Philosophy – “A Critique upon Marxism” – 6/22/2020

“No living human can see themselves, to believe the world has shaped them, without neglecting themselves without a choice. In the lack of choice, we behold ourselves responsible. To this, why not the individual see themselves the responsible one, to blatantly ascribe to be something unlike the world?”

– Anonymous

Marxism will state that society and the world, are the issues of Man. It deconstructs, utilizing the methods of science to engross the world in mass change. To what change respects, it is chaos. To what union states, it is improvement. Unity resonates with no dissection of a world, for that inevitably causes the dissection of ourselves.

When we dissect what is around, the damage is reflected upon ourselves in our lives. That is because even to the child, there is our responsible self being reflected in their eyes, to what they have learned. Have we abandoned them to know on their own? And, to society and its realms, it is the same as the example of the child. What is around, is what we have either created or caused. Creation to causation. It is the two modes of the lifting that pertains to the improvement, to the dissecting that pertains to the change.

Improvement and change, they are not alike. We must bring love into this critique, to understand that “love”, by how it is defined, is the union. No dissection is under love, while no improvement is under change. Under change, there is randomness and a lack of attention. A lack of focus, means for those with material power to gain their material ground. They gain their material ground over those without attentiveness. For those who possess power over the ones with attentiveness to themselves, comprehend the population as blind. Blindness believes in what it can feel. Therefore, blindness will not ever believe in what it cannot see. Such means it will not believe in union, and will always believe in dissection.

What is change if not the transformation, of randomness, of the unexpected, of the uncontrolled, of the chaotic, of the unpredictable?

What is improvement if not the uplifting of what is weak, been abandoned out of negligence, been left for dead?

Marxism divides opinions, divides voice, until the words of a public become fainter and fainter. Does love shout? Or, is love simply boldness? We cannot deconstruct our environments, without deconstructing ourselves. We prove ourselves as the ignorant one when we look upon our creation, to see what we have caused, and never have built.

It is the bravest thing for any human to realize that they possess no choice, in a matter when they want one.

81 thoughts on “Philosophy – “A Critique upon Marxism” – 6/22/2020

    1. I see it as something truly negative.

      From what I understand about “Marxism”, it is a deconstruction of the past, to create a new future. This is what I keep hearing about it.

      If that’s at all related to a “division of opinions”, it means that through deconstructing the past, deconstructing environments, we deconstruct ourselves. By “dividing opinions”, we are dividing the sight upon who we are. As in, we achieve no unity by simply dividing up what we should objective understand.

      Remember our short discussion about how there are certain ideas, like Justice, that should not be interpreted. By “dividing opinions”, I’m meaning that we are dividing ideas upon these objective understandings of ourselves, to simply create more chaos.

      Love, justice, hatred, to name a few… are objective understandings of people, not ever meant to be “divided” to be subjective.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. As a philosophy teacher myself, I tell you that there is a bad publicity around Marx and to be very objective, Marx’ marxism was never applied in history. What was there was sovietism or leninism and Lenine crafted a political system by deforming the authentic marxism.
        Marxism is about liberalism and justice. It is an utopia. However sovietism was a disaster.
        Are you american? Only americans have these ideas about marxism and Marx 🙂

        Like

      2. Oh, that’s nice. So… you don’t even understand that by attempting a utopia through “authentic Marxism”, you inevitably create a dystopia.

        Yeah, I do believe Marx was pro-chaos, even if he didn’t want it, directly.

        I don’t need to read anything about his philosophies. I can tell, just from what you wrote here, that no so-called “utopia” can be achieved without forming a dystopia in its place. As in, whatever trivial system means to wrap itself around the idea of “authentic Marxism” and wants to create the perfect world, which defines a utopia, it will inevitably create chaos.

        The creation of a utopia, is actually the causation of a dystopia. A perfect, flawless society, which is how a utopia is defined, becomes inevitably chaotic and disastrous.

