Thoughts on the competency, legitimacy, and mentality of American law, and other legal things

Over the years I have thought a lot on the competency and legitimacy of American law.  I particularly have great and tremendous doubts about its mentality and logic, which seems horribly warped and oddball to me.  Here are some of my thoughts on it (I may of mentioned some of this in previous articles):


To be frank, American law doesn’t impress me all that much and I don’t look to it highly nor do I acknowledge it as an authority.  In other words, I do not look at American law as the “final answer” or “final solution” to problems.  As a general rule, I don’t give much credence to American law and treat a lot of its judgement’s much like the statements from tabloid magazines . . . more likely to be ridiculous than something to take seriously.  I particularly don’t like this warped oddball mentality hovering over me with its “pretended authority”.  In short, American law has not earned my respect and belief.  In fact, my feelings and observation is that American law has largely failed in earning respect and belief from most of the people.  This is something that it really needs to do.

What all this more or less means is that law cannot be considered legitimate until it has earned the respect and belief of the people.  Notice the word “earned”.  I have always had this belief that law needs to earn respect.  Generally, though, law does not earn respect but only demands it, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.  This is particularly so in larger societies.  But, regardless of this, I tend to believe that any “true law” is a law that has earned the respect from the people.  Since this has not happened in the U.S. it means that American law is not a “true law”.

I think I’d call American law an “expedient law”, done out of necessity and expediency. This, though, still does not make it any more “true”.  If anything, “expedient law” is a type of law that has been degraded and broken down because of necessity and expediency.  This is why I consider American law a degraded and broken down form of law.  Though it may “somewhat work” it still hasn’t earned respect and, accordingly, it is cannot be considered a legitimate form of law.


Much of law nowadays, it seems to me, is what I often jokingly call “mechanized law”.  Law is basically treated like its a machine.  Its a mentality that has qualities such as:

  • It is abstract, to the point of being mechanical or mathematical, in its mentality.
  • It gets too wound up in details, to the point of ridiculousness.  There are too many “technicalities” based in things like wordings, grammar, policies, and a multitude of other things.
  • It tends to be divorced from the real world.
  • It creates a false reality where all of its principles work:  the “legal world” (see below).

What we see then is a mentality that lacks wisdom.  Instead, legal matters are treated more like an engineering or mathematical problem.  Overall, its a mentality that appears much like “if a equals b then go to c; if b does not equal b then go to d”, and so on.  More than once, after listening to lawyers and judges, have I said statements like this:  “what are they doing, trying to figure the motion of a spacecraft through space with tragectories, forces, vectors, and that?”  I’m waiting for the time when they will start using mathematical formulas and equations to solve legal problems.

In my worthless opinion (as anything I say that conflicts with the law will be made worthless in some way), the “mechanized law” mentality makes law incompetent.  It does this a number of ways:

  • It does not cater to “human reality”.
  • It is not based in human culture, belief, etc.
  • It tends to neglect “actual real-life conditions”.  That is to say, everything is compared to the philosophy of the “legal world” and how it interprets things.
  • It lacks wisdom and common sense.
  • Its too based on their own legal logic.

These tend to make “mechanized law” inefficient from the human world standpoint and, subsequently, it often tends to be in error.

The problem, though, is that the “mechanized law” mentality is something that works well in a massive social system, which is why it is so prevalent.  In fact, one could say that it makes it necessary.  In other words, “mechanized law” is competent for a system but its not competent on the human level.  This is where it horribly fails.  Its here that I primarily dispute it.


The “mechanized law” mentality is based in what I call the “legal world”.  This is an image of the world, and how it works, based on legal principles, ideals, and other miscellaneous legal details.  It is literally a world view, very much like what science or religion has created.  Over the years, the “legal world” has become so massive that it has, in some sense, become a whole other abstract image of the world.  It is the “world view of lawyers”, so to speak.  The problem is that the “legal world” does not match the real world and human reality.  It is simply too abstract and based too much on its own intellectual principles and ideas.  This is not how the real world works, though. This is the basic problem of the “legal world”.

I find the “legal world” not all that convincing.  This is because of things like these:

  • It has become so complicated that a person has to go through years of schooling just to understand it.
  • Its something that is never taught to the common people.  The “legal world” is something the legal system keeps to itself like some secret holy relic.  Most people haven’t a clue about its principles.  But, we must remember, we are judged by this unknown secret mentality that only lawyers understand!
  • It often does not follow societies beliefs and principles.
  • It tends to neglect real world and human reality.
  • It tends to cater to specific beliefs and points of view, such as liberalism, which often does not reflect the people themselves.
  • It is too reliant on abstract, mechanistic, and math-like thinking.
  • It relies on thinking that is unique to its logic, policies, and points of view.
  • It lacks wisdom.
  • It views its rulings as “final!” and the “last word!” as if it were the word of god.

I find, though, that one of the reasons why its not convincing is that it is not based in a “right” or a “truth”.  Law is actually based in expedient need.  In other words, law does not solve things by being “right” and “true” but more in the context of “its the easiest way to solve the problem”.  This is because the primary purpose of law is based in these things:

  • To end conflicts and disputes between people as simply as possible and without violence.  In this way, law is rooted in an expediency or a necessary need.  This, in actuality, is the real “need” of law, not that it is “right” or “true”.
  • Law tries to impose its principles in any way possible.  In this sense, we could say that law is based in a desperation, of trying to make a judgment that “works”.
  • It uses any form of authority to achieve this.  In this way, law is a handmaiden of the current existing form of authority.  Whatever authority is in power is what is used.  Since authority changes through the years the authority law uses changes.
  • The law is often “forced” upon people, usually the people who are adversely affected by it.   In fact, many people have judgement’s forced upon them that they, themselves, do not understand or believe in.  All they can say is, “they say the law says this is a crime”, but they don’t understand it.  I’ve seen this many times.

In this way, we could say that law is a desperate form of expediency, that is generally forced upon people, with whatever authority works, in order to limit conflict.  In this way, the law is not motivated out of “right”, as is commonly supposed.  Accordingly, one should not look at the law as a source of “right”.  Its purpose is to end problems as quickly as possible so they do not get out of control. 


We see, then, that “right” and “truth”, in actuality, do not figure that well into law.  We could then say that law is based in these three things:

  1. The use of whatever means to prevent conflict.
  2. The use of whatever authority to bring this about.
  3. The use of whatever control to enforce it.

This creates what can be called “legally justified right”.  That is, they are justified by these conditions.  What this does, though, is to create an illusion of the “right” in law.  In actuality, its a myth of right.  One could actually say that “legal right” is whatever works to accomplish those three things! 

This “legally justified right” is the beginning of the false reality of the “legal world”.  With this “legal right”, of whatever works, the false reality is given credence and truth and value.  But, as I said, the “legally justified right” is not based in an actual “right” but in “expedient need”.  These are not the same.  One could compare it to the saying “might makes right”.  The “might” of “legally justified right” makes it “right”, not that it is, in actuality, “right”.

This reveals a basic problem in law, which I call the “legal enigma”.  Basically, law is not motivated by “right” and, as a result, if never completely “right”  nor does it try to be.  But it must be firm in its rulings, asserting that it is “right”, using whatever authority is needed, in order to prevent disputes from getting out of control.  But, because it is never completely “right”, there is often a “fuzziness”, vagueness, or uncertainty that follows many legal disputes, rulings, and so on.  In other words, the fact that it is not motivated by “right” tends to cast a shadow over law of uncertainty.  To put it another way, law pretends at being “right”, with all the pomp of authority, when all its doing is trying to prevent conflict in whatever means possible . . . in actuality, these are at odds with each other. 


Because of the conditions of law, the legal system has to pretend that its rulings are the only and right path and in which there are no alternate or different paths.  This is what I call the “single path dilemma of law”.  The fact, though, is that there are always other paths and points of view that can always be taken in any legal ruling.  Things that cause these other paths and points of view include:

  • Different forms of beliefs. 
  • Different forms of authority.
  • Different schools of thought in law itself.  Just in American law, alone, there are different schools of thought of how this or that should be interpreted.  In this way, we see that law is not a science.

Because of these things most judgments of law can be disputed.  In fact, one could very well say that there are multiple paths that can be taken in most rulings.  In addition, all these different rulings can be viewed as “right” in some way or another.  But, law has to create a “single path” in order to enforce itself and be effective.  It has to “pretend” one ruling is correct over all others when, in actuality, it is not.  This, really, shows that the “single path dilemma of law” is really a continuation of the “legal dilemma”.   Law “pretends” that there is only one path to take (that is, its ruling, its decision, its points of view).  In actuality, this is not the case.  In this way, law is actually “pulling the wool over our eyes” with its “single path”, making it appear as if this is all that there is. 

In addition, in enforcing this “single path” it continues the false reality of the “legal world”, creating its own “truth” when, in fact, there are many.  As I said, a lot of the mentality of the “legal world”, that I have seen, tends to assume that there is a “single path” in law.  I get the impression that many lawyers and judges view law as a “single path”, never even considering that there can be other directions and points of view.  This tends to cause a narrow mindedness in law and in lawyers, I’ve found.  Its one of the things that puts the mentality of law under question.


In order to work, law must have authority.  Over the years, there have appeared a number of different forms:

  • Religious authority.  This is law based in religious belief and principles.  We see this in Judaism and the Middle East, for example.
  • Cultural authority.  This is law based in cultural traditions, customs, and so on.
  • Political authority.  This is law based on political theory.  This is very prevalent in the U.S. and Britain.
  • Logical authority.  This refers to “legal logic” and is primarily restricted to the legal world.  In other words, it is a logic that only lawyers and judges understand.  This means it is part of the “legal world” and “mechanistic law”.

What authority is used depends on the time, place, and conditions.  In many cases, multiple authorities are used or combined in some way.  In the U.S., for example, political and logical authority are often combined.

A problem that is inherent in a large population is the problem of authority.  Typically, the larger the population, and especially the more diversified, the more authorities there are.  What one person may accept as authority is not accepted by another, for example.  In addition, the authority accepted by the legal system is not necessarily the authority accepted by the common people.  As I said above, the “legal world” tends to be removed from the real world.  Because of this, many legal rulings are using authority and logic most people don’t really accept and often aren’t even aware of.  This makes the question of authority a difficult situation in large populations.  This, it seems to me, is one of the reasons why law has sunk deeper into its “legal world” and “mechanistic law” mentality.  It gives them an illusion of a “solution” that makes sense to the legal system.  In other words, in a large population, there tends to be a degradation in religious, cultural, and political authority.  These can be called “social authorities” as they represent social authority.  Because of the degradation of these “social authorities” the law has increasingly had to turn inward into itself, away from “social authorities” and, accordingly, has had to rely on its logic and principles as a basis of its rulings.  In this way, the effect of a larger population is for law to rely increasingly on logical authority.  This has slowly turned into “mechanistic law” over time, where law is treated as a “logical problem” than an act of wisdom.  Its also made law more reliant on its own world its logic creates (the “legal world”).  In addition, because it has turned increasingly inward to its own logic it has increasingly become removed and alienated from everyday life. 

