America – Modern Romanticism

Political Philosophy – “A Problem with a Voting System” – 8/5/2022

“Whenever change gets promoted, it has to do with a wish to see all systems redone. Whenever improvement gets promoted, boredom sinks itself into a voter’s mind, because what a voter votes for will be for entertainment and amusement of getting what they want.”
– Modern Romanticism

Change promotes chaos, or idealism. Improvement promotes order, or reality.

Whenever a political candidate advocates for change, it has only to do with wanting to scrap what their predecessor accomplished, to implement their ideals that mirror their vision of an ideal world. Through a political candidate’s vision, their ideals match up with change. A change will implement only idealism, in viewing a prior invention as obsolete, dysfunctional, or too simplistic.

How far can change reach, to improve those lives among those around who did not vote for such a candidate? A problem with a voting system has to be that change will be aligned with chaos, when it never matches with everyone, since not everyone voted for this candidate.

Through improvement, conforming to a current system, ever seeking to reinforce or strengthen it for everyone’s sake, becomes its requirement. Although, such a system will oppose a voting system, when those who vote want nothing improved for a country. Instead, voters want improvements for voters, making those implemented changes beneficial to those who favor that candidate. What aligns change with chaos has all to do with those levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. What never brings aboard unity has to be when sides will form based on satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Even when all yearn for those same basic needs, division becomes pointless when nothing improves. While improvement defines itself as a betterment for all, change reminds us of what we were lacking. What always lacks itself among a social realm will be those improvements that change overlapped. Change overlapped what worked, due to its alignment with idealism. What works will always be a reality. What functions will always be a reality. What changes will be an ideal, thus defining incompetence as a continuous influx of what never works. It becomes a continuous influx of idealism or envisioning dysfunction to overlap onto function.

A voting system has its errors in choosing this change over improvement. A voter wants change, only because of their wish to see things bettered for themselves, these voters. However, as change demands sacrifice, being to overlap on a previous leader’s vision while they bettered it during their time in office, whatever changes may be different, though everything remains the same. Difference remains as sameness, because while change gets supported and advocated through a voting system, nothing gets improved for all.

As improvement will simply better what has already been established, change scraps it, perhaps for dissatisfaction to overlap onto satisfaction. If dissatisfaction becomes paramount among people’s mindsets, sheer chaos becomes a result of a voting system.

On Hate – Pt. 1 – “Hatred in Crime” – Philosophy – 4/30/2022

“A concept as hate, as it is a concept, so rare that it belongs to a vendetta, reflects our judgement to it as if all knew each other. Do murderers always know their victims? If so, there would be nothing to fear. Do soldiers come to know their enemies? If so, they’d have less to fear. Do people who empathize with other’s hurts, know those hurts? They do, since they see themselves in it.”
– Modern Romanticism

It is an overlooked thing. Hatred is neither loose nor widespread, nor can it be expressed through bigotry. If anger, such can come from multiple sources. All of those a person should empathize with. If solutions are a group’s belief to find, then no enemies should be made. To know your enemies might mean to empathize with them. If so, there is nothing to fear.

It is another overlooked thing. If a person truly hates another, there might be a legitimate reason for it.

Hatred can only be born from love. When a person loved, they had known another. In knowing another, there was no monster to fear. For when we fear another, instead of fearing for another, we find them less identifying to ourselves. We believe they could never understand us. A reason we disallow that is because they are someone to fear. We disallow their entrance into us, because our distrust keeps them at a distance. Their distance is our safety.

Criminals rebel against their world. Anti-social behavior upon what is around that person afflicted with such a mindset will enable their rebellion against needed understanding to fault and imperfection. A murderer of another might have known another, and so, this crime is overlooked as it does not pertain to fear. There must be a reason why a blood feud or a personal grudge that caused a murder is not as interesting as all crime through prejudice. That must be because something as personal as this notion of legitimate hatred is nothing to be tangled in. As in, we do not wish to be caught inside something we do not understand.

However, all crime out of prejudice is something that can be understood, only due to its place in fear. Distrust, ignorance, and fear are symptoms to a people’s universal distance between each other. We comprehend that, because fear is loose through its spread. Spreading fear is as easy as bringing to light an issue that an entire race of people will advocate against. That is because an understood factor is fear, which in being against a more personal factor as hatred, there is division among groups.

People understand what they fear, because they comprehend their preferences and also their prejudices. If a person were to go against their fears, there would be truth to discover. The discovery of truth is a reconfirmation of oneself. It is outside limiters as distance and ignorance, due to finding truth means having knowledge. That is love. That is how people have reasons and purpose for even hatred, as it excuses how a person could have been ignorant. However, that does not excuse forgiveness, as this legitimate hatred can regress the mind back to forgetfulness of all that is good to embrace all that is bad.

If one person committed a crime out of fear, it had been due to the consideration of another as a threat. It has been due to seeing another as different. This is prejudice, though is not hatred. Hatred, born from love, holds a singular requirement of getting past surface level detail to see within a person. That means to harm another through vengeance and planning. When hatred brews, there are unavoidable thoughts that turn this notion of knowing your enemy into that plan to cause a type of harm that signals reminder. A reminder, being that one that brought about the hatred. There comes, through such reminder, a cycle of repeating vengeance.

Politics – “Biden – the Face of Weak Leadership” – 2/24/2022

“When character is neglected for its objective value, then no matter the title to the leadership position, leadership, itself, becomes ruined.”
– Modern Romanticism

The definition of leadership is not meant to be subjective.