        Like

      3. Again, Marxism was never achieved. Lenin and Trotsky, who were big philosophy readers, studied marxism through Marx’ daughter.
        So, knowing marxism very well, they tweaked it, using big headlines and imposed, with the help of Germans and Brits to do the boltchevik revolution and implemented by force the Soviet Union.
        Marx mainly wanted to fight corruption and exploitation made of capitalism. And he wanted equality. Therefore, Marx wanted revolution but not chaos.
        Again, don’t judge a philosophical theory through an empty political ideology.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Every war on Earth is started not because one wants to destroy, though because one wants to protect. So… of course, by Karl Marx supposedly being against chaos, he was actually for it.

        In this world, it is love that breeds war and conflict.

        Like

      5. The strength of Marx is that he pointed out the problem and predicted all the financial crisis we have been seing. In some of the most democratic countries in the world, Marx is not taught because he still have the strength to mobilize people to protests. These countries fear the sudden awakening of alienated people.

        However, his ideas about property and equality as well as the supremacy of society over individuals are not that good.

        I would say that he wanted guided revolution, not chaos, for change.

        Anyway it is not love but interests and instinct of survival

        Like

      6. You seem to be looking at Marxism for how it was written, not for what inevitably occurs each time someone interprets it.

        Bring Marx back from the dead, use a machine to communicate with his spirit, ask him what he thinks of those who have interpreted his ideas, and we may have a god to speak to.

        Like

      7. I always play the philosopher advocate lol because there are so many confusions out there. At 1st one must read and understand the philosopher’s ideas. Then one can hate, love, interpret etc..

        Liked by 1 person

      8. I believe that when one loves, one dies earlier than those of us who don’t take love so seriously. One cannot truly hate without it being a direct focus. So often, especially in today’s world, we mistake “hatred” for “criticism”. The former creates destruction. The latter creates betterment.

        Many will believe words to inspire hatred, in the world. However, words only exist to remind someone of a fact, already known. If a person is hurt by words, then they were reminded of something they already know of themselves. Words don’t prove anything, however. They only ever serve as a remembrance.

        Like

    2. It is that the most efficient way to create chaos is to divide our understandings upon those objective notions.

      Sure… to be divided in way of debate is healthy. Though, that’s not the focus of Marxism. Such debates are going to be inevitable. People are going to want a fight, no matter what powers a nation. To create chaos in Marxism, is to divide our views on what is not meant to be divided, of ourselves, being things like love and justice…

      Hell, I’ve even once spoken to a so-called “Marxist” who said to me, “I believe the taints of our species are love, beauty, and even humanity.” If that doesn’t paint the picture well-enough, then I don’t know what to say.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Read Marx and you will see he’s anti chaos. He wanted a system. Don’t listen so some enthusiasts who probably read 2 sentences. Read Marx and you will see

        Like

      2. Comprehend this, if you can, “War is a necessary evil.”

        When you look at any fish, can it ever survive in purified water? You know, the kind of water you can buy next to the cashier at a Walmart or Target? If you pour that water into a bowl, and threw a goldfish in there, would it survive? It would not.

        It just goes to show that no society can be pure, can revolve around something you’ve called “authentic Marxism”.

        For the same reason as a fish cannot survive in purified water, is the same reason why humans need to experience evil, for good to exist in the first place.

        Look at all these idiots who try to find some bad in Trump. There’s a saying I like that relates to that. It goes, “You keep looking for the bad in people, and sooner or later you’ll find it, even if it wasn’t there in the first place.” It’s to say that a human does indeed rely on the existence of evil.

        Like

      3. I would say that we need balance between good and evil in order to survive well.
        I agree that marxism is a utopia and no one can judge it as a political system because it never existed. I think Soviet nostalgic and communists will hate my comment here but that’s the truth.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. “Soviet nostalgic and communists” cockroaches and ants, more like. I look at such people who attempt to create a perfect world born from a man-made system, as more insignificant than dust. I do believe Karl Marx both lived and died, in vain. He was a waste of a life, and history has shown, like you have written to me, that anyone who hijacks a dead person’s ideas and actions will never remember their failures. It’s why people think that Hitler was a “genius”, in today’s time. Objectively put, no living human feels brave through the power of love that causes a war, by mocking a dead individual. We forgive those who died, though life cannot berate the dead, without renouncing the forgiveness that’s objectively tied with love.