Oftentimes, because of the problem of authority of law its not uncommon that the authority the law uses must be forced in whatever way it can.   In other words, they choose the authority and impose it upon you.  I call this “legally forced authority”.  This is because they are “legally justified” not only their authority but its imposing upon you, even though you haven’t a clue what it is . . . they are satisfied in their mind (another example of the “legal world”).

The best condition, of course, would be where the authority used in law is known and understood by the people being judged.  In a large population, this is becoming less and less attainable.  Many of us listen to the rulings of law and are completely appalled.  “I don’t agree with that!” or “That’s ridiculous!” are common remarks.  I often feel that the people in the legal system, particularly judges, should listen to what people say about their system.  Very few people, that I know, agree with many rulings and tend to view them as biased or motivated by money.  In other words, most people view the legal system as corrupt in some way.  Because of this, its not something to rely on and its rulings are not to be taken seriously.  This point of view is so impactful on the perception of the legal system, and its authority, that it amazes me that the legal system hasn’t looked at it seriously.  I tend to believe that this is because the legal system lives in its “legal world” much like a hermit crab lives in its shell.  It shows a great divide between the “legal world” and the real world.


The “mechanized law” varies with the form of law.  In some forms of law the “mechanized law” mentality causes endless problems.  In other forms, it may even be beneficial.  To me, there appears to be a spectrum in law, with these two extremes:

  • Fluid law.  This are conditions which there are often many different ways of interpreting things.  This is seen a lot in social situations, such as dealing with marriage, family, and criminal law.  This form of law has a bad reputation for being “right”.
  • Concrete law.  This are conditions are typically not social in orientation, but involve non-human type of things.  Examples include trade, business, property, patent law, and similar law.  In this form of law “mechanized law” is often beneficial and has helped a lot.

Most of the failure of law is in fluid law.  Since this is more social based, the problems associated with this law are reflective of social problems.  My opinion is that law cannot really solve social problems that well but yet it tries to.  When law is used as an “attempt” to solve social problems, such as divorce law or racial problems, it often only succeeds because its rulings are “forced” upon people.  The fact that they have to “force” their rulings shows that it is not a “solution”.  In actuality, I do not view the law as sufficient authority in social matters and do not assume any of its rulings are “correct”.  I have never turned to the law as a source of how society should be and I believe there is a reason for that.  But one of the effects of its increasingly having to force its rulings in social matters is that it has increasingly “acted” as if it was the solution to social problems.  In this way, the law has often “pretended” to be the “authority in social matters” which it is not.  I often get a chuckle how law often tries to pretend to solve societies problems with its rulings.  With what I have seen of the rulings and decisions of law so far . . . so what!  Who cares what they think.  But the problem is that they are the ones who judge us!


The law will make judgement on you whether you know the law or not.  I have always maintained that a person cannot be held accountable by a law they did not know existed.  This, to me, is common sense but we must remember that the “legal world” is removed from the real world and tends to not know what common sense is.  Remember its based in “expedient need” . . . it must make a ruling and it must be “right” according to its dictates and citing its authority.  This attitude in law tends to negate common sense.

I have always felt that a person should have some understanding of what the law expects of us.  In my life, I have had absolutely NO instruction into what the law expects me to do or not do.  All that I have learned was from hearsay or personal inquiry.  I have always jokingly said that I held the legal system “negligent” because of its failure to instruct the people what it expects them to do.  I have even went further and said:  “the legal system has been so negligent in its teaching of the law that it is not competent to make judgements.”

But there’s even more to the lack of being taught the law.  As I have looked into the legal system on my own (as the law surely wouldn’t teach us anything), I have often been appalled by their logic, mentality, and point of view.  Reading many court cases is often like reading some oddball, bizarre, and weird science fiction stories about aliens.  In science fiction stories about aliens they have to “make up” things for the aliens, often going into the bizarre and ridiculous.  To be frank, that’s what a lot of court cases look like!  The logic, points of view, etc. sound almost “made up” by the lawyers . . . they just “dress it up” with legal jargon, principles, and such to make it sound legitimate.  Many of us have heard the logic used in the courts and said, “are you kidding?”

Some of the things that have been ridiculous include:

  • What they admit and do not admit as “evidence”.
  • The procedures of the courts and how they are held.  For example, I’ve been appalled how, in some cases, everything must be done in a certain limited period of time.
  • The role and actions of the lawyers.  I’ve been appalled watching how lawyers twist and warp things to their advantage.
  • The logic and mentality they use.  Often, the logic doesn’t make any sense at all.
  • How they use the laws own “legal authorities” and policies as a basis of everything.  Often, the common people are in complete dark about it all too!  They are as if watching this play before them spoken in a foreign language.

More than once have I stated “what the crap?” after reading court cases.  Its quite clear that the legal system lives in its own world and that there is a gap between the legal system and society.


It seems, to me, that the current legal system seems based in conditions like these:

  • A smaller society.
  • A society where authority is defined.
  • A society where the culture is more unified.

With these conditions, law is more a part of culture and everyday life.  In conditions like this, law works better.  This is because of things like this:

  • People know the law.
  • The law is based in the culture.
  • The authority of law is accepted.
  • Its judgement’s are accepted.

Unfortunately, the conditions that cause these no longer exist.  In other words, the legal system is actually based in conditions that were existing centuries ago.  As a result, it assumes the same things, even though conditions have changed.  Some of the things that have changed include:

  • Society has become a mass society.
  • There are too many points of view, beliefs, and such.
  • There has been a breakdown of culture.

These new conditions do not match the conditions that the law is based in.  Regardless of this, the legal system is still functioning as if it is still centuries ago.  The new conditions has put a great dilemma in the legal system.

The reaction to these breakdowns primarily seem to be in the creation of “mechanistic law” and the “legal world” with its abstract disconnected thinking  . . . law is turned into something like math.  This “mechanistic law” and “legal world”, of course, treats society like a system, a big machine.  Accordingly, people and their problems are treated that way as well, as part of that machine.  On the surface – that is, on an abstract, mechanistic, and system level – it seems to work.  But it fails on the human level.  As a result, I don’t see modern law as a solution to human problems.  What this more or less shows is that, with the new conditions created by mass society and such, law is really ceasing to be a solution to human problems and problems between people as it was in the past.  In other words, law has changed primarily by becoming more ineffective.  It seems, to me, that law is primarily a “forcing” than a solving.  What’s worse, its a “forcing without understanding” in many cases.  Many people are forced to do things they don’t understand or never even knew about.  This all shows how disconnected law is.


Apparently, I’m the only person who really says anything about the law. What most people do is grumble about it.  No one really seriously looks at it.  Many people tend to distance themselves from the law saying things like “its corrupt” or “its all about power” and such. They are really only expressing their helplessness to it.  In other words, most people don’t have any interest in it and tend to distance themselves from it.  But I seem to be particularly concerned about it.  I tend to feel it is a result of a number of things such as:

  • I can see that there is a deeper relevance in the nature and meaning of law.  Its not just policies, rulings, judgments, and such.  It goes deeper.
  • As I have looked at other cultures (that haven’t broken down like the U.S.) I can see that there is naturally appearing close association between law, culture, and everyday life.  I can see that law is a significant contributor to life and how to lead it.  In this way, it makes law a significant part of life.
  • The power of law.  There is a lot of abuse of power in American law, of manipulation, corruption, distortion, etc.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that.
  • I am appalled by what I see in American law.  The absurdity, ridiculousness, and such is embarrassing and disgraceful to me.
  • The deeper meaning of it all.  I very well know that the “mechanistic law” and all that, shows a breakdown of this society.  It says a lot about this country.
  • The fact that I believe in law.  I believe in what the law represents and want to believe and respect it.  Much of American law, though, isn’t giving me that much cause to do that.

At the base of all these is really a concern about the nature and meaning of law.  I seem to be the only person, that I know, who inquires about these aspects of law.  I don’t look at law as policies, procedures, and such.  I look at its meaning in life and what its nature is. Looking at things from this perspective makes things look totally different.  I know, from conversations with people, that my looking at things in this way reveals a whole other side to it that people don’t see.  It makes me look at law more seriously.  I also look at it as reflection of who we are.  In addition, I see it as something that affects us and our life.


Overall, what I seem to see in law is a basic disconnect between the law, authority, culture, everyday life, and the people.  My feelings is that this is far more bigger and serious than it seems.  In fact, this great disconnect is one of the reasons why law figures less and less in peoples minds.  In most cultures, there is such an association between the law and culture that they are often intertwined.  As a result, it figures in peoples everyday life and everyday behavior.  In the U.S. the law has become so disconnected, and the “legal world” has become so extensive, that there is less and less an association between the law and culture.  As a result, the law isn’t even a thought in peoples minds and doesn’t figure in everyday life.  Because of this, many people do not know if this or that is illegal.  Just in the past several weeks, for example, I’ve heard several discussions where people were wondering what a person is supposed to do legally in certain situations while driving.  Basically, no one knew!

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Current affairs and events, Law and legal stuff, Modern life and society, Society, The U.S. and American society | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on the value of degree’s with remarks about some of the problems and illusions they create

In a recent conversation I said something interesting . . . I said that degree’s were misleading, an illusion, and not what they seem.  It made me wonder of their value.  Here are some of my thoughts:


It seems, to me, that there tends to be several different purposes of the degree.  These are:

  1. The degree as some sort of “certification”.  The “degree” really began with the Catholic church as something like a “certification” of a priest, saying that he “knew the information and doctrine”.  This shows that a degree is a form of “certification” from its earliest origin. Its basis in the church may be why there is still great ceremony surrounding the degree.  In this form, it is primarily used for practical reasons and that the people using it see it only for practical means . . . it shows that the person knows what they are doing.
  2. The degree as a “badge of distinction”.  In this type, it is primarily sought for social prestige or status.  Specific fields, specific Universities, and specific scholastic accomplishments (such as a PhD) are often sought in order to achieve this.  It makes a person look good and can even help a person “get ahead”, even if it has no real practical value.
  3. The degree as a “human robot”.  This is primarily a manifestation of work and jobs. The idea behind this form of degree is that it says that the people “know everything before they are hired”.  In other words, the degree is treating the employee much like a “turnkey system”, already to go, just plug it in and it goes.  In short, a degree is used to make human robots geared to perform a specific function.

