it, in a way, has become an aspect of the female identity nowadays.  In other words, “to be female is to be slavish in attitude”.  One of the effects of this is that it has created a particular character of female:  the “female robot”.  That is to say, many females have literally turned into robots, blindly and mindlessly doing and following what everyone else, society, and social trend says.  They even have a particular look, with an unemotional, empty, wide eyed expression on their faces.  Many of these girls whole value and worth rely on how well they follow societies dictates.  In this way, they have developed a very “keen nose” as to what society wants and expects.  This is a skill many “female robots” have refined into an art form.  If they are good at it then they “feel good about themselves”.  If they aren’t then they “tend to not feel good about themselves”.  I’ve seen many “female robots” whose whole worth and value depend on this.  If, for any reason, they fail in following societies wants and dictates, it can devastate them.  Remember, their whole identity, with its worth and value, is depending on how well a “robot” they are.  As a result, the “female robot” is as if perched on the edge of a razor blade:  they lean one way and they “feel they have worth” . . . lean the other way and they “feel they have no worth”.

And I should re-emphasize this again:  behind this is an identity problem.  To begin with, if they had a “stable identity” there would be not “female robot”.  At the same time I should note that this shows another example of the illusionary quality of female identity problems (similar to what we saw at the beginning of this article).  As long as they do societies wants and expectations they “feel good about themselves”.  They appear “happy, fulfilled, and OK” . . . nothing appears to be wrong.  But that’s only because they are succeeding at being a “female robot” and this, we must remember, is only hiding an identity problems.  In other words, they have successfully “hidden” their identity problem, and it appears convincing.  Because of this, most people don’t see a problem as there doesn’t appear to be one.  When females are in this position it makes it hard to see identity problems.  How do you usually find out?  By experience and seeing other “symptoms”, such as the statement that started this article, the reference to “doubting”.  This shows some aspects of female identity problems:

  • When “they don’t feel good about themselves” its easier to see the problem and you don’t necessarily need a lot of symptoms to see it.
  • When “they feel good about themselves” its harder to see the problem . . . its generally seen through other symptoms and manifestations.

This is a very significant point in looking at female identity problems.

Ironically, the “female robot” has had some benefit with girls.  With the way society is now, being more technologically based, it needs “human robots” to do the work.  The “female robot” is now filling this need.  In fact, a bit too well.  They are becoming the “half humanoids” this economic system needs.  Because of this, they are fitting very well into this “robotic economic system”.  It gives them a “special edge” in the job market.

Though this may appear good now I fear that, in the future, they will become “enslaved” to it and expected to be the “human robots”.  In fact, I can see signs of it now.  I should point out, though, that it still doesn’t solve their identity problem nor create a “stable identity”.

Here are a few, of many, articles involving similar subjects:

Thoughts on the ‘failed sex’ – how many female traits have failed – a hidden crisis of the American female“).

Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists More thoughts on that destructive philosophy called feminism – my overall impression after almost three decades of observation

Thoughts on the ‘female-as-victim-of-the-world’: “feminism”, a poor way to look at things

On how I was insulted by a statement by Hillary Clinton – feminist egocentrism – feminist equality

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Britain and British things, Current affairs and events, Feminism: a destructive philosophy, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, The male and female, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election

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


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

The media!

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

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

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

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

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

Good going media!

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

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


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

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

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

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

The awareness that the U.S. is in decline

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

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

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

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

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

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

The feeling that no one knows who this country represents and the hidden war for “preferred treatment”

My observation is that there is a growing sense that no one knows who this country represents anymore.  The effect of this is that it has caused, in many people, a great discontentment, confusion, and an inability to believe in the society.  It also makes people feel that they do not belong.  As a result, it has made many people feel that there is no “country” to belong to and that America is just a “place to live”.

This feeling, of course, is largely unconscious and never spoken of . . . but its referred to all the time.  One reason why its unconscious is because this subject involves a “taboo” subject in this country:  subjects dealing with “race” or a specific “people”, especially when it involves “preferential” treatment.  You see, theoretically, the U.S. is not supposed to favor any specific “people” or “race”.  No one should be “preferred”.  The problem is that it does do this.  In actuality, the U.S. is always playing “preferred treatment”, in some for or another, but pretending that it isn’t.  One day its the blacks, the next the females, the next gay people, and so on.  Its interesting that these people tend to profess that they are neglected and forgotten (often saying that they are oppressed, enslaved, etc.) but when they become “preferred” the result is that some other group begins to feel excluded and forgotten.  They then seek to be “preferred” and try to knock the former group off and take their place.  Its like an endless “king of the mountain” game that goes on and on year after year.

