In the past little while I have found myself saying a statement more and more. This is what I say:
“I will not change my real world observations to fit American political/legal ideology.”
Basically, my real world observations are conflicting with American legal/political ideology. I should point out that when I say “real world” I am referring to what I am actually seeing-as-it-happens. In other words, I’m not trying to reinterpret what happens. I try to look at things plainly and in a common sense manner. In so doing it becomes quite clear that many things that American legal/political ideology claims to be happening is not, in actuality, happening. At times, I must admit, it seems almost like a big fabrication or distortion and, at times, even an outright lie. This is not all that surprising as American legal/political ideology is an idealistic image of the world, based in idealism. By ‘idealism’ I mean that it has an attitude of “it would be nice if the world was like this”. Sounds good, but that’s not how the real world works. In fact, many Americans have so elevated their idealistic political/legal viewpoints that they think that its part of the natural order of the world. As a result, they are trying to make the world fit that idealistic viewpoint. This is unrealistic. Its like trying to turn the world into a fantasy-land. As a result, an unrealistic and, in some ways, almost insane worldview has been created. One of the things it has done is create a world of paranoid people seeing bad intentions in everything, who see threats everywhere and in everyone, who are frightened of everything, and see the worst in people.
Much of this paranoia, fear, and such originates from the cold war and is, in actuality, a remnant of it. During that time there was a general fear of nuclear war which began to permeate our everyday lives, manifesting in many different ways. People began to see threats in people, and malicious intent in actions or statements. It caused a general paranoid sense. As a defense they used the American political/legal theories to protect themselves. They began to see, for example, that everything under the sun violated their Constitutional rights and that life revolves around fighting for freedom against an oppressive tyrannical regime. The emphasis on political/legal ideas is a result of the fact that the cold war was a ‘political theory war’, between American democracy and Soviet communism. As a result, people glorified American democracy, politics, and law. This made it only natural to use American political/legal theory as a defense against their paranoid feelings. This tendency has continues on down today, over twenty years after the cold war ended!
This viewpoint has created a world that is pathetic and ridiculous. I have found that I am tired of living in a world of paranoid frightened people who see and assume malicious intents, bad feelings, and hatred in everything and then make a political/legal issue out of it. And, more importantly, I’m tired of having it affect my life. I do not want to part of this paranoid scared frightened world viewpoint. As a result, I am beginning to OPPOSE, CHALLENGE, and DISPROVE this ridiculous way of looking at things. Much of my real-world observation is showing its error and it’s almost fantasy land-like quality, often bordering on delusion. I am not going to change any of my real-world views to fit its fantasy land delusional character. I’ve seen quite a few people who think that I’m supposed to “mould” myself to this paranoid political/legal viewpoint, but that is like distorting reality . . . their asking me to continue their madness.
This feeling, I know, is shared by many people as I hear people speak of it all the time. Everyday we sit and hear of the endless accusations of ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, and any other ‘-ist’ you can think of, generally for the most stupid and asinine of things. We hear of people being ‘offended’ by simple everyday statements. We hear of idiotic lawsuits and have to adjust our lives to stupid asinine paranoid-based rules. Its got to the point that you have to be careful of everything you say or do around people . . . we’ve become a bunch of scared frightened paranoid people. The land of the brave, huh! . . . it’s the land of the paranoid. And, what’s worse, we’re turning it into law, making it ‘official’! In a way, the U.S. is creating an officially sanctioned, politically and legally supported paranoia. This is why I often jokingly call it the “official paranoia” or the “state sanctioned paranoia” or the “politically/legally sanctioned paranoia”. To put it simply, the American political/legal system is supporting and maintaining this paranoia. Its giving it its relevance and its authority.
The American legal system and way of life is becoming one of ‘hidden’ or ‘disguised paranoia’. Its become a bunch of people who are scared of each other, willing to accuse, sue, or see the worst in people and things at the drop of a hat. Then they disguise it all by making it appear as a legal or political matter, giving it the illusion that it is a legitimate concern. I often joked that, on the travel brochures to the U.S., they should put this statement on the top: “Come to America and watch a country find the worst in people – watch the paranoia! – have a ball and laugh!”.
Some of the things that this “official paranoia” causes are:
- Seeing some form of threat everywhere. In people’s actions, statements, in movies, in everything . . . you name it.
- Being offended by simple things and making it out as something that will kill you.
- Using the system to support your paranoia. Usually, this entails lawsuits of some form.
- Endless complaining about simple things.
- Political/legal name calling.
- Stupid laws and policies.
- Ridiculous everyday rules and ‘etiquette’, usually to avoid a paranoia or offending people.
Typically, this point of view does two things:
- They assume bad. I have been repetitively stunned at how people assume the bad in people and things. You say something, for example, and they automatically assume it has bad intentions. Often, they literally create it out of nothing, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
- They exaggerate the bad. When there is something ‘bad’ then they exaggerate it to no end, making it ‘doubly bad’ or even ‘triply bad’. As a result, the end up making things worse than they are.