I tend to feel that the degree was originally created as something like a “certification” and that is its primary value.  As a result of this, the question of the value of a degree, in my opinion, really rests on its “certification” qualities.  This means that the importance of a degree primarily rests in what it certifies.  The “badge of distinction” is just social prestige and status . . . really, it has no practical value.  The “human robot” is taking this “certification” quality more to the extreme, to guarantee that a person “knows what to do”.

But the big question is what needs to be certified?  Does someone knowing how to work AutoCAD, for example, require a degree as a “certification”?  As a draftsman for a quarter of a century, I’d say no.  I don’t believe a person needs to have a degree in drafting to do it, but they need to know how to do it.  A degree, with all the general ed, miscellaneous classes, and such, seems an overkill to me and completely unnecessary.  I tend to believe that a person could do things like take night classes, on-the-job training, or an apprentice program and that would be sufficient.  This is because drafting is just “something one learns to do”, like learning how to cook or drive a car.  Its not like some great complicated beast of a thing like surgery.  A person only needs to learn how to do it.  In other words, I tend to believe that “something one learns to do” does not need “certification” (that is, a degree), only the knowledge of how to do it.  They don’t need to know all the other stuff that is required for a degree.  In actuality, most people forget it in a matter of years anyways.  As a rule, I tend to feel that degree’s are a waste of time and money for most people and fields.  The bulk of fields is nothing but “something one learns to do” which don’t require a degree (at least, in my opinion).

It seems, to me, that degree’s, with all their complexity, should only be used when several qualities are needed:

  1. The need for an overall base of knowledge (meaning general education, which is needed in some fields but not many, such as a teacher).
  2. The need for the learning of a mass of critical information (such as all the information required to be an Engineer).
  3. Where there is great responsibility in what one does (such as a Medical Doctor, to ensure that they know what they are doing).  

Fields that fit these qualities include an Medical Doctor, Engineering, Law, and such.  These fields require a degree as a “certification”.  Most fields don’t need the extent of what these require, I don’t think.  As a general rule, most fields do not fit in these three qualities.


With the way business and the economy is now many companies want a person to be more than certified. They want them to be a “human robot” that knows what to do the day they are hired.  Examples of what causes this include:

  • Big companies with a large turnover of employee’s.  They don’t want to continually teach people what to do.
  • Companies where people are just “cogs in the machine”, behaving much like a machine.
  • With the new technologically based “machine economy” the person, as a “human robot”, has its benefits.  It makes people fit the “machine economy” environment better.  In other words, people have to make themselves like a machine in order to fit into the “machine economy”.

Recently, the “human robot” point of view has become increasingly critical.  In many cases, it has become the reason for degree’s and its main value.  It says to the employer, “here is a human robot who has been pre-programmed”.  But one of the effects of the “human robot” point of view is that it has given the degree a quality that is not a lot of different than “programming a computer”.  The person, in this case, is whats “programmed” to do a specific function, task, or work.  What this means is that, in the “human robot” point of view, the person is treated much like a computer, of something that has been “programmed”.  Accordingly, they are expected to behave like a computer in the working world, to do “what its programmed to do”.  I should point out that this doesn’t just mean that we are talking about menial-like work, such as working some machinery.  It could also include intellectual-like work, such as some Medical Doctors and Engineers, for example.  In fact, I have been surprised how many intellectual-like work is becoming more and more “robotic” in nature, to the point that many of these jobs are really no different than being something like a “human calculator” to solve specific problems.  The fact is that a lot of work nowadays, both menial and intellectual, is becoming increasingly “robotic” in nature, requiring “human robots”.  Accordingly, this point of view is becoming increasingly prevalent.

The main value of the “human robot” point of view is:

  • From the employers perspective:  the employee is a “robot” that will do his job with minimal effort and expense.
  • From the employee’s perspective:  a wage

The prevalence of the “human robot” point of view seems to be a result of the conditions of business and economy today.  As a result, the “human robot” point of view is one of necessity that the times have created, both for the employer and employee.  Because of this, it has increasingly become a common reason for a degree.


It seems like there is a historical progression of the degree.  It seems to go in this pattern:

  • The Church.  The degree is something that descends from when the University was controlled by the church and was primarily for clerical or church purposes.  In other words, it wasn’t to train doctors, lawyers, engineers, and such.  It was primarily a place where people learned church matters.  A degree often allowed them to rise up in the church.  This phase seemed to give a quality of holiness or sanctity to degrees.  This began in the early middle ages.
  • Politics.  Over time, the church became associated with politics.  As a result, many people in the church would be involved in politics and the power associated with it.  This would give a degree an even greater social status and importance in the society.  It also gave it a political power.  This phase seemed to give a quality of power to degrees. This seemed to appear during the Crusades.
  • The learning of the classics.  The discovery, and growth, of the Greek and Roman classics were added to the curriculum.  People like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates became a requirement.  Because this is not inherently associated with the church or politics it gave a new dimension to degree’s.  It seemed that “knowledge for knowledge sake” became more important, and not church or politics.  Because of this it increasingly became associated with “common people” (non-church people and non-politicians).  In some respects, it was when the “common people” began to learn the classics at the University that the idea of the “educated” appeared, as if to imply that the “common man has become elevated above his station”.  This gave this almost magical and, sometimes, superhuman quality to the idea of education, which persists to this day.  This phase gave qualities to degree’s such as social status (“educated”) and “knowing things”.  This began to get particularly strong during the late middle ages.  This phase would help the establishment of the next phase.
  • Social status. This began primarily after the French Revolution and, in some respects, is in response to it.  Getting a degree became a way to turn the “common man into a nobleman”, so to speak.  In other words, it “broke the social structure”, reflecting the ideals of the French Revolution.  Because of this, it was often looked at very highly and was greatly esteemed.  Many common people would get a degree for this reason alone.  This phase gave a quality of something esteemed and social importance to degree’s.  This phase would particularly be supported by the next phase.
  • Science.  With the coming of science, and what it created, the University would become associated with scientific knowledge.  As a result, a person had to “know this” and “know that”.  In some respects, this phase is just a continuation of the Classics phase, except that it changed to scientific knowledge.  This gave the quality of novelty and “knowing stuff” to degree’s.  This phase got really established in the mid 1800’s.
  • Professions.  Science would create many new professions.  As a result, a degree would be associated with this profession.  With the “regulation” of many professions (such as medicine or engineering) a degree would be required.  This phase gave the quality of social status and wealth to degree’s.  This appeared in the late 1800’s.
  • Trades and jobs in general.  The industrial and consumer revolution created many new trades and jobs.  Many of these were new and, because of that, would follow the already existing pattern of degrees for professions.  They ended up creating “lesser degree’s” but followed the framework of the professions, of learning all this stuff that you don’t need to know and is unnecessary.  In actuality, a lot of these news jobs are really “something you learn to do”.  This phase gave the quality of “accessibility to the common man” and making a living to degree’s.  This phase started to grow in the early 1900’s.

The progression of the degree seems to follow this pattern but, keep in mind, that when one phase appeared the previous didn’t die.  One phase did not supplant the previous one.  In actuality, each new phase tended to be something that was additional, that gave a new dimension to degree’s.  As a result, qualities found in each phase are often seen associated with degree’s.  Which quality is most prevalent, though, depends on the field you’re in.  As a result, in one field the quality of “knowing stuff” is most important.  In another it is social status.

What the different stages of degree’s shows is that the awarding of degree’s reflects the societies values and conditions during that era.  That doesn’t necessarily mean it is important or necessary . . . its what is viewed as important and necessary at that time.  What this means is that degree’s were not really created out of the context of a practical working situation but as a manifestation of the ideals and conditions of an eraIn other words, degree’s were not really created out of need and requirement.  This is part of the illusion of degree’s . . . they often only “appear” to be important.


A myth that I used to hear a lot when I was a kid is that degree’s somehow “make better people” or it, somehow, puts people on a higher plane.  At one time even I believed that.  This attitude is actually a mixture of several qualities found during different phases of the degree, as described above.  These include:

  • The influence of the church – a degree makes a person on a “higher” reality, divine, holy, or even super-human.
  • The influence of social status – they rise above the common people and become something like nobility.
  • The influence of professions – they make a living that gives the wealth to act important.

These qualities tend to create this idea that an “educated” person is this great person that is better than everyone else.  But when I went to the University I found that this was not true.  I did not see any proof (and still haven’t) that an “educated” person is better than an uneducated person.  In fact, my inquiry and experience has shown that the most descent, genuine, natural, and intelligent people tend to have little education or are uneducated.  The more educated the more phony and artificial a person is, typically.  One reason why is that they have spent too much time listening to other peoples ideas and such . . . they haven’t had time to develop themselves or their abilities.  Most of what they do is repeat what they heard or read in class which gives the illusion of intelligence.  This brings up the question of over-education . . .


In actuality, I tend to view that going to the University or College – “advanced schooling” – is something most people should not do.  In other words, I tend to view that too much schooling adversely affects most people.  To me, “advanced schooling” is something only some people should be doing. My general feeling that, after learning the basic stuff for life, its better for most people to NOT do any “advanced schooling”.  If they do go on to “advanced schooling” then its because of things like these:

  • They have to do it in order to pursue some other motive, such as to become an officer in the military.
  • They are inclined to do it, such as by a great desire or “dream”.
  • They have an ability which makes them want to develop or use it.

Most people, from my experience, continue on to “advanced schooling” for other lesser reasons, such as:

  • They want to make more money.  I was surprised when I went to the University how many people really didn’t even have that much of an interest in their field of study . . . it was all about the money.
  • Because they are told to do it or its expected of them.  This has become increasingly prevalent nowadays, where public school system is literally “forcing” kids to go the University.
  • Because everyone else is doing it.  This seems a problem with girls nowadays . . . all their friends are going so they have to.

In my opinion, none of these are good enough reasons.  Sadly, they are probably some of the most prevalent reasons.

The prevalence of people going for these “lesser reasons” has created, in my opinion, a degradation in scholarship nowadays.  I generally speak of this as the “cheap scholar”, which I think is becoming more and more of a problem.  Basically, the “cheap scholar” is someone who has no real interest or ability but is able to do what the system requires to pass.  Accordingly, they “appear” to be scholars but really aren’t.  Personally, I think the “cheap scholar” is a threat to scholarship nowadays.

