Your Imperfection Causes Me To Be A Bigot

That's the logic that most of the world is using for their condemnation of other people. Condemnation, or bigotry, is the belief in inequality. Thus, individuals are saying that another person's imperfection causes them to define that person as insignificant. They're saying that the individual in question earns abuse.

This is blaming other people for the choices that you make. It's saying, "If you were perfect, then I wouldn't be a bigot. The fact of your imperfection causes my bigotry."

Now, you're choosing to be a bigot. Their behavior doesn't cause you to be a bigot because you could make the choice to be accepting or neutral or disinterested or approving. Your choice to view the other person, and what they do, as imperfect is the cause of your choice to view them as inferior, not anything that they do. Their actions can't make your choices. Where in this equation are they making your choice? Show me the mechanics of one person's behavior causing another person's behavior. You can't do it because every individual makes their own choices. No individual is compelled to make any particular choice under any particular situation. Everyone decides for themselves how they're going to view things.

People will accuse you of being the reason that they dislike you, but that's an impossibility. You can't make another person's choice. Your behavior can't make their choice, either. The way that you are can't make their choice. Only they can make their choice. In other words, your behavior doesn't justify, excuse, or is the reason for their behavior. Your "imperfection" can't cause them to be a bigot.

Much of the world is running around trying to be perfect so that others won't abuse them. They do this because, underneath it all, people are allowing that there's some sort of right to abuse if imperfection is present. There's no such right. Your "imperfection" (there is no such thing, in any case) isn't justification for abuse. It doesn't entitle someone to treat you as worthless. You haven't earned mistreatment by being "imperfect." Your "imperfection" doesn't authorize others to be immoral to you.

In this world, we have this very odd norm of justifying behavior. Culturally, it's accepted that failure to perform (i.e. be "perfect"):

1. Authorizes one to inflict punishment on the person who failed to perform, and
2. Obligates the one who failed to perform to submit to punishment.

This assumes that performance is morality. Performance is performance. Morality is appreciation. Performance isn't morality. Therefore, failure to perform doesn't constitute wrongdoing. It constitutes failure to perform.

For example, you want me to look pretty. I look like hell. You believe that my failure to look pretty is a failure to perform, giving you the right to criticize me and an obligation on my part to internalize the criticism.

Now, asking me to look pretty isn't moral. It's unappreciative of the variety of personal expressions possible in this world. I've done nothing wrong by looking like hell. I have no obligation to appear in ways that you deem pleasant. There's been no breach of duty. You're not entitled to criticize me, and I'm not obligated to submit to the criticism.

Most of what's going on in the interactions between people is laziness. It's the unwillingness on the part of one, or both, to put in the effort to be tolerant and, instead, asking the world to conform to a small slice of actions deemed acceptable. When the world fails to conform, people believe that this entitles them to complain and punish and that the non-conformists must accept the abuse and rectify their "failures." I would ask you how that's working out? Not so well, if you're honest. It can't work out well because it moves contrary to the structure of the dimension itself which is designed to create diversity. Diversity is the goal.

As individuals, we accept the burden for the behavior of others when it's not our fault how they choose to behave. Others demean us, blame us for their abusive behavior, and then expect us to take the blame because "if our behavior was different, then their behavior would be different." This mode of behavior is so common that I could give you hundreds of examples of how we submit to it, on a daily basis. The significant part of the submission is the internal part. We mentally and emotionally accept fault as if this was reasonable behavior when it's no such thing. It's learned behavior. There's nothing reasonable about it.

I would ask that the next time someone tells you that they're mad at you because of something you did, that you pause for a moment. Think about that "because." And then ask yourself how you can "be" the "cause" of another person's choice? How can their choice to view you in such a way that it makes them angry be your fault? No one's forcing them to take that perspective. They're choosing it.

"Yeah, but it's true," you say. "I parked in their parking spot on purpose just to make them angry. I'm responsible for making them mad."

How is it that you're so all powerful that you can "make" another person mad? How can you force their perspective? Their self-worth? Their sense of power? Their flexibility? Their patience? How are you able to make all of those choices for them? Are you them? Do you direct their free will? Their mind? Their point of view? Their philosophy? Their intentions, beliefs, and motivations? Prove to me that you control any of it.

"I'm a very persuasive person," you reply.

Persuasion isn't the ability to make a choice for another person. The fact of the matter is, you can't make one choice for another person. Not one. They decide. They focus. They choose. They do. They're the propellant, the power, the impetus, the cause of their own life. Not you.

There's a great deal of hysterical behavior in this world. People aren't stopping long enough to notice what's going on in their basic interactions with one another. They're assuming things that aren't true. You don't control another person's choices. That means that you don't control their feelings. Other people don't control your choices. That means that other people don't control your feelings. Life is the ultimate DIY project. Everyone's doing it themselves. Everyone's choosing their point of view which, in turn, causes their feelings.

No one causes another person's behavior. No one causes another person's feelings. We're all choosing for our selves alone. We always have been. In this era, however, we're learning to choose wisely. That starts with not carrying the burden for other people's choices. You don't cause the way that other people define you. You don't cause the way that other people feel about you. You don't cause the way that other people think of you. You don't cause the way that other people treat you. They choose all of it. They're responsible for all of it.

To state it another way:

1. There's no obligation to perform (be what other people want to see).
2. Therefore, there's no wrongdoing when you fail to perform.
3. Thus, there's no authority to punish, and
4. There's no obligation to submit to punishment.

Your only obligation is to support your desires. If you want to be a moral person, then appreciate. There's no duty to participate with all of the rest. The games of control and obedience and performance and blame and personal responsibility for others will continue on. But you don't have to play those games anymore, if you'd prefer to be doing other, more beneficial, things.

In sum, you're not responsible for the way that other people feel about you. You can't be held responsible for their feelings because you don't cause their feelings. They cause their feelings because they're self-determined beings, freely choosing their perspective, moment by moment, just like the rest of us.

You're reading by Samantha Standish. If you want to learn more about what happened in my out-of-body experience, my book, "Equal," is available for a nominal amount at,

Popular posts from this blog

Buckle Up, Dorothy, Standardization Is Going Bye, Bye

Skill Games 1: Feeling The Emphasis

Skill Games 2: Codebreaking