All this has comes too easily – its like they WANT to see bad. And from my experience this is somewhat true. In many ways, this seeing the political/legal bad in people has become like a neuroses. The legal/political accusations and paranoia have given many people an avenue for their personal problems, a way to vent, and to outlash at society for their frustrations. There are many people who use it for this intent too. In effect, it has created a new form of abuse: the “officially sanctioned abuse”. By this I mean that they use the political/legal viewpoints as a means to deal with their personal dilemmas. This means that it is ‘outlashed’ at people and society who are basically innocent victims. For some people, its become a way of life. Because it is “officially sanctioned” by politics and law, few people question it or even notice. This is one of the reasons why we cannot seem to change it, it’s officially sanctioned”.
What this viewpoint has done is started a warped view of things. It does this by:
- Twisting things around.
- Denying certain things.
- Expecting unrealistic things.
- Hiding their own bad feelings behind legal/political ideology.
I received several criticism about an article I wrote called “Thoughts on matriarchal societies: Africa, slavery, and rebuilding – the effects of non-organized society“. They are quite interesting. This is part of what one of them said: “you are, actually, a facile idiot–racist and sexist, to boot. ugh.” This is part of what the other one said, ” . . . you can not equate your findings based on patriarchal tenets you male chauvinist dummy”. Now, I understand that the persons who wrote these were probably a ‘web surfer’ and does not realize or understand that this was nothing but a psychological/anthropological observation (they probably know nothing about psychology and anthropology). But what’s interesting is the subjects that were brought up. These include:
- What they immediately assumed I was saying, that I was saying bad things about people. Nowhere, in that article, did I degrade or downplay black people or the female, nor was any intended. I was describing something that occurred to me one day that revolves around what I know about Africa, anthropology, and the female character. In fact, near the end I put ‘special emphasis’ on how I was not degrading the female in particular! Where, then, does the claim of sexist and racist originate from? . . . Knowing the way of things , it was ASSUMED because of the SUBJECT MATTER (female and black people) and because it is a critical observation (meaning that it shows some bad aspects of the female character that “happens” to involve black people). But, the fact that it is critical does not make it anything bad or degrading or entailing malicious intent. I’ve found that many people think that critical statements are ‘bad’ and a result of malicious intent . . . this is like saying that all we can do is praise people all the time. If we do anything else then we’re ‘racists’, or whatever, with malicious intent. In the real world, critical views of people, society, and the world are normal. Even this article is a critical observation. So what does that mean? . . . I’m trying to degrade people with it? Perhaps we can make a political/legal issue out of it and say that I am a “readerist” and that it shows my hate-filled contempt for people?
- The name calling. This is a good example of how the people who accuse people are often the ones with the ‘bad feelings’. Not only was I called an ‘idiot’ or a ‘dummy’ but also the political/legal terms ‘racist’ and ‘sexist’ and ‘male chauvinist’. This does not surprise me. My experience is that people who accuse using political/legal jargon are often the ones with the ‘bad’ feelings. Many who called someone ‘racist’, for example, are themselves racist. I’ve seen many black people condemn white people as ‘racist’ then turn around and display hatred toward white people like it was nothing. Just because someone uses political/legal jargon does not mean that they are right.
- The second one also seems to say that I cannot know anything about matriarchies from a patriarchy point of view or, basically, that I know nothing about the female because I’m a male. This point of view I’ve seen before. It’s usually a defense from a female that feels threatened by the male. By making the female ‘unknowable’ by the male they are protected from him. I’m inclined to think that the reason for this sense of being ‘threatened’ is because the person saw ANY criticism against not-so-good female traits, as portrayed in the article, as an attack on the female. Therefore, they made me out as someone who ‘doesn’t know anything about females’ to defend themselves. But I was only making an intellectual observation . . . there was no threat, nor was any intended, in the article. They were the ones who brought that in. And then they blamed and accused me for the feelings which they brought in and which had nothing to do with what I said. In effect, they – not me – turned it into some other thing, twisting it out of proportion. This is actually common for the female character and is seen a lot by feminists. It’s probably no surprise that she used the feminist political/legal jargon of ‘chauvinist pig’ (which I haven’t heard for a long time) as a defense and accusatory statement. In effect, she’s defending herself against her own feelings, feelings she brought up. . . based on a mistaken notion of what she thinks I said.
These criticisms are a good example of some of the problems that American political/legal ideology has created, such as:
- People assume things too quickly and too blindly. Generally, it’s a paranoid easily frightened, easily offended reaction.
- They condemn too easily. It’s like it gives them a “license” to condemn blindly and as freely as they want. Because of this, political/legal ideology has developed a reputation of stupid, asinine, and ridiculous claims and accusations.
- It shows how political/legal ideology has become a medium for personal feelings that are often more reflective of a persons personal problems than anything else. My experience is that when political/legal ideology is cited, it is usually for personal reasons, not political or legal reasons they claim.
- In addition, there is a tendency for them to think that if they use political/legal jargon, that they are ‘right’ and ‘innocent’ of any malice on their part.
What all this does is create a complete distortion of the real world situation. As a result, American political/legal ideology has a tendency to distort the world, making it not what it is and creating a false perspective. This, in many ways, is almost an epidemic in America.