Making everyone continue on to “advanced schooling” causes a lot of problems for people.  Some of the things it causes include:

  • It makes everyone the “same”, with the same thoughts, the same point of view, the same basic knowledge, the same perspectives, etc.  They’ve all read the same material, are told the same stuff, and all from the same point of view as everyone else.  Modern schooling is a “blur of sameness”.  More than once have I compared the schooling system to an “assembly line” because that is what it is.  Because of this, it actually impairs peoples ability to “develop on their own”.  It does make the masses more alike, though, almost like robots.  For this society, this sometimes seems like an ideal.
  • It impairs natural abilities.  I seem to feel that there are many natural abilities that are being destroyed or neglected by over-education.  For many people, the abilities destroyed or neglected are often the qualities that need to be developed.
  • It tends to favor a specific type of person.  This is usually a person who has an ability to do what is required.  This ability, I should note, is not necessarily the same as being “intelligent” or “educated”, though it may appear to be the case.  Its primarily a person who displays the qualities the system or system “thinks” is important.
  • Most people do not fit the character of person described above.  As a result, many people will try to force themselves to be that type of person, even though they aren’t like that.  In other words, over-education tends to alienate people from themselves and who they are.
  • It tends to create too many people who “know” things that have no value in the real world and life.
  • It creates a condition where people live in an “abstract world” detached from everyday life.
  • It creates illusionary abilities.  Many people develop this idea that they have abilities they don’t have.  This is because they are repeating what someone else did and, because they understand it, they think that it originated from them.  This, I think, is far more prevalent than what it may seem.
  • It is a waste of money, time, effort, and stress.  Many people waste these things when it could of been put to better use in other ways.

Personally, I think there should be a movement away from education and “advanced schooling” for most people.  The time and energy that is used for “advanced schooling” could be used for other ends.

In my opinion, a degree typically means that someone has only “done what the system wants” . . . it doesn’t guarantee anything more than that In other words, they learned what the system views as important.  They learned it, repeated it on a test, and all in the way the system views as important.  This brings up the question: who made the school system the authority in what constitutes education and learning and how to measure it?  I sure didn’t!  Frankly, I don’t view the schooling system as the authority in these matters.  I don’t go to the Harvard Admissions Department to find out what the qualifications of an “educated” person are.  I’ve always said that if everyone in history had to pass the modern school system, and get a degree, very little would of happened in the world.  The main reason why is that there are qualities, abilities, and attributes that the schooling system doesn’t not take into consideration and are probably unaware of.  Not only that, a lot of people in the world are not scholastically inclined anyways.  I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people who did things in the world probably would of failed in school.  Basically, the modern school systems limited scope of vision, particularistic requirements, and method of measurement would of excluded a lot of people.  That’s how accurate I view the methods of the modern school system!

And doing what the school system wants doesn’t necessarily mean or guarantee that a person is knowledgeable, “smart”, “educated”, or anything like that.  In fact, I’ve talked with quite a few people who have expressed how dumb University students are.  I don’t view University trained people as “intelligent” or “educated” necessarily (though they could prove themselves that way . . . most don’t).  To be frank, I tend to consider people who go to the University as “University robots” who have done nothing but what the system wanted and so are “robots to the University system”.  As a result, they tend to only know “University system stuff”.  With the prevalence of the “human robot” point of view, though, this is what this society wants at this time and thinks is neat.  I don’t agree with that.


In my opinion, the main value of a degree is as a “certification”.  The times, though, has created a need for the “human robot” and the degree is used to ensure that.  It seems, to me, that they have gone a little “overboard” with degree’s and are making everything require a degree including “something that is learned”, which is unnecessary and an overkill.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Posted in Education and learning, Historical stuff, Modern life and society, The 'system' and 'systemism' | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Recently, I have thought a lot on the news media and how one should watch it.  This has been prompted especially by the nonsense, panic, and hysteria that surrounds President Trump recently (see my article “Thoughts on a media-induced mass hysteria . . . the “Trump panic”“).   My observation is that the news media is largely responsible for creating this hysteria and panic, which has gotten out of control.   In addition, they are responsible for keeping it going.  Not only that, the news media has been successful primarily because everyone has been so gullible, believing whatever it says without question.  In short, the combination of the news media and the gullible people have created a mass hysteria and panic which is unnecessary, destructive, and basically over nothing.  This shows that how one watches the news can have great impact.  The result of this observation is that I began to think about how one should watch the news media.  Here are some of my thoughts: How one watches the news is very important.  By “how” I mean things such as these:

  • Why do you watch the news?  What is the purpose for watching the news?  What do you intend to get out of it?  Why listen to the news at all?
  • The stance you take when learning the news.  What’s your position in relation to news?  Do you really care?  Do you really care about any of the “issues”?
  • The attitude you take in regard to news.  Is it meaningful to you?  Do you look for news to find problems?  Do you look for news to find facts?

The “how” will determine what you get out of the news, how you interpret it, how it affects you, and how it affects your world view.  In short, the “how” determines what you get out of the news.  Unfortunately, this is something most people never think of.  People generally hear or read news and blindly react to it without thought or consideration.  Though this may sound comical my observation is that people really need to “prepare” for news.  A person needs to go through their minds what they want out of the news, what they are looking for, and so on.  The thing is to avoid blindly listen to the news which leads to blindly reacting to the news.  When this happens its basically the blind leading the blind.  Blindly reacting to news tends to cause things like over-reactions, misinterpretations, blowing things out of proportion, villainizing, false threats, panic, hysteria, and such. What this more or less says that anyone who listens to the news has a responsibility.  That is to say, a person who listens to the news has a responsibility in how they interpret it and react to it.  There seems to be this belief that a person can interpret and react to the news anyway they want and that they are immune of the consequences.  This is not the case.  Ones reaction to the news is their responsibility, not the news!  In this way, one can speak of “responsibly listening to the news”.


One thing is to never assume what the news media says is true.  As a general rule, I do not look up the news for “information” nor do I view it as THE “source of information”.  In fact, I don’t regularly watch or read the news.  My confrontation of the news is generally because I “happened” to see it somewhere.  I make no effort to see what the news media says, unless I have a specific reason to.  This is because I treat the news media much like gossip or “hearsay”.  As a result, I do not cater to it.  In other words, I do not accept the news as authority and something to be relied on exclusively.  I only view it as something that a news agency or journalist said.  Who made their opinions right?  And who made them the authority in things? My general stance toward news is:  “It could be true but I don’t assume that it is”.  This perspective is not as easy as it sounds as it requires a person to waver between truth and untruth.  It seems, to me, that the inability to do this is one of the main reasons why people so easily believe whatever the news says.  People tend to need a black and white orientation . . . its either true or not true.  Since the news says “something” the tendency is to view it as “true”, whether it is or not.  It makes everything simple.  But, in doing this, people tend to believe whatever the news media dishes out.  It seems that some people even look to the news media to find a certainty in the world.  The “wavering between truth and untruth” seems to require a specific type of person.  That is to say, not everyone can do it.  Some of the qualities it requires include:

  • An attitude of caution.  A person must always be cautious of what the news media states.
  • The ability to hear things and not assume its true . . . develop a doubtfulness.  Many people tend to hear something and automatically assume that its true.  In other words, once they heard it or read it becomes true in their mind.
  • The ability to accept that one “does not know what’s going on”.  Many people have a hard time with this, I’ve found.   People want to know or, rather, they want to think they know.  As a result, they are easily swayed into believing that they do know by the news media.  In fact, this is one of the appeals of the news.  Because of this, many people have a hard time saying something like this:  “despite what they say, I still don’t know what’s going on”.  In other words, people tend to have a hard time hearing something and admitting that they still don’t know, for sure, what’s going on.
  • An awareness and watchfulness . . . a continual vigil and “being on guard”.  Its easy to fall to what they media says . . .  it always sounds true.  A person must continually watch what one hears and how they react.
  • An awareness of ones gullibility.  Many people do not realize how gullible they are and, accordingly, assume they aren’t.  But, the fact is that we all are.  Its good to watch how one responds to things and to watch ones gullibility in action.  I think many people would be amazed by how gullible they really are.

Many of these requires a self-awareness and a humility.  A person must know ones self and how one reacts to things.  In addition, one must have the humility to admit that one does not know, is gullible, etc. My experience is that people who are cautious with the news media tends to be very self-aware.  People who believe everything the news says tend to have little self-awareness.  In other words, there is an association between self-awareness and being gullible to the news media.  In this way, being cautious with the news is often a way of discovering aspects of ones self.


Its also good to watch for the techniques the news media uses in its portrayal of the news. The reality is that most news is actually opinion, not fact.  This is something one should be aware of when listening or reading the news.  In fact, it would be best to assume all news is opinion, regardless of what it is.  The news media is not a science and its not the Bible. Some of the techniques the news media uses include:

  • Hype.  This is a tendency to cater to certain themes excessively, generally to “touch a nerve” with the population so they will get more people reading the news.   Often, it uses great distortion, blowing things out of proportion, twisting things around, and bias.
  • Villainizing.  This is a tendency to portray particular people or things in a particularly bad way.
  • Sanctifying.  This is a tendency to portray particular people or things as “saints” or some great thing.
  • Neglect.  This is a tendency to neglect certain themes in the media.  Because its not reported people are not aware of it.  The fact is that what the news media does not report is often revealing.

In general, the news media tends to “twist things to its orientation”.  As a result, each news agency tends to cater to a particular point of view.  This fact is often neglected and not considered.  People tend to view all news as unbiased and a statements of facts, particularly if its from a “big news agency” such as CNN or NBC.  A good example is “The Salt Lake Tribune”.  This news agency is particularly biased toward a liberal point of view which is why I call it “The Salt Lake Biased Tribune”.  I often read it to not only laugh at the liberal nonsense (which is often hilarious, by the way) but to learn about the liberal mentality.  I sometimes play a game with myself.  I’ll hear of an event in the news and then say, “let me guess . . . The Salt Lake Tribune will portray it this way . . .” The next day I eagerly look at the paper and see what it says.  I’m often right.  Do you understand what this means, if a person knows the mentality of a specific news agency they can sometimes predict how it will portray the news!  This fact, alone, shows how much news agency twists things around.  The moral of the story:  you can’t assume everything a news agency puts out is gospel!