One effect of this continual cycling of “who is preferred” is that there is a sense of “. . . and so, who does this country represent then?”  Many of us feel that and, frankly, no one can truly answer it.  Even now not even I can answer that.  I have no idea who the U.S. represents exactly or who its “for”.  Theoretically, its supposed to be me, as a citizen, but I do not feel that.  This, it seems to me, is a growing feeling in this country and seems to figure in the discontentment of this election.

This hidden war for “preferred treatment” is referred to in this election, especially with Clinton, who is supposed to represent females, minorities, and the lower classes (and, supposedly, Trump is not supposed to).  This belief will be a determining factor why many people will vote for her.  This shows that this hidden war for “preferred treatment” is no small potatoes in this election. 

The growing feeling of being detached and disconnected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lack of anything to believe in

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

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

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

Some of the reactions to this include:

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

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

Excessive and out-dated liberalism

I tend to feel that the effects of all the liberal nonsense, particularly since the 1970’s, has played a far more critical role than it may at first seem.  It tends to create a generalized disgust in the population, I’ve found.  I see people refer to it all the time.  I say “refer” as I do not get the impression that people know what they are disgusted about.  Usually, people get disgusted with some event but very few people realize, I think, that what they are actually disgusted with is liberalism and its effects. Many liberal policies now infests our daily lives and affects us whether we like or not.  It has infested the political system, the legal system, work, and even into our private lives.  Much of this liberalism originates from the 1970’s and is part of the reaction to the Vietnam War and “hippi movement” (see my article “Thoughts on liberalism, with remarks about “70’s liberalism”“).  Being based in an event from about 45 years ago it is now out-dated but it has become firmly entrenched in the society and system and continues to play a part in things.

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

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

  • Unrealistic fears (such as, “people hate other people because their skin color is different”).
  • Imaginary abuse (such as, everything violates my rights).
  • Blind accusation and blame (such as, the male oppresses the female).
  • Self-righteous cause (such as, our cause is going to “save the world”).
  • Using the U.S. Constitution as justification for everything (such as, “my Constitutional rights have been violated because a white person was hired”).  This, in my opinion, has been done so extensively that they have basically distorted the meaning of the Constitution.
  • The creation of a controlled world (such as, you can’t spank your kids).
  • The villainizing of innocent people (such as that we are “bad people” for spanking our kids).  Often, they even develop special names to describe this, such as “sexist”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problems associated with the ‘failed sex’ have appeared a little bit too much in this election.  This has mostly appeared in the ‘female-as-victim’ point of view.  I’ve seen many females turn Trump into the “oppressive male tyrant”, for example, over the stupidest of reasons.  My personal favorite is his so-called “war on women” which are mostly statements of how he doesn’t like this person or that person, that a female is “overweight”, or “looks like a pig”, and such.  A “war on women”?  You got to be kidding.  This is just another example of the all-so-familiar feminist paranoia as, according to many of them, the male has conspired to oppress them since the beginning of time (see my article on the absurd claims of feminists above). 

No doubt the fact that there is a female as one of the candidates that has helped to promote, and exaggerate, these feelings in this election.  This is a good example of another deeper issue that really has nothing to do with the Presidency but figures prominently in it.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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

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

Here’s a thought I had:

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

Attention problems – easily distracted, can’t concentrate

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

These problems show a tendency of things like these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some of my impressions:


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The influence of success

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

  • Fear.
  • Envy/jealousy.
  • Hatred.

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

The influence of being too impactful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The influence of the European  and Male character

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

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

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

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

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

The emphasis of the WM as a group

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Reactions

Some common reactions to the “WM miracle” include:

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

Envy can create:

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

Fear can create:

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

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

Other aspects of the reaction include:

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

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

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

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

Aspects of Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

  • WM = war
  • WM = destruction

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

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

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

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

Other ways of male suppression include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

This, of course, is not true.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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