        But, by me saying that Karl Marx lived and died, in vain, I’m looking at the morons who have “interpreted” his writings, have hijacked his ideas… and my berating of the man is justified because he now lives on in the eyes of idiots. They may as well have torn a toe off his decaying corpse in the grave, never receiving the entire pie, for knowledge’s consumption.

        Like I’ve said, once upon a time, “Christianity probably only had its heyday within its first few decades.” After that, meaning began to fade, like any rotting cadaver.

        People interpret deadness, because dead things are fragmented things.

        I can only comprehend what people have taken of Marxism, and used it for chaos and panic in the real world, outside of Marx’s simple books.

        Like

      5. I couldn’t agree more! Unfortunately, brilliant minds have been hijacked. Einstein will be forever linked to the atomic bomb and he didn’t that it will be actually used.

        Big ideas are dangerous in the hands of psychotic idiots.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Karl Marx, for how “brilliant” he must have been, must have still been stupid enough to not look over his shoulder at the historical evidence of downfalls. Rome is just one example of it. The Byzantine Empire, another example.

        Every great rising has met its failure. It only proves the reality of death. Does science yearn for the continuation of advancement? Then, it yearns for the continuation of life. If it yearns for that, then it must also be reaching towards the need for life to be immortal, denying the reality of death. For if a human were to be immortal, we’d not fear death, though we’d fear life. We’d fear a beating heart. We’d become suicidal maniacs, when immortal, fearing ourselves while living, though not in any danger of dying. This is why I criticize science, because its leaning towards “advancement” is actually a leaning towards “immortality”. It’s also a leaning towards choice, which defines a downfall. Look upon the Biblical tale of “The Fall of Man”, and it illustrates how a choice originates from deception. An origin will originate from birth. When we step away from our decided origin, we have made a choice. This is because no origin can ever be duplicated, without what we have, today: a multiplication of identities.

        What we have, in today’s time, what with the “pride culture”, among people desiring their own special place in the world, is exactly what was written in Genesis, thousands upon thousands of years ago. If “original sin” is defined as sex, then the origin behind every human is achieved at birth, with no more than that. However, if a person denies this and wants a choice in the matter, Human Nature compels them to deceive, because a choice will have them be unlike their origin. That origin is of love, because love relates to not having a choice. Though, those of the “pride culture”, in today’s time, along with those who want to change their identity, side with lust. In lust, in gain, on the grounds of having a choice, temptation is involved. A person who wants a choice, is always tempted. Love makes a person content, while discontent makes a person divided from both their origin, and what they can identity in another person as the same origin.

        Male or female. Man or woman. These are our only origins, dictated at birth. And, like I just wrote above, deception is involved whenever we yearn to have a choice. A choice, that is, away from what we already comprehend.

        To have a choice, again, creates a downfall. Among every downfall, there had been cracks, there had been age. Were the walls of Rome’s buildings forever pristine? They were not, as just more evidence to the fact that Rome’s crumbling into ruins was inevitable.

        Nothing lasts forever. Marx’s books of Marxism were nothing more than something fated to be hijacked, and turned into what Rome was, what life is, fated to die not longer after it would be built. What we can raise from Marxism is a body. Though, without its own head of intelligence, it is lifeless, and bound to collapse.

        Like

      7. You relate love as a sort of determinism with no choice. And you say choice is originated from lust. What if the true nature of humans is lust/desire? Then we are determined by nature to make choices regardless of consequences. “Pride culture”, women rights, nature’s rights or whatever people are asking for is written in our genes. How so? Because, from primitive men to homo sapiens in its broader sense, we are lustful and we love freedom. It’s not a choice. It is who we are.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. You know, you’re the only person who has debated with me on this blog of mine, who hasn’t either thrown an insult in my direction or remained so closed-minded as to call my words “nonsense” and what-not. I love that very much.

        No, seriously… I’ve actually had to “comment blacklist” some 3 or 4 bloggers who were about the most closed-minded fools I’ve ever come across. But, you? You ask questions. You remain open to my theories on things. It’s beautiful, to say the least. 🙂

        So, thanks. 😀

        Like

      9. In the realization of “who we are”, we are content. In that realization, we are loving. Why is that? It is because contentment is founding. When we love, when we find what completes us, we are content, and we are always honest, never deceiving.