The news is not all of one type, of course.  There are actually different types of news.  In fact, there is actually something like a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is what can be called “concrete news”.  This is news that is hard to distort or twist around.  A good example is the weather or stocks.  Generally, with this type of news they are describing a situation.  Typically, this type is news is not social in orientation. On the other end of the spectrum is what can be called “fluid news”.   This is news that is easily distorted, twisted around, and is greatly influenced by personal opinion and bias. Typically, it entails social issues . . . the more social the more “fluid”.  What this shows is that the more the news is related to society and social issues the more “fluid” it becomes and, accordingly, the more easily distorted.  As a result, any news involving social issues must be looked at with great caution.  This includes news about subjects such as these:

  • People
  • Politics
  • Religion
  • Entertainment
  • Crime

I’ve often been amazed by how much this type of news is nothing but opinion.  Different news agencies, and different people, will give different explanations and interpretations.  But when the news media says it there is this aura of “officialness” to it.  Its actually this type of “officialness” that one must be cautious of.


We must also remember that news media is business.  I’ve often told people that too, reminding them that the news is in the business of having people look at their paper, site, news program, or what have you.  As a result, they “do what it takes” to get that business.  In some respects, the news media is like a big advertising agency, “selling” what they think the consumer (the people) will “buy”.  As a result, the news media will often twist things around, add things, delete things, etc. to make it more “appealing” to the consumers, the people.  What this means is that the news media tends to “dress” up the news to make it more “appealing” to the consumer.  This can even go to the point of making up stories as I, myself, have seen.  Here are several instances:

  • In one instance, I know of a person who was murdered by his wife.  During the hearing a journalist was there from a specific newspaper.  He was only there for about half the hearing.  When we looked at what the newspaper said about the hearing they had completely distorted the situation, making the husband look like some evil bad man.  Everyone was pissed.  The guy didn’t even get the whole story but, yet, he wrote a story in the newspaper!  He was catering to the “battered wife” image, which was not correct.  They apparently viewed that as more appealing to the people than the “mentally ill” issue, which is more accurate.
  • I can remember when the U.S. bombed Bagdad many years ago.  I sat and watched CNN as this situation was interesting to me.  As I sat and watched it I saw how the news media, frankly, had nothing much to report.  All they knew is that Bagdad was being bombed and had some footage of it, but could not say much more.  Every so often they had commentators on it talking a little bit about the situation, citing their opinion of what they think is going on.  But, still, there was really no concrete news to report.  I then began to see these journalists start to state “could be’s”, “maybe’s”, “might be’s”, and such.  Over time, the “maybe’s” slowly changed to facts that they were now “reporting”.  The problem is that they weren’t facts.  It was actually sort of neat watching this happen before my eyes.  But it also stunned me and I never watched CNN after that.

A lot of news media will do anything to “make a sell” and this fact must be remembered.  Often, they distort, change, and view things from an angle that they believe their consumers will believe.  Some news, even, caters to specific crowds of people or themes (such as “liberal news”).


One big illusion is the”big news agencies”, such as ABC, NBC, CNN, and such.  Because they are so “big” they give the appearance of being “general” in its orientation and that they do not cater to specific people, points of view, and so on.  In actuality, though, the “big news agencies” is not so “general” as it may seem, and are often very biased.  Some examples of bias include:

  • They are often liberal in orientation.
  • They tend to favor “white people”.
  • They tend to be secular in orientation (that is, they concern themselves with the general “mob” of people and not specific groups of types of people).
  • They tend to favor the U.S. over other western or industrialized countries.
  • They tend to favor western society, law, belief, etc. over those seen in foreign lands.

In this way, we can see that the orientation of the news tends to reflect things like these:

  • The culture and belief system of the society.
  • The situation and conditions of the country.
  • Who or what is in power.

In other words, the general stance of the news media is as an interpretation and it uses the various forms of social “powers-that-be” as an authority to give their interpretation authority.  This is one reason why people in that society tend to acknowledge news as being “right”, as the news media bases it on the social “powers-that-be” that most people accept.  Of course, if you don’t accept it then you will see otherwise.  Many foreign people, for example, can see the “wrong” or distortion in another countries news.  In addition, people who do not watch the news (such as myself) can often see the bias in news reporting.  This, of course, is not seen by the people who watch the news and believe the authority of the news media.  What this reveals is that the believability of the news media is very much based in a particular belief system.  For the news media to work they have to cater to that belief system.  In addition, for a person to believe the news they have to also cater to that belief system.  The common denominator between the news media and the people:  the belief system.


To me, much of the news media seems to cater to a particular type of belief system, what can be called a “popular belief system”.  This is a belief system that has qualities such as:

  • It is very socially oriented.
  • It tends to cater to the people as a whole, as a “mob”.
  • It tends to cater to popular and accepted thoughts, points of views, etc.
  • Any controversies or disputes are looked at from “accepted” ways.
  • Any conflict of point of view tends to lean toward the point of view of the majority of their consumers (news is, after all, a business).

This belief system, then, caters to what is “popular”.  Being a business, the news media survives by catering to the “popular”, not by catering to the “unpopular”.  This, in itself, is a bias. The “popular belief system”, though, rarely matches what many people think in private.  As a result, when one looks at the news, and what people think, there is always a big gap.  In many cases, people just flat off refute the news and its points of view.  There are even many people who view the news as a joke.  Interestingly, I’ve found that the people who tend to not believe the news tends to be more “individualistic”.  People who tend to believe the news tends to be people who “follow the crowd” . . . like “sheep”.  To be frank, I tend to view people who believe everything the news dishes out as “sheep” and look down on them.  In other words, I don’t cater to the “popular belief system”.


The general assumption is that the news media is responsible in its reporting.  My observation, though, does not support this.  This is not to say that all news media is irresponsible in its reporting.  My feelings is that its best to assume that the news media is not reporting in a responsible way.   I’m sure that we can start a big debate on what “responsible” means.  To me, it means “reporting things as-they-are and that is relevant”.  This would mean that it has qualities such as:

  • They report “news” exactly as it happens.
  • They are without opinion and interpretation.
  • They are unbiased.
  • They are impartial.
  • It is not frivolous.

This condition, though, is not as easy to maintain as it may seem.  In fact, its probably almost impossible.  Because of this, “responsible” reporting is hard to maintain and tends to become compromised.  In other words, the nature of news media is that it cannot maintain a “responsible” stance in its reporting.  Some of the things that create this condition include:

  • Some news agencies will deliberately distort, twist, and modifying things in order to suit their own ends, to fit their agenda, to satisfy their consumers mentality, to follow social trend, etc.
  • The fact that reporting news, as it happens, is actually boring and dull.  People probably wouldn’t watch the news if only the “facts” were reported.  As a result, news is often “fancied up”.  When they do this, though, it tends to distort the news.
  • The need to appeal to their consumers and cater to their wants.  As I said above, news is a business.

What all this more or less means is that the news media, in actuality, is not really reporting “actual news” but a “fancied up news”.  This fact must be understood when looking at the news.  If anyone understands this there can only be one conclusion: that the news media cannot be relied upon and one shouldn’t believe everything they say, no matter how convincing it may seem.  To put it another way, the news media is not a reliable place to find the “news”.


From what we have seen above the news media is not that reliable.  This brings up the question:  can the news media be relied upon to give reliable information during an important event, such as an election?  I think the answer to that is “it could but I wouldn’t count on it”.  The problem with the news media is that there are too many variables, too many opinions, too much business, and such.  All this muddles the reporting, creating an increased likelihood of biased and distorted reporting.  In short, the news media cannot be relied upon to give reliable information about important events, such as an election.  I think this fact was brought out in the 2016 Presidential election where the media gave horribly biased and condemning reports about the candidates, particularly about Trump.  It did this with such an intensity that much of the country went into a panic over it.  As I watched this happen before my eyes, it put the nature of the news media under question . . . and all its led to is doubts.

There is now the question:  if we cannot rely on the news media then what can we rely on?  I can’t fully answer that question.  I think that the reason why is that it shows a basic problem with the news media.  The news media is the main source of “news” about the world, politics, and such, but, as we’ve seen above, it cannot be relied upon and tends to be biased.  How, then, do we get that information?  My feelings is that we will never really fully know what is going on.  All we get is “bits and pieces”, some true, some false, but the full facts we never know.  The thing is that it has always been that way.  The creation of the news media, particularly with TV, has given us the illusion not only that it gives accurate news and information, but that we actually can know what’s going on.  The fact of the matter is that we never do know the facts, nor did we ever know, even with news media.  In some respects, the TV, internet, and such has given us a grand illusion these past 70 or so years, making us believe things that aren’t really true.  I think its time to admit the failing of the news media and to look at it from that perspective.  Some of what we should understand are these things:

  • The news media is not a reliable source of information. 
  • We should not immediately assume the news media is correct.
  • Accept that we never really know what’s going on, despite what we are told, and how convincing it seems.


You must keep in mind that this is not saying that the news media is all bad.  That’s not the case, but it has some serious flaws that a person must be aware of.  Sometimes, the news is a statement of facts.  Sometimes, its a big lie.  Sometimes, its a lot of hype.  A person has to be alert and watch for what type of news is being dished out and learn to believe or not believe it. 

Copyright by Mike Michelsen 

Posted in 2016 Presidential election and things associated with it, Current affairs and events, Government and politics, Life in general, Modern life and society, News media and the news, Society | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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

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

Some aspects that are good to reflect on include:

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

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

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

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

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


The “past self” has several qualities:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naturally, this got me to thinking . . .

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

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

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

My general feeling is that if this “Trump panic” does not end the U.S. is going to have problems, which may become serious.  In other words, we should look at this hysteria is a serious issue and nothing to look at lightly.  Some of the things its caused are:

  • It has caused unneeded panic and hysteria.
  • It has caused unrealistic fears and threats that don’t exist.
  • It has caused unneeded hatred and discontent.
  • It has caused divisions in the society that don’t need to be there.
  • It has caused disharmony and useless squabbling in the government which is impairing its function.
  • Its caused a lack of trust in the government.
  • Its caused a general attitude of contempt in the general population.

These all have an undermining effect on the society.  With the nonsense that’s going on in the government I’m wondering how its going to function at all.  Whats pathetic, is that its all over nothing.  None of this is needed nor justified.  Of all the things associated with this, I think this is what most bothers me . . . its all over nothing!  

Remember that this is a problem that originates in the people.  If a person stand back, calm down, and look closely to whats going on, one can easily see that Trump has done very little to cause and promote this panic. Everything is originating from the people, by the people, with the help of the media . . . but they blame Trump for it all, which gives this illusion that he is at fault.  

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


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

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

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

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

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

  • Journalists.
  • Politicians.
  • Common people.