Here are a couple of other examples of how they distort real-world situations:
- As I was brought up I used to hear guys say that girls were ‘weak’, or ‘touchy’, or ‘temperamental’, and such. They also had doubts about females skill at driving and doing things. Many didn’t trust females that much to do responsible things. These were often condemned as ‘sexist’ or degrading in some way or a result of hate (that is, it is made out as a political/legal issue). The problem is that my real-world experience is showing that they are actually quite accurate and truly describe things. In fact, they are some of most accurate descriptions of the female character I’ve ever seen. The problem is that they are usually said out of some sort of frustration so they tend to reflect aspects of their character that create problems. But, from what I mostly saw, the guys are not making it up nor were they saying it for malicious reasons (moreso, it was said out of frustration). So is that ‘sexist’? Is it degrading? Is it even a political/legal issue at all? Certainly not. In most of the cases I’ve seen they are nothing but observations, but they are observations of a frustration and were often said in frustration or a frustration-derived emotion (such as disgust). Because of this, it is critical. But, as I said above, just because something is critical does not make it degrading or malicious in intent. They do describe real-world experience.
- I’ve heard many people condemned for saying they don’t want Mexicans in their neighborhood. It was condemned as being ‘racist’. But is it? When I looked closer at it I found that many people are basing this on experience and observation. I’m not the only one who has mentioned that “wherever there are Mexicans there are problems”. There’s more crime, murder, graffiti, adolescent problems, and such. This is a fact . . . look at the criminal reports! Not all of them are like that, to be sure, but wherever they are there is an increased likelihood of problems. This establishes a “pattern of behaviour” that wherever there is this group of people (Mexicans) then there will most likely be problems. . . problems no one wants. Because of this “pattern of behaviour” people are apprehensive about this group of people. It has nothing to do with them being “Mexican” or their race or their color (those are good American political/legal jargon and sure sound “convincing”). Do you see people behaving this way with Oriental people? No. Why? Because Oriental people generally don’t create problems. Here, you can see how the whole political/legal viewpoint has distorted things, making things worse than they really are.
- I couldn’t believe it when I saw this: http://www.today.com/moms/8-year-old-gets-sexist-book-removed-bookstore-8C11327618. Here they called two books “sexist” because one book was directed to boy interests and the other to girls interests. My god, what’s wrong with that? Where have these people been? Things have been like that since the beginning of time. But, whip out the political/legal nonsense, and its all of a sudden bad. Notice how its a denial of a natural condition (the difference between male and female character). Notice how it assumed malicious intent. Notice how they turned a simple thing (books directed toward the male and female charcter) out as something bad and horrible. Notice how they used political/legal “name calling” as authority. In this case, it was they, themselves, that made the books out as bad. They are the ones who created the bad, as if pulling it out of a hat. The books, themselves, did not create this problem . . . they did. Its nothing but a big distortion of real-world life. I’ve found that females are the worst to do this type of thing. After that are minorities.
- Many of us have been baffled about how many people have said that words like “redskins” (referring to the American Indians) is a ‘racist’ term. By ‘racist, of course, meaning that it was said with a malicious intent (remember that we’re supposed to hate people because their skin color is different, have genocidal feelings, etc.). Personally, in my life, I don’t see any evidence of this. I’ve even been called ‘white’ or even ‘whitey’. Sometimes, this has been said in a not-so-good light (that is, with a contempt). I never made a big deal about it though. I’ve found that people can make any word derogatory, degrading, and such. Anybody can add emotion to any word to make it sound bad. I recall I used to hear people say how bad ‘nigger’ was. Personally, this always baffled me as I saw ‘nigger’, ‘negro’, and ‘black’ as refering to the same thing: African people. I saw many people use the term ‘nigger’ without any malicious intent, often very courteously. As I grew older, of course, I discovered that in the Old South it was used in a very derogatory sense . . . but thats in the Old South and I don’t live there! In this case the question becomes: if I were to use the term, as I don’t live in the Old South, does it make it a ‘racist’ remark (with malicious intent) or are we making it ‘racist’ (malicious)? My answer, based on my personal experience after living in the U.S. all my life, is that we are usually making it ‘racist’, or with malicious intent, most of the time. In other words, Americans tend to create and fabricate a maliciousness in things and then justify it with their political/legal ideology. Just as anyone can add emotion to any word so do Americans add maliciousness to any word, thing, situation, or person. I know . . . I’ve seen it. But, as I said above, not only do they assume and create it but they exaggerate any maliciousness they see, often making it out worse than it really is (sometimes, as if the world is going to end). And all this is founded on their political/legal ideology, as if it gives them license to do it. What this has done is create a whole false and distorted worldview.
Because of what appears to me as an obvious distortion of real-world life I have decided that I am not going to change any of my real-world observations to fit the American paranoid and frightened political/legal fantasy land ideology. The American political/legal ideology has created a false, erroneous, and distorted world which does not portray the world and people correctly. This picture is often so ridiculous that it often goes into the absurd. I’m not going to continue its absurdity.