        Contentment is love. Deception is lust. Lust is discontent, as well, because to be discontent, one must want more.

        Temptations. Lust. Discontent. Deception. All these things feed into wanting more.

        I say that love is never a choice, because who we love was never loved by choice. We never did have our eyes opened, when we love, because love is always blind. If we were to have our eyes opened, we’d not ever intake the gift of love, nor would we ever give love. If we ever choose who to love, then we may as well treat our beloved as though he or she was a slave on an auction, and we merely selected them from the row.

        A love is not chosen like some fruit off a stand at a market. It is blind. Yet, it is not freedom that is blind, because it is what we want, what we desire, what we crave. We are, when we are free, choosing of what we want, outside of love.

        To imagine choice as unrelated to love, is a lot like how one wouldn’t use their beloved, unless through lust. Yet, even in the act of sex, we comprehend that our love for them overshadows the lust for whenever we use their body. Love is, therefore, the shadow that blankets the flame, to smother it, whenever it is done. Like when the two lovers, beneath sheets in the bed, are making love, and when they are done, they sleep in the darkness and beneath the sheets.

        We won’t use a beloved. We won’t select them like a tool off the rack. We won’t look at them, and say they must be treated like an experiment, and when they are exhausted of use, we toss them aside. We won’t do that. We simply admire who we love, until they can trust us enough to see their nude vulnerability, and it goes a step further, literally and figuratively speaking.

        Love is literally “useless”. It’s the definition of being without use. Therefore, in the places we go in our lives, from one area to the next, we continually feel that discontent, wanting more. Where we stop, is where we’ve found a home, a place where love calls us.

        Like

      10. But in love and desire, our instinct decides, meaning we are determined in lust too. Somehow we don’t choose the object of desire. Can you decide whom or what you will desire?

        Liked by 1 person

      11. Are you relating love to utility? That would be an objective wrong. As I said, love is useless, not determined by what we want. It is, rather, based upon what we need.

        Love, the necessity. Lust, the convenience.

        Love is actually beyond instinct. Instinct is wrapped up in fear. Instinct is the survivalist’s way to keep from death. When love enters the survivalist’s life, they have been founded. They are now being cared for. No one “does” anything while they are being loved. While loved, they are cared for under the wing of that love.

        Like

      12. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said once: ” Love is a trick of nature” for reproduction and species perpetuity. I thought you would like this definition 😄

        I am not relating love to utility although it is important for building everything. It is based on what we need, and this need is deep in us.

        Liked by 1 person

      13. Here’s an example:

        The “pro-life” versus “pro-choice” debate, between those nor for abortion rights, and those for them. It is well-known, of course. Though, it is actually the debate between the protection that sides with life, and the destruction that sides with choice.

        All of the choices in the world break things down. We contemplate, through choice. We dissect the details. We cause pain, when we make a choice, outside of love. We ease pain, when we lack a choice, inside of love. It is why an autopsy is performed on a cadaver. It is why a surgery is performed on a body that been injected with an anesthetic. No pain, means that “dissection”, that breaking down of a structure, is never witnessed. Thus, under love, we are blind to what is occurring.

        An infant, blind. It is meant to be loved, not destroyed, objectively so because its blindness within the darkness of the womb is demanding love, after it is born. The infant does not demand destruction, though the women who side with “choice” on the matter, will cause such to occur. They dissect. They take apart. That is literally how the abortion process works. Individual pieces of the baby are torn out of the woman’s womb. And… to make this even more believable, these “pro-choice” women actually believe the infant in the womb is not alive, believing it to not feel that pain. What does that relate to? Of course, it relates to a person thinking that loves relates to choice.

        Like

      14. A woman cannot “love herself” without seeing this as “self-awareness”. Have you heard of the other “fallen one”, not of Lucifer, though named Sophia? She was female. She was evicted from Heaven, by God, after she wanted more for herself, in the name of discovering truth, the truth of the self. Many Agnostics side with her, in the writings of her.

        I’ve spoken to one such man who is very fascinated by Sophia,

        Sophia is, therefore, related to Eve. Just like any woman, deception is achieved outside of the honesty of love. Love is honest. Love is straightforward. Truth is chaotic, and subject to change. Truth evolves and decays. Death is certain.