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

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

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

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

Here are some examples:

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

Take a look at this:  This is one of my favorites.  Look at the title:  “Someone wrote ‘Trump 2016’ on Emory’s campus in chalk. Some students said they no longer feel safe“.   They “no longer feel safe”?  Are you kidding?  And what were the statements written on the sidewalk: “Trump”, “Accept the inevitable Donald Trump in 2016”, and “Build a wall”.  That’s it!  Notice these statements:

  • “They shouted in the quad, “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!”  — What?  They are “in pain”?  Are you kidding?
  • “We have nothing to lose but our chains.”  — What?  The are in “chains”?  What chains?
  • “Pain in the face of this perceived intimidation.”  — Did I get this right?  Someone writing slogans in support of a candidate, during an election, is “intimidation”?  That’s too ridiculous.
  • “Sidewalk Is a Racist Microaggression …,”  — Let me get this straight, writing Trump, or something associated with Trump, on the sidewalk is a “racist microaggression”?  Did I hear that right?  Wow!
  • Then it says that students need ““safe spaces” to protect them from presidential candidates’ names and slogans”.  — Students need a “safe space” away from this?  You’ve got to be kidding me!  I think the students have created these threats in their own mind.
  • It also says that writing this on the sidewalk is “hate speech” and it mentions the “attack these messages represent”.  — It does?
  • It also says, “But it is un-American to support hatred against others, and that is exactly what Donald Trump is doing”.  — He is!  I think maybe they ought to look at their own hatred toward him instead of the hatred they think he apparently has for everyone.  They seem to suggest that Trump is against everyone and hates everyone . . . and, let me guess, he hates females and minorities especially, the old wore out American line of villainizing.

If one stands back and looks at it, one can see that this is a gross over-reaction and paranoia, particularly looking at it months afterwords.  When I first saw it, right after it happened, I was stunned by it.  It was one of the things that made me realize that we are definitely dealing with mass hysteria, as it shows signs of paranoia, over-sensitivity, over-reaction, blowing things out of proportions, self-created threats, etc.  This is very good example of how ridiculous this has gotten.

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

Take a look at this:  Here Kellyanne Conway, a Trump advisor, was criticized for saying the wrong word.  She said “Bowling Green massacre” but she actually meant “Bowling Green terrorists”.  She was speaking of Bowling Green, KY where two Iraqi citizens were convicted for trying to send money and weapons to Al-Qiada.  She says, “the corrections in the papers that are attacking me are three pages long”.  Even Chelsea Clinton got in on the attacks saying to “not make up fake attacks” (see  This just shows how FANATICAL this attacking of Trump has gotten, where someone associated with him gets bashed for making a mistake with a single word!  Unbelievable!

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

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

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

Take a look at this:  Its about the “not by Presidents day” rallys.  Look at some of these statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at this:  My God, they’re now trying to urge people to not shop at retailers with Trump brands.  Are you kidding?  Also look at this article:  They say that Conway’s mentioning Ivanka’s brand in an interview is “unethical”.   My guess is that behind all this, which sounds like a justified statement, is just another attack on Trump and his government.  This appears that way, and we’ve seen similar many examples above, of people looking for any way to attack Trump, regardless of how trivial and nonsensical.

Take a look at this:  Here, a college pulled down the American flag after Trump was elected.  Look at these statements:

  • “For many students, the shocking election results and Trump presidency have changed their views on what the flag means.”  — Are you kidding?
  • “The college decided to temporarily remove it after students decried it as a symbol of inequality across the nation.”  — What?
  • It also states that the represents “a powerful symbol of fear” for some people”.  — Did I miss something . . . what fear? . . . what are they talking about?

So I guess the U.S. is this great symbol of fear and oppression now . . . is that what they’re saying?  All this because Trump got elected, huh?  Wow!

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


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

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

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

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


There are a number of things that predisposed the U.S. to mass hysteria and panic.  These include:

  • The influence of the media, which have done nothing but magnify hype and to portray everything in a dark and grim way . . . they made it sound almost as if the world was going to come to an end because Trump got elected.
  • The gullibility of American people.
  • The paranoid quality of the American people.

These qualities, together, have created a not-so-good combination.  In fact, it created an almost inflammatory quality which erupted in a torrent of panic, hysteria, and paranoia.

The Media – hype portrayed in a grim way

Overall, the media has portrayed Trump in a very negative and bad light.  In fact, I was often appalled by how they portrayed him.  Though I am not a great supporter of either candidate I saw the attack on Trump as unjustified, ridiculous, and totally unacceptable. For me, it destroyed a believability in the media and in journalists.  In fact, I tend to view the media and journalists as “hype-mongers”, as a result.

One thing this reveals is that the media has too much power and influence in society.  It also shows the media has a great responsibility to the people and when it does not take a responsible viewpoint it can have drastic consequences.  We must remember that, in this election, people relied on the media to give them an unbiased and impartial viewpoint of things.  Instead of doing this the media showed people a dark, grim, condemning, viewpoint of things, especially of Trump.  The result, of course, is that the general population of people believed it, as the media was the only source of information about things for most people.  The media failed in its responsibility to the people of an unbiased, impartial, reporting of “actual news”.  A lot of the media reporting was more like journalists personal opinions disguised as an impartial unbiased reporting of news. It didn’t take a genius to see that the general attitude of journalists was anti-Trump and it is this that they portrayed as “actual news”.  Why this was so, I cannot say for certain, though I think it was an attitude of journalists in the northeast part of the U.S. which tend to be liberal in orientation, and which most of the news originated.

The Gullibility of the American People

Most Americans have an inflated view of themselves and tend to overvalue themselves.  As a result of this, many Americans do not see how gullible they really are.  Many Americans think that they are not gullible and “make decisions” as a result of consideration.  My experience, and observation, is that Americans are very gullible and believe things too easily and too whole heartily.  In fact, their gullibility is almost scary.

There are a number of things that predispose Americans to being gullible:

  • Consumer society.  Buying things creates a sense of “accepting whatever” is offered and available.
  • Social media.  People become accustomed to believing everything that comes out of a screen.
  • Entertainment.  TV, movies, and such create an attitude of being passive and receptive taking in whatever it offers.
  • Education.  Going to school, for years and decades, creates a general attitude similar of entertainment, of being passive and receptive.  The big difference is that its looked at form a serious viewpoint.  In this way, one could say that education creates a “serious gullibility”, so to speak.
  • New novel things.  Responding to new and novel things creates an attitude of being passive, receptive, and “accepting what is offered”.

All these create a generalized attitude of “following along” or “accepting whatever is dished out”.  In other words, the attitude is passive, not active . . . “its not what I do but what is given to me”.  Along with this attitude tends to be a mindlessness which is like a “lack of control of themselves and what they think”.  In some respects, it creates an attitude of “letting the times do their thinking”.  In this way, people tend to become something like “yes men”.  In fact, in the late 1990’s, I used to speak of many Americans as being “yes men to the times” . . . they just said yes to everything.

This “yes man” attitude was seen in this election, saying “yes” to whatever the media dished out, following its every lead.  As a result, people took the grim viewpoint the media portrayed and believed it without question.

American Paranoia

My observation is that Americans are a very paranoid people.  This causes tendencies such as:

  • They are quick to panic.
  • They are easily frightened by things.
  • They also are quick to make things worse than they really are.
  • They are quick to jump to conclusions.

I always joked that “America is not the ‘home of the brave’ but the ‘home of the paranoid’”. I first became aware of how deep the American paranoia was in the 1990’s, when I was looking into the cold war.  The cold war brought out some of the greatest paranoia that America has had.  In addition, it as if “implanted” it into the American character more strongly than ever.

Sadly, much of this paranoia has a strong root in the American way of life.  Some things that seem to cause this include:

  • Democracy and political theory.  American political theory, we must remember, is rooted in a fear of authority and the government . . . isn’t that why people must vote? As a result, American political theory tends to teach and preach a paranoia.  One of the effects of this is that it causes a tendency for Americans to become paranoid very easily.
  • The cold war.  The cold war, with its fear of nuclear annihilation and Communist takeover, awakened a lot of American paranoia.  It appears that it intensified it as well, making it more prevalent and dominant.  It reached its height during the Vietnam War protests of about 1970.
  • Continual change.  Contrary to what it may seem “progress”, “advancement”, and such has created a continual sense of insecurity in people.  Continual change, whether it be good or bad, causes a sense of “undermining” . . . people don’t have time to “get accustomed” or “grow” into a specific way of doing things.  Once they get used to something, it changes, and then, a little while later, it changes again.  The effect of this is a general sense of insecurity.
  • The fall of human institutions.  The American way of life has eroded many human institutions and realities.  These include things like family, religion, identity, and such. With their fall is a general fall of the security that they offer.  With their fall many people are as if “standing out in the open” with nothing to protect them.  I believe that this sense is getting worse and worse.

These all created a general sense of “instability” or “security” which the American way of life creates.  In fact, I would say that the American way of life tends to be a life of “being continually undermined”, in some way or another.  This lack of security helps create a deep sense of worry or fear.  If conditions are right, it can appear as a paranoia.  I’ve seen some Americans act as if the whole world is plotting against them.

(Also see these article:  ” Thoughts on American paranoia – the democratic way” and “Thoughts on my statement: “I will not change my real-world observations to fit American political/legal ideology” – opposing the “official paranoia” worldview“).

All three things cause a predisposition to mass hysteria, panic, and paranoia and, it seems to me, have played a major role in this mass hysteria.  Since these all have origin in the American way of life we could say that Americans are really victims of their own way of life.


