If there was one word that I would try to describe the people of America, it would be perfectionists — overbearing and extremely paternalistic perfectionists to be exact.  As they voyage to trying to correct the incorrect and guide the unguided, they themselves reflect the same people that they try to undermine.  You are told from these civilized “demigods” that you have problems, and you have to fix them precisely to the proper narrative — not unless you will still be at the bottom of the barrel.  Our country is filled with these types of civilized juggernauts who wish to rid the world of madness and dread.  Ironically, the more they try to destabilized the madness and make it better, the more toxic the surroundings become.  We end up losing our true dignity as human beings when the all knowing moralists try to impose the gracious morality that society so desperately needs.  The madness to getting civil has many skeletons on its highways, and instead of getting the civility that you were promised, you are left with the abolition of your liberty.

 

I’m not sure if you have noticed, but it is usually the self proclaimed civilized being who end up being the most uncivilized of all.  Political hacks always claim the moral high ground which encourages him or her to impose their special plan to unleash harmony onto society.  Standing on their pedestals of glory, their foundations are flimsy and weak; which leads to them tumbling off and falling into a pool of mud.  It seems to be counterproductive to promote civility while using a diabolical and despicable means to get such civility — this is especially true for politicians.

 

Can political hacks explain — in their most civil manner — how it is moral to impose morality onto the populace through the threats of force? It doesn’t make any sense to me at all; it seems to me that this kind of mindset inflicts more disorder and oppression than it is supposedly takes away.  When political hacks communicate their plan to mold society into the perfect collective that is superior to all, it is usually a recipe for disaster and despotism — yet they didn’t intend for that to happen which is why the song tends to repeat itself over and over again.  With a ton of confidence the politician says,  “Don’t worry, the next time will be perfect; I wouldn’t intend for something bad to happen.”  I don’t know about you, but this song is giving me a headache.

 

After hearing so much “civilized” jargon from these people, there’s a question that lingers in my mind: What bothers these people so much? Why do these kinds of people — politicians and know it all citizens — want to mold the world in a uniform place? Why does the world need to fit into their small little box? These people seem obsessively entitled and omnisciently shallow.  They seem to be more analogous with a broad street bully than a Mother Mary.  I guess once you are granted with the eternal knowledge that these people have, it gives you an automatic pass to gain exclusive kinds of privileges over people.  There’s a lack of consistency when it comes to the diatribes of the civilized: when your means of getting civil rely on the subordination of other individuals, you have already failed.  Using a subordinate means — such as the legislative power that the political hacks possess — to promote civility will only lead to humility and disarrangement of souls; leaving a place in a shambles and creating an unrelenting chaotic dilemma among the masses of people.

 

It seems to me that the people who always try to impose their ideal civility onto others always end up getting the opposite of what they propose.  The process always ends up to be a very reckless one, and it truly diminishes the inner soul.  Civility cannot be pressed into people like stickers onto car bumpers, and trying to do it forcefully will only defeat the purpose.  A civil man wouldn’t want to control the lives of other people; he would want to the people themselves to be in control of their own lives.  A claim to rule someone immediately disqualifies that person from being consider civil — for it is uncivil to claim to ownership over a person.  It should be an easy observation to see that the worst abuses of civility come from places of authority.  So why should we take these claims so seriously? Why should we get our recognition of civility from the most uncivilized?

 

The madness of civilized has led to countless tragedies and has inflicted the most inharmonious acts that man has ever seen.  When the essence of civility is laid out in the heinous laws that run the country, it is time to question if this is even civil at all.  It’s hypocritical to claim to be civil when you support the most egregious and disheartening methods of achieving such a goal.  Civility will never come from the political sector; it will only come from the people who are within such a society.  Real civility is never planned out, it can only emerge from the bottom of society.  It usually turns out better for everyone when there isn’t a major ideal that imposes onto everyone else.  True progress and civility is best achieved when it is led by the spontaneous actions of individual people — only then can we see true prosperity that we all wish to have.  The madness to get civil has led to uncivil events and catastrophic policies that terminate our most vital freedoms.  Maybe civility would happen if we just let people free to govern themselves — don’t tell that to a politician though, he will say that’s uncivilized.