        I’ve still got to read more into this… and perhaps I’ll write a whole book on it. Though, I do believe that when Genesis was written, during the 10,000 year time-span that human brains have not evolved, what occurs in today’s time, is still the same as when such stories were written. As in, a male and female’s psychology is still the same, like Genesis, like all the religious texts. There is much truth to realize, because we have not changed. Only our environments have changed.

        Like

      15. Remember that all these holy books were written by men! What do men know about women psychology? And if the truth is chaotic, should we not seek it? Should we remain ignorant?

        Liked by 1 person

      16. Perhaps what I am saying is more complex than can be put in these comments…

        I know that men do say about women that they cannot understand them. I say that is because a man has not been paying attention.

        Like

      17. How many woman complain that their man has not been paying them much attention Surely, you have noticed this, right?

        A man is meant to keep his eyes on what he knows is beautiful, as he’s only meant to be attracted to her, alone.

        This ties into what I said about attraction, being of something love to never see change, by age, by wounds, so that a man is never dissatisfied.

        Like

      18. A man possesses an X chromosome, which means a man can comprehend only half-way to a woman’s psyche, while being left to ponder the other half. A woman, on the other hand, is in complete lack of understanding to why a man does what he does, as a man. She is only ever curious on it, or even envious to it. She has no Y chromosome, which means she cannot possibly understand a man’s manhood. She has to receive her answers directly “from the horse’s mouth”, so to speak. She must ask questions about him, not continually assume what his intentions are.

        Like

      19. The difference is, a man can understand somewhat of a woman’s persona, because having an X chromosome, himself, means that he’s able to show the same compassion as her. A man is always trying to understand a woman, runs himself up the wall because he cannot understand the full picture…

        A woman will look to a man and attempt to see something of herself in him. She wants to see the compassionate, the affectionate and soft side of him. That is her looking at her reflection, at the X chromosome that is within himself.

        I believe that a woman makes more terrible assumptions about a man’s manhood/masculinity, than a man can ever make assumptions about a woman and her womanhood. You look at the Feminists and hear them utter the term “toxic masculinity”, and you realize this is a B.S. phrase, because of what I said. That, a woman has no Y chromosome, meaning that Nature has made her objectively ignorant to masculinity. Only through that movement can she be curious and envious over what a man can do. And, only ever curious and envious, because a man’s manhood to a woman is like a child seeing the openness of a forest for the first time and wanting to be lost in it, to discover ever section of it.

        Liked by 1 person

      20. In my eyes, “masculinity” simply means to “take care of the weak”, with a gentle demeanor.

        And, I will say this for the rest of my life, that if a relationship fails, it is the man’s fault. I believe a man should be in total control of a relationship. As a man, myself, whenever I see a man in a failing relationship, I immediately judge his weakness.

        The only serious relationship I was in failed due to a diagnosed medical condition, one that I kept bargaining with the girl about a possible surgery to cure, to which she kept going into despair about its impossibility. I swear, I would not have ended the relationship for any other reason.

        I took care of her, worked for her, provided for her. Though, that’s not to say that she is incapable. She is the strongest and most educated woman I’ve ever known. She was homeless for many months, before I knew her. She knows how to take care of herself. I merely came in the picture, saw a bird that needed to fly farther, and I helped her.

        Masculinity is a gentleness. Though, I agree that too often a “masculine man” looks like some idiot inmate with tattoos, covered with piercings, muscular on steroids, while his head looks like a freshly-circumcised dick because it’s bald. That, right there, is what I view to be weakness. Because, these Hercules douche-bags wouldn’t know how to handle a woman, to save their lives.

        Like

      21. Weakness is not defined by a gender. I know weak men and I know strong women. Strength and weakness to me are defined by many factors but not by the gender itself.
        I am sorry to hear about this sad story. But things like this happen in life.

        Like

      22. No. A man’s weakness is defined by his inaction. A woman’s weakness is defined by her action. A man’s guilt is defined by his action. A woman’s guilt is defined by her inaction. There is no weakness in guilt. There is only realization. That realization is what betters a person, because guilt is a signal for the individual to better themselves. Whereas, “weakness” is what causes the harm upon someone else. It is guilt that signals the self to relieve that weakness, so the individual can better another person.