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

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

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

So-called “racist” statements

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

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

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

So-called “sexist” statements

Take a look at this about his “sexist” quotes: .  Just take a look at some of these supposed “sexist” statements that are supposed to be degrading to women:

  • “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass. But she’s got to be young and beautiful.”  — It says that this insults all women.  It does?  I’ve heard variations of this many times and have even said it myself.  Its a statement of an observation of fact about a situation in the real world.  I’ve even heard females say variations of it, generally in the context that a female with a pretty face has benefits compared to those who don’t have a pretty face.
  • He said “You’re disgusting” to a mother who was going to breast feed her baby.  — This is degrading?  I’ve heard people voice this same point of view, both male and female.  I know many people who feel strongly about it too.  For some people, and cultures, a female breastfeeding in public is a taboo . . . that’s just the way it is.
  • This is one of my favorites:  “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.”  — This is insulting?  Even if it is a reference to menstruation whats so bad about it?  It doesn’t even specifically mention it, only hints at it.  Is it supposed to be insulting because he mentioned the taboo subject of menstruation?  When I began to look at female psychology, in the late 1980’s, I found that there was so much taboo around menstruation that I started to call it the “M-word” . . .  girls would freak out if you just mentioned it or referred to it, which is what appears to be the case here.  Just because you mention, or refer to it, doesn’t mean its meant to be insulting.
  • His many statements about girls are just statements of personal opinion to me, similar to what I’ve heard guys say all my life.  So what if he finds so and so “unattractive inside and out” or that so and so is the “unsexiest woman alive”, and so on.  A lot of people have said similar things about other people as well.  Even I’ve been called names but I don’t make an issue of it and go around saying that is “degrading to all men”, and “sexist”, and acting like its some great plot against me and all men.  I do agree it best to keep opinions like this to ones self, which is what most people do.  I think most people would say that saying these things openly is “rude”.
  • I like this one:  “Trump said he didn’t change diapers because it’s the wife’s job. In fact, he said he wouldn’t marry a woman who expected this of him.”  — So . . . I know a lot of guys who feel that way, and even some girls!  Its been a mothers job for how many centuries?  And yet it says that it insults mothers.  Utterly ridiculous.  I guess we could say, along similar lines, that wives who expect their husbands to go on the roof and fix a leak degrades husbands too . . . I’ve never seen a wife on top of a roof fixing the roof.
  • He said this about a Muslim lady who stood next to her husband:  “Look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”  — That sounds like he is making an observation about the behavior of a different culture to me.  What’s so degrading about that?  As a person who is interested in other cultures I do the same thing all the time.
  • He said this about Hillary Clinton:  “The only things she’s got is the woman’s card”. —   That’s degrading?  That sounds like an observation to me.  Just to let you know, not only did I say that but many other guys I knew as well . . . and before Trump said it.  Its just an observation of a reality many of us could see.  I still support that statement, by the way.
  • And it says he insulted females who were sexually harassed:  “Trump opined on what his daughter Ivanka should do if sexually harassed. “I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case.””  — This is insulting to females who were sexually harassed?  It sounds like a familiar logic I’ve seen before. Basically its says that if there is a problem with someone where you work, and which is particularly bad, then its best to leave (or get transferred to somewhere else in the company away from them).  I remember one guy saying that if you get management involved it will leave resentment and tension with that person that will never go away. If they get fired because of you then they can retaliate against you in some way.  The idea being that its best to just leave the situation.
  • He called Clinton “such a nasty woman.”  — What’s so bad about that?  It sounds like an observation to me.  I’m sure Clinton said the same of him (and a few other things) . . . but in private.  If he said something like that to a man would anyone would of cared?  Of course, since its said toward a female it makes him sexist and a hater of females.  Ridiculous!  I particularly like the statement: “Though the insult was directed at his opponent, feminists reclaimed it as a term that describes a woman who refuses to conform to narrow idea of how a woman is supposed to behave.”  Wow, what a jump of interpretation . . . a gross exaggeration to make it worse than it is!  Anything to make the female a victim of the male.  Good going feminists.  This is, in actuality, a familiar interpretation seen by feminists. Behind the statement, and what motivates it, is the feminists contempt of the female which is why feminists portray and immediately assume everything female is bad.  This contempt is then projected onto another person, usually a male (in this case, Trump), as if they are deliberately trying to degrade them (it even goes so far that they believe there is some type of a conspiracy against them).  They then accuse and blame them for it.  In a way, they are accusing and blaming other people for their own self-contempt.  Watching this same scenario, in a multitude of different ways, is one of the things that tipped me off that feminists had a problem with the female identity (see my remarks on the ‘failed sex’ and the section on the female and hysteria below . . . also see my article “Thoughts on the absurd claims of feminists“).

In my opinion, the worst that Trump did is to be “rude” and in saying “inappropriate” things.  All this nonsense of his “degrading women”, being “sexist”, or “hating females”, almost as if there is some sort of a conspiracy, is something that they have superimposed onto his “rude” and “inappropriate” statements.  In other words, they put intentions and words into his mouth that aren’t there.  To put it another way, they are “reading too much into what he says”.  In so doing, they distorted it, making it worse than it is.  The purpose of this, of course, is that it serves the cause of their paranoia and panic.  In doing this, they have created a self-created threat.  The best example above is the feminists re-interpretation of the term “nasty woman”.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that they have put intentions into the statement that aren’t there, changing the whole context and giving a whole other explanation . . . one that serves their purpose.  I’ve heard many people say almost identical statements like what Trump has said before and I have never seen anyone read so much “hate-filled” intentions into to.  Obviously, this orientation is reserved exclusively for Trump and no one else.  It all part of the panic.

The American females tendency to see “hate-filled” and malicious intentions in things seems more reflective of the American females insecurity, their self-contempt, and their problems with the female identity than anything else (see section of female and hysteria below).  I’m already all-so-familiar with this subject and have referred to it in many articles on this blog.  I first noticed it with feminists but began to see that this was a small part of a greater problem. Eventually, my observation made me dub the American the female the ‘failed sex’ because I determined that it revolved around their identity problem which caused a contempt at things female. The result of this is a great insecurity, a poor view of female things, self-contempt, and a poor view of themselves as people and as females.  It tends to make them very oversensitive to things and particularly statements.  This is especially true when it involves who and what they are.  They are quick to see “hate-filled” intentions and malicious intentions in it, for example.  In short, when they see anything that reflects a doubt about themselves then they tend to overreact to it.  You don’t even have to say something, they just have to believe you said something, and they over react.  And god help us if you actually said something bad.  The statements above are showing familiar themes, doing things such as:

  • They are quick to be hurt and traumatized.
  • They make themselves out as victims.
  • They make things worse than they are.
  • They make it out like you hate them or are plotting against them, almost to the point of paranoid delusion.
  • When they feel hurt, such as by being called a name, they don’t let it go.  Most guys, on the other hand, will utter a statement of contempt or call them a name in return or ignore it and then leave it at that (though some can get violent but that’s rare).
  • They take things very seriously and personally.
  • They make any reference to traditional female roles as some form of degradation (a “hint” of the problem with the female identity).

In short, they are way too easily hurt.  This is one reason why you have to walk on tip-toes around many American females, having to be careful of everything you say and do.  With some girls you have to be careful of how you think.  There is even a type of American female that seeks to be insulted and looks out for it even to the point of fabricating it when there none exists.  I’ve seen many females who “fabricate abuses” or “fabricate insults” and then blame an innocent person for it.  I often stated that “being around many American females is like being around a neurotic”.  For many females, this is true.  Sadly, its one of the reasons why I, and many males, don’t like to be around American females that much. They are so oversensitive that you have to literally change your whole behavior around them and be careful of everything you do.  Some examples include:

  • You must only speak of certain things and not speak of other things.
  • You must speak in a particular way.
  • You must only use certain expressions.
  • You must not say anything that they construe as “bad”, “rude”, or “offensive”.
  • You must not get too close to them and, god forbid, you don’t touch them.
  • You do not help them, in any way, unless they ask.
  • You don’t speak of “female roles” or anything involving how females should behave.

If you do something they don’t like some American females will explode.  Some will start to accuse you of things.  Often this reflects a paranoia, as if you are conspiring against them and are full of malicious intentions.  We saw similar attitudes in the interpretation of Trumps statements above.  Basically, Trump didn’t do what they wanted and the females exploded.  To me, it was a repeat of a scenario I’ve seen many times, except on a grander scale.

What does all this mean?  That the insecurity of many American females is so bad that males have to make an effort not to aggravate it.  Typically, the male has to make some choices:

  • Change their behavior when around a female.
  • Avoid the female.
  • Don’t change their behavior around a female.

Trump is one of those guys who does not change his behavior around the female and, because of this, he tends to aggravate the American females oversensitive and insecure nature.  His general behavior and attitude, it seems to me, is a behavior of a “guy with his buddies”.  In other words, its “guy stuff” . . .

“Guy stuff”

Males tend to have a behavior that is different in private than in society, though it can spill into social life.  Of course, this varies with different guys.  This “other life” has unique qualities about it and is often opposed to social life.  Some qualities of this “guy stuff” include:

  • It is often blunt and direct.
  • It tends to insult, degrade, or belittle other people.  Contrary to what people may think, males tendency to degrade or belittle a person is often a sign that they like that person!  Guys who like each other, for example, will “flip each other off” (that is, give each other the middle finger of the hand, which is an insulting gesture in the U.S.), say “you suck” as a greeting, and so on.  This quality of the male is largely misunderstood, I’ve found, especially by . . . guess who . . . females.
  • It does not always follow social etiquette, manners, or politeness.  In fact, these things are often completely disregarded.
  • They can be rude and discourteous.
  • Its often “dirty” and sexually oriented.
  • Females are generally looked at from a sexual viewpoint.
  • It can be confrontational and intimidating.
  • They tend to brag and make themselves bigger than they are.  This is the “male ego”.  I have always felt the “male ego” is one of the qualities nature instilled in the male to help him confront nature and the world.  It is, in reality, a “false confidence” that, if he did not have, he would not dare to do anything.  See my article “Thoughts on the male ego“.

These reflects qualities of how many guys behave in private.  As a result, greater society is often not aware of it.  In fact, I don’t even think that many guys are fully aware of how they behave in private.  Its often like another world.  In fact, it tends to be so different from the greater society that anyone looking at this behavior “from the outside” may find that many of the males look almost like animals, crude and beastly.  Many people may find offense at it and even view it as disgusting (even other guys!).  It tends to scare many females, I’ve found.  I think this has come out in the female reaction to Trump and his “guy stuff”.  To be frank, I see a lot of the female reaction to Trump as a representation of how “guy stuff” frightens girls so much.

Social decency and courtesy!!!

Trump seems to be one of those extrovert type personalities that tends to not change his behavior in public.  In other words, he does not seem to make that much of a distinction between public and private.  For most people, public and private is sharply demarcated but there are some personalities where it is not.  In some cases, there is no demarcation. When there is little or no demarcation between public and private many private things are “thrown” into the public sphere, so to speak, which can cause some interesting problems, such as:

  • It tends to offend people.
  • It causes misunderstandings.
  • It makes people “unappealing”.
  • It makes people look like an “ass”.

Oftentimes, these people have to be “understood”.  That is to say, you have to have an understanding of why they are doing what they are doing and sort of respect it.  Once you do this they often appear different people.  Trump seems to be one of those cases.

When there is little or no demarcation between public and private there tends to be little sense of “social decency and courtesy”.  This shows that public life is the life of “social decency and courtesy” which, of course, makes sense.  But people who tend to disregard it tend to “shoot from the hip”, so to speak, and speak their mind without much thought. I can understand this kind of behavior as being “shocking” to some people, particularly if they live in a cosy world of courtesy and politeness or with people that are insecure and nervous, like many American females.