        Like

      23. A man has not been paying attention, only because his eyes have been wandering to other attractions.

        Whether those attractions be other women, or just time spent alone… beauty must be smooth, without damage, even if it does age.

        A man has awareness for his external surroundings. A woman has awareness for herself, within. And, that truth a man can discover, beyond all other attractions, can be something infinite in its youth. It is a truth that does not change, because he is seeing it beyond the physical, to love something within the woman.

        Like

      24. These are statements. Believe me women have more awareness of there external surroundings than men do; this goes far in the past because women are guardians.

        Like

      25. Look at Feminism, for example…

        It’s a guilt-exploiting movement, and I can prove it.

        Men and women feel guilt in two very separate ways. Men feel guilt for what they have done. Women feel guilt for what they have not done.

        What does Feminism do, in that sense?

        It scorns a man for all that he’s caused in this world, while it encourages a woman to be something more. As a movement, it’s nothing more than something that has been exploiting guilt.

        Do women have awareness to this? I believe a woman’s “awareness” only goes as far as what she is curious over, hence why they are connected so much to children. A child is equally curious.

        Like

      26. Feminism was good at its start. Now, it demands from a woman to be something else. I saw specially in european countries. To a hardcore feminist, a woman wearing lipstick is making herself a slave to a man. Complete nonsense!

        Liked by 1 person

      27. No, I believe Feminism was probably the beginning of something. It wasn’t for the good of women. It’s just a new sculptor’s tool to change society to appear differently, for someone’s gain.

        But, like I’ve been saying, what better way to sculpt the world than to use the best clay around? The clay where life originates from? A woman.

        Like

      28. Yeah… more “movements” of invented issues that did not matter 200 or 400 years ago, though somehow matter now. This is what I mean. When people have freedom and choice, they dissect themselves, and begin to dismantle who they are.

        I believe freedom and choice is good. But, I believe that limited freedom and limited choice is even better.

        Like

      29. The world is different now from what it was, not 200 or 400 years ago, but 50 years ago. The tools have become smart and we are enslaved to smart tools and devices and artificial intelligence and social media. All this didn’t exist before.
        A tool defines a way of thinking and living. It also gives way to new problems and to new solutions.

        Like

      30. The world may have changed. Though, people have not.

        Women, for one, like I said in a previous comment, have been used for the world’s change. Like tools.

        Like

      31. Let me summarize all I’m trying to say, here, in quotes, even…

        “Change relates to chaos, because change relates to randomness. Change relates to truth, because when truth, or women, are not controlled, there is only decisions. Love is relates to improvement, though is an eternal improvement, governed by logic and a straight line. Love is not like change, because love relates to logic, while both love and logic straighten and order everything that continually changes. Chivalry is the act of ordering disorder. It is dead, today. Therefore, with chivalry, love, and romance, being dead, there is only ever environmental change. With more choice, comes more chaos. With less love, comes more dissatisfaction. People want more. People are tempted. People are seduced into having power. Life relates to change, because life changes. Life relates to truth. Life is what spawns from a woman. Beauty changes. Beauty is seen by unloving eyes to change, because without love, that person with those unloving eyes use beauty, truth, life, and women, like tools. Everything about a woman relates to truth. Everything about a woman relates to life. Everything about a woman relates to change. Therefore, she is a tool, made for environmental change. She is also a tool made to delude ourselves into thinking we can ‘deconstruct society’ into something else, hence Marxism. It is only more change. It is only the effort of deconstructing a man, hence The Fall of Man, hence Feminism.”

        I hope that makes sense to you. I shall copy/paste it for safe-keeping, because one of these days, I will write a book of 100 chapters with that summary to share with the world, hoping to erase Feminism/post-modernism/abstract art, from existence.

        🙂

        Like

      32. If a woman should call herself “beautiful”, stand up for herself by believing her imperfections name her such, then she should also comprehend what beauty is. It is truth. Both beauty and truth change, and are manipulated, like clay.

        Both beauty and truth are manipulated and changed to appear differently to the viewer’s naked eye.

        I once heard the words, “We’re all used, dear. It’s the dealing with it that makes you a woman.” I was fascinated by those two sentences. Because, it’s true. It follows with what I said, that if a woman is beautiful, then she is truth. And, like beauty and truth, manipulated and changed, it is used.

        When is a woman not used? That is when she is loved. That is when she remains unchanged to the naked eye of the man who loves her. In his eyes, and only ever his eyes, she is just as young as the day they had met.

        Like

      33. For so long, I’ve seen a woman as the sex that is used by the world, for consumerist gains.

        Cravings. Temptations. Lust. I believe a woman is used, by the world, for the marketing world. And, even of the so-called “movements” that support her, they do this, too. They use her. They want to mold her, sculpt her, and fondle her form until she is exhausted of use. When she is exhausted of use and of being used, she turns away from that stain of “independence”, and looks for someone true to take care of her.

        To handle her with care, rather than continually roughen her up so that she appears so hideous.

        I say that a woman who is used by Feminism, by the working world, to make her hideous in terms of stress, is no different than the abusive lover who beats her bloody to make her unrecognizable.

        Like

      34. And I must add that women are doing bad to other women. This is where you can see that women are fierce competitors specially when it comes to whatever it defines them.

        Like

      35. Call me old-school, call me whatever else… but I believe a man should define what a woman is. When she defines herself, it’s not very long before you begin to see what Feminism is, today.

        I once heard that Feminism believed itself to better marriages for women. Funnily enough, it worsened them, for both women and men.

        People stupidly say that Feminism is not needed in first-world countries, like America, and that it is more-so needed in middle-eastern countries. Though, I believe that even if Feminism “worked” in those middle-eastern countries, it would turn into what American Feminism is, today. Radical nonsense, that is.

        Female feminists don’t care about men, they don’t care about black women’s problems nor Latina woman’s problems. They also hate themselves. They pretty much hate everything.

        Why do you think I’ve been saying that when a woman gets a choice in her life, finds freedom, things begin to spiral downwards? It’s related to Feminism. Women are used, by corporate power, and other marketing strategies. Even Rockefeller only funded the Women’s Liberation movement to “tax the other half of the population” as I heard. They also wanted more worker’s and more consumers.

        Plus, when the CIA gets involved with Miss Magazine, then you know something weird is up. That’s a fact.

        Like

      36. Feminism to what it had become doesn’t define what a woman is. I think men and women will always be defined by each others.
        To me feminism is about equality of rights. Why a man would be paid more than his female colleague who does the same job? This is the real fight.
        Feminism is not about a woman becoming a man. This is nonsense. An apple can not become a pear. However, they are both fruits, none of them is better than the other, and I am sure you know what I mean.

        What does actually happen to Miss Magazine?

        Liked by 1 person

      37. Lol. Don’t tell me you believe in that “gender wage gap” B.S., do you?

        That’s a myth that’s been debunked, time and time, again. You need to go to the right sources to check up on that.

        Like

      38. Do those “statistics” for those “other parts of the world” incorporate a woman’s choices? That’s what I’ve been saying for the past week. A woman’s choices leads to deception, because a choice, itself, is a deception.

        Men and women have different lifestyle decisions.

        These are the facts. When a man work more overtime shifts during the week, than a woman does, of course he will be paid more. That’s not an “injustice”. That’s just the basis of cause and effect.

        Women have different choices than men, which include more time spent with their families, not even including maternity leave, in which after the child is born, the woman takes care of it.

        That’s not a “wage gap”. That’s a woman’s decision.

        Like

      39. I’ve been also saying that choice, itself, is related to the word “downfall”. It’s the psychological aspect of something being dissected and torn apart, from being once whole.

        Feminism. Women. Tools. Flesh. Truth. These things are what relate to the chaos in “change”.

        Ever hear of “entropy”? It’s related to this, immensely so.

        Like

      40. There’s a game I once played. It’s called “The Secret World”. It’s a game where Legends and Myths are all true, and the headquarters for the Illuminati is in broad daylight, while government conspiracies are common knowledge. In that game, nothing is a secret.

        Topics like these fascinate me, because in that game, the subject of “Freemasonry” is connected to the Illuminati. Tunnels. Secret passageways. Sewers. Even the pastor of a church, in the game, has pyramid symbols inscribed on the front of the building.