And this reveals what the “Trump panic” is really about:  SOCIAL DECENCY AND COURTESY.  Really, isn’t that what this whole thing is all about?  Isn’t that what this revolves around and what started it?  Its all because Trump did not follow the rules of social decency and courtesy.  He expressed what he felt, said what he thought, and all this without censure.  In some respects, he “shocked the world” by disregarding it.  This shows the importance of social decency and courtesy.  Its a subject that has been largely neglected.

Social decency and courtesy is very prevalent in social situations and, in a way, defines it.  It primarily consists of “proper” and “accepted” behavior between the people involved.  As a result, it is made up of things like courtesy, politeness, etiquette, manners, decency, reserve, and such.  Everything is done “in the right way” and in its “proper context”.

Social decency and courtesy is particularly strong in political situations.  In fact, one could say that it dominates politics.  One of the main reasons, it seems to me, is because it “restrains” apprehension, fear, worry, etc. of other people.  In other words, social decency and courtesy, in political situation, is a reaction to fear and apprehension.  By being “polite” “courteous”, etc. we do not provoke and aggravate what we fear the other person might do.  In this way, social decency and courtesy is like “walking on the edge of a razor blade” or walking a fine line.  We are next to a potentially fearful situation but social decency and courtesy keeps it from happening much like garlic wards off vampires.  It helps keep us in a situation where we do not have to fear.

But, we must remember that, behind it all, lurks apprehension and fear whether it is conscious or unconscious.  This is because we are all innately apprehensive about different people and of people we can’t relate to (see my article “Thoughts on the ‘impersonal unfamiliarity’ sense – the apprehension of people we can’t relate to”).  It can be something as simple as an apprehension of people we know nothing about to the fear they will attack us.  Either way, it always seems to be there in the “political situation”.  As a result, anything that “breaks” or “disrupts” social decency and courtesy tends to bring out this apprehension and fear that lurks in the distance.  A “wrong statement”, an insult, a discourtesy, etc. can have dramatic effect in the “political situation” as a result.  This appears to of happened with Trump.  The “breaking” of social decency and courtesy by Trump aggravated this apprehension and fear and brought it out.  In this way, it contributed to the panic and paranoia of the “Trump panic”. 

But, we must remember, that it was not an apprehension and fear that Trump created.  It was actually the apprehension and fear that is always there underneath the “political situation”.  In other words, it is the inherent apprehension and fear that is found in the “political situation” that is the origin of the panic, not anything Trump actually did.  His not following social decency and courtesy as if “opened the door” to this apprehension and fear.  But because he “opened the door” he is now ascribed the reason for this apprehension and fear, even though he really did no “act” to provoke it.  His only “act” consists of statements – words – which did not follow social decency and courtesy.  Regardless of this, the fear and apprehension is ascribed to some “action” of his as if he has done or is going to do something that we all fear (paranoia).  As a result, whatever he does that is even remotely associated with any apprehension and fear we feel gives people cause to blame him as the cause.  Because of this, a lot of what he does is blown out of proportion, often to the point of ridiculousness, as many examples above show.  In some respects, he is “equated” with the apprehension and fear that is inherent in the “political situation”.  His only fault is that he opened the door by not being “proper”.

This shows that social decency and courtesy is really an illusion that “hides” an apprehension and fear, a “cover up”, so to speak.  As a result, it has a lot of illusionary qualities.  For example, because the fear and apprehension is so closely associated with social decency and courtesy there develops a misunderstanding with people who practice “proper” social decency and courtesy, that they are the “bringers of peace and harmony”, as if they are responsible for it.  Actually, they are really nothing but people who “do not provoke”.

Interestingly, social decency and courtesy in political situations can become so “rigid” and “defined” that it can actually strangle things.  I tend to feel this is true in the world political situation in particular.  This “rigidity” starts to turn everything into a “mummery” . . . a lot of actions that accomplishes nothing but seem “polite” giving the illusion of progress and cooperation.  I have often felt that this “overly-rigid” social decency and courtesy actually does more damage than not and that it needs to be broken.  I truly believe its a far bigger hindrance than what it may, at first, seem.

One of the effects of social decency and courtesy, particularly when it is “rigid”, is that it creates a “phony” quality as well as giving the impression of a “put on”.  This is one reason why politicians look like superficial and that they cannot be trusted.  In this way, social decency and courtesy, though it appears “proper”, actually causes a distrust.  In fact, a statement I, and others, said against Clinton was that she was “too much of a politician and can’t be trusted” and I believe that many people did not vote for her for that reason.  In this way, it reveals that one of the problems of this election was that it brought out the problems of social decency and courtesy in politics, and in different ways:

  • Clinton was distrusted because she “played the political game” – too “proper”
  • Trump was feared because he “broke” social decency and courtesy – not “proper” enough

This shows a basic dilemma of social decency and courtesy.  Basically, what, exactly, is “proper” social decency and courtesy? What standards do we use?  This seems to be very influential.  From what it appears to me, there has developed different “standards” of what constitutes what is “proper”.  Many people are like me and don’t take things seriously.  Some don’t care at all.  Some people take things seriously.  Some people go into panic if things aren’t the “right way”.  But, in the U.S., there has developed one standard that has particularly become too “rigid” and too “strict”, to the point of being absolutely unforgiving, overly fearful, paranoid, and easily panicked.  Its this standard that seems to be giving the biggest problems.  This standard seems to be a result of liberalism which, interestingly, is rooted in fear and paranoia (see section on liberalism below).  Its probably not surprising that the liberals seem to be the ones who reacted so “outrageously”, as a result of his lack of being “proper”, and are a major contributor to this panic (the “liberal temper tantrum” . . . see below).  Many of us are standing here looking at them and going “wow, what over reaction!”  Of course, we don’t have the highly sensitive standards they have.

The question of qualities of people – the problem of authority

The dilemma posed by these different standards show that different qualities of people are in the U.S.  In this way, it shows that a division has happened in the U.S. and it is not as unified as people think.

This country, being a part of Western society, puts a lot of emphasis on the mind.  As a result, it usually puts an emphasis on what people think or believe . . . with their mind.  This point of view tends to neglect other qualities like character, style, and quality.  Its exactly these qualities that makes the difference and is forming the division.  Its really not a question of what they think or believe but HOW they think or believe.

It seems, to me, that the difference in qualities is creating marked divisions.  Because they do not have a philosophy, dogma, or principles its actually hard to define these different qualities.  Also, because they are just the “ways of people”, and have no active authority, they tend to not conflict that much.  But the saying, “birds of a feather say together” is true in this case . . . people with like qualities stay together.  As a result these different qualities behave much like oil in water, remaining as separate entities in a larger reality.  Accordingly, they become isolated from the other drops.  In this way, the movement is actually away from unity than toward a unity.  This seems to be the general trend of the U.S.

Ironically, social media seems to of aggravated it.  By making people more
“socially active in an isolated way” (that is, they sit in front of a screen and associate with people), it causes a more defined, isolated, and solitary development of qualities that are not defined by the greater social attitude, ways, and culture.  Because of this, many qualities are not “in unison” with other peoples, as it may seem.  It may be limited to a small group of people or even to ones self alone.  In short, a lot of qualities are starting to develop but there’s nothing uniting them.

Overall, I’d say the U.S. is losing a unity in its people and I think its going to get worse.  A significant aspect of this loss of unity is the absence of an authority.  The American mentality is very anti-authority and it tends to undermine any authority that appears.  The problem is that a society needs authority to maintain itself and keep itself together.  When there is no authority the society is weakened.  As a result, the American anti-authority mentality is, in actuality, a self-destructive attitude.  I have always had this impression that it would tear the U.S. apart and bring it down.  I’d say, “the U.S. is going to destroy itself in the name of freedom and democracy”.  I still tend to believe that this will happen one day.  There’s nothing to unite this place.

A blunt manner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does all this mean?

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

Take a look at this:  . It describes how Democrats are taking the liberal lead in protesting Trump (this isn’t that surprising as they tend to be liberal in orientation).  Notice these statements:

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


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

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


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

News media – The fall of responsible and professional journalism

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

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

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

  • It was threatening.
  • It was condemning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not the only one to see the distortion of the media.  I have talked to many people who can see it to and I can see it in replies to articles as well.  Even Trump notices it.  Take a look at this article:  Of course, we see the usual Trump bashing by the media, such as “He absolved himself of blame” and “the president also put on a show” and “Trump was trying to regain authorship of the story line of his presidency and distract from the burgeoning scandal surrounding reported communications to Russian officials by his now-ousted national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and members of his political team” and such.  I particularly like this statement: “He was the complainer in chief. Resentful and melancholy, he sought to assign blame for just about everything that he believes ails America.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The social media – making it too personal and oversensitive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is further complicated by a number of things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The male reaction to the hysteria

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump = white male panic = problems of modern world

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

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

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

Another aspect of the “white male panic” is all the statements at getting a non white male into office after Trump.  The farthest from a non white male is a black female and so some were even asked to run for President:

Michelle Obama:


Even some people in France wanted Obama to run for President:

We all know that these people are considered because of WHO THEY ARE and not because they are the best choice.  This means that these are RACIST and SEXIST in origin. If the white male suggested anything like that they’d be condemned.  What this shows is that there is actually a great discrimination against the white male, of restriction and prohibition, that do not apply to non white males (which includes females).  These include:

  • A white male cannot show hatred or dislike of any kind.
  • A white male cannot say anything bad against a non white male.
  • A white male cannot treat a non white male in a different way.
  • A white male must prefer a non white male before a white male.

But, yet, non white males can do all that and no one will mention a thing (as I, myself, have observed).  Remember, the white male is an oppressive, tyrannical, controlling, violent, discriminatory, destructive, and hating person and must be restricted and prohibited from exhibiting anything that may be construed as bad.  The white male is a threat!  This was all brought out in Trump and the panic that surrounds him.

It almost appears that there is going to be an effort, in this next election, of not allowing a white male as president.  In other words, the white male will be shunned because of who they and non white males will be preferred because of who they are.   And, yet, the people will say that they don’t believe in preferential treatment, discrimination, racism, or sexism!   Wow!


In any situation there are two things:

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Examples of these are seen in Trump bashing and include:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Some of the things that tipped me off include:

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

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

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

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


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

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

Also see my other articles:

Thoughts on the ‘post 2016 election mentality’ – continuing the Vietnam War protests and the inability to resolve media-induced mass hysteria

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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

Thoughts on villainizing

Here’s a thought I had:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

The unresolved conflict seems to go through stages:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The examples I gave above are good examples:

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

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

Also see:

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

The west’s misinterpretation of East Germany

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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

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

In a recent conversation I made an interesting statement:

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

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

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

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

Some of the warnings science fiction stated are:

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

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

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

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