        Liked by 1 person

      41. Truth, by how it should be put, is changeable, like flesh changing when it ages.

        I dunno how to say it any simpler. Lol.

        People ask, “What is beauty?” I say that it is truth. Not any truth. Not a specific truth. Just truth. Beauty is truth. And truth is beauty.

        We love what should not change.

        Like

      42. Lol. I left out a sentence.

        I was gonna say that I spoke to a man on Facebook who was fascinated by Sophia, and called the Christian God a “demon”.

        Like

      43. Love is blind. Very much so. It epitomizes trust. Why does a woman close her eyes during sex? Why does she close her eyes to focus on any experience? Why do we always see this? I say it is because she is trusting a man to see something she is blind to, herself. She closes her eyes so that her nude vulnerability can be handled with care, by her man. She closes her eyes because out of blindness, she knows that who she is trusting must not be seen, or otherwise represent deception.

        Does the Bible not write of a woman being deceiving? She is only like that, when her eyes are opened, just like when she took the bite of the fruit of Eden to gain “better awareness”. A woman is only ever deceiving when she is dissatisfied.

        Like

      44. No, they are. Though, a man’s dissatisfaction is so common, it may as well be like dirt. Their ambition is what drives their ongoing “dissatisfaction”. Though, in every little political/ambitious maneuver that a man is attracted to, for every bit of truth that he manipulates, once be becomes attracted to a woman, he has found a unique sort of truth. That truth for a man, in the form of a woman, is the ultimate attraction for him. However, should he be dissatisfied within the relationship, it was only ever because he wanted her beauty to remain young. Young, as in, relating to that ambition a young man feels in the time he wants to conquer much.

        Whenever a man sees youth, he sees beauty. Whenever a man is dissatisfied for that beauty becoming old, makes him want to relapse to a time where he can focus on newer ambitions, taking place in that youthful realm.

        A man is really only ever in love when he can travel with the woman he has loved, by not ever viewing her to change beyond youth. He can see her, when old, still as young.

        Like

      45. It is funny.. somehow men and women are so different but so alike. Women function strategically and love strategically: they want a home, money, career, kids, clothes, a man (better be handsome and rich, that’s even better) and so on. Security and trust are crucial and this what drives her to be dissatisfied if they are missed.

        Like

      46. It is the reason why a man mainly wants a son, over a daughter. He wants to see himself, in that child. He doesn’t want to be distanced from everything he has loved.

        Men become dissatisfied, when their psychology compels them to say that youth is fleeing. Recall the story of Dorian Gray. It is the same interpretation, the same expression.

        A man is attracted to youth, and grows frequently disappointed whenever he cannot follow youth into age. He knows that his time in movement, in thought, in a desire to comprehend everything, is faltering. That is when his wife becomes his nurse, able to tend to whatever wounds he still gains.

        Then, at that moment, should his wife do that, she is seen to be young, again. He sees her, and he realizes that she has not distanced herself from anything, in their relationship.

        A man will see the youth in a woman, even when she is old, should he still love her.

        But, again, dissatisfaction will show him a desire to see physical youth, without needed love. If flesh is physical, then love is metaphysical. If he remains focusing on flesh, then that is where he is dissatisfied.

        A woman becomes dissatisfied based on her curiosity. She wants freedom. She wants choice. That’s a woman’s psychology.

        A man has all the freedom he wants, all the choice he wants, since birth. However, that always ends up with him “settling down”, after he wants no more freedom, no more achievements, and merely wants to hold the better part of life, being the woman he now loves.

        Like

      47. A woman wants all that you mentioned. Men and women want freedom and choice and everything. The difference I think is that women are more into gathering and building. You can see it in female animals. They are always surrounded by their babies and other females.

        Liked by 1 person

      48. I do hope you understand, now, that because “dead things” are “fragmented things”, people will interpret a dead person’s ideas in those fragments. By doing that, they fragment the world, cause division, because that’s how life interprets death. The interpretation of decay is the interpretation of something never whole. By applying that interpretation on the world, we divide and fragment the world, turning those who are still living into divided people.

        No human can interpret the dead, without causing it. Thus, it’s why you have every dictator who’s had to kill hundreds or thousands of people, to get what he wants.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s