Although, some fools will take the meaning of a thing that it defines itself to whatever a person says it means. Universal meanings for certain definitions that are meant to be kept whole, unchanged, to be passed on through their preservation is what resists a nation’s divides.

Some fool has said that art is art because the artist said it is art. Then, some other fool will say that one other definition to a thing is itself because the definer to it had said so. Is leadership caught up in this curse? I would think so. Whether art or leadership or anything else, such essences cannot be defined according to the singular person. Preservation to the meaning of a thing must be kept intact, because our greatest long-term divide is to lose the meaning of it.

Why are human ever divided? It is always based on miscomprehension. Whether art or leadership or anything else to the meaning of it, it was rendered a Nihilistic meaninglessness because of simple misunderstanding. Yet, being misunderstood is also an insult. If one must tell the world who they are, rather than show themselves to the world, they are a deceiver. If there is no proof and no evidence, then you do lie. Leadership, in specifics, is not what it is when a person must explain it through words, rather than reveal it at first glance.

Then, how should a leadership be judged? It would not be based on experience or knowledge. It is more based on what is seen at first glance. Weakness to a leadership is through character. A strong leadership displays the objectively correct character. And how is that character determined as correct? It is, when the leadership is judged by another nation’s leader.

Weak leadership lacks heart. To the heart, there is care for one’s country. To the mind and some fool’s value to it, for leadership’s sake, that something as knowledge and resource is the betterment for a leadership position, will simply result in the division that another leader will exploit. An exploitation, as this, refers to the weakness of the leader for how such focuses on the value of the resource (the mind) over care or correct character (the heart). A divided heart is merely a missing heart. A focus on resources, over the heart, is how a nation becomes divided, through its incessant infighting over them.

A stronger leadership comprehends what is divided to another nation, meant to be understood, during some former time, as the strongest over the other, enough to exploit how the heart is missing. One leadership with its heart as absent is going to be divided over resources. The exploitation is in how the heart compares to character, and if such is seen to be weak or missing from another nation, the once-strong nation will not be taken with much regard for remaining strength.

Define what is strong, in the objective sense, to a leadership, and you have the correct character. An incorrect character is a missing character. That character, being absent, is going to be seen of its void to the strong leadership with a present character. One cannot have their character divided, though missing, because when you lead, what is valued is not your experience nor knowledge, though what is felt upon the observer at first glance to you.

Political Philosophy – “How a Population is Manipulated” – 10/23/2021

“Leadership does not govern according to its people. As for the politics of leadership, it will govern to what it might find useful or advantageous. As there is nothing more advantageous than of the fruit of chaos, for a people to believe politics sides with a nation’s population is to forget that it exists in consideration for what it might plunder. As all freed nations have become such out of the sufferers becoming the leadership, makes to what is political, in nature, as nothing more than the desire to possess freedom to itself.”
– Modern Romanticism

No leadership connects to its people. All leadership is an advantage for itself, mimicking what former leaderships had done to gain their own display of power. A nation’s population, with its freedoms and rights, are as life, with the idea that both freedom and lives are vulnerable enough to become stolen. Would then a nation’s population believe that rights and also life are precious enough to be protected, means that such are not gifts with the intent on never stealing it back. Does one steal back a gift? It cannot be the case, when this was deemed as mere sacrificial, in essence.

Life cannot be given, as is the same with rights. Freedom is not a gift, because along with rights and life, all of these things are there with their vulnerable nature, always within the threat of being stolen and lost. Rights are lost when such are, though landed in the possession of another who is the thief, speaking of the term “loss” as now on the side of the thief. Rights or freedom or life is lost to the thief, because such were not given to the thief.

Rights are a blessing to have, though even a blessing is earned. A curse is to what is lost of being blessed, though is more the case that the person, with such a loss, lacks the will to take back what was stolen. Their curse is their lack of will, since what was stolen was done by another without the desire to earn, though took to the convenience of theft. If in the recognition of what was worked for, becomes then the recognition of what was lost to ourselves, then the outcome is to take back what was taken from our hands. It is in death that a thing as life, loved by a multitude, can be lost for eternity. What has now amounted to loss, being of a thing now in possession by another, must be understood as something of what was allowed for them to have or not.

True manipulation lays in the mindset of whomever states that their rights are under protection by their nation’s leadership. Such would not be the same as having rights, though instead is the power that is ever-more endangered than life, freedom, or rights. Would one have power, being of the tyrannical sort that dictates who should be free and who should not, is always in danger from those who yearn for their freedoms. It is an inevitable factor that those who want freedom will have it. It is since such a desire to not be deceived nor manipulated will grow to a proportion that its eruption is an unstoppable occurrence.

To those who believe their rights are guarded by their political favorites, are only ever returned the favor by those same political favorites. This manner of manipulation is through the obliviousness that a person’s rights are as guarded as their life, temporary and vulnerable to the notion that all can be stolen. If a person believes that their own rights are protected by those who are leaders to their nation, then their next statement is to believe that those same political favorites hold greater loyalty to their family or friends.

Quote – “Leadership by Example” – 10/16/2021

“Leadership by example will not tell the world how it’s done. Rather, it will show the world how it is meant to be done. The leader who governs his nation, focuses on his nation, not to either interfere nor place other nations ahead of his own is a leader by example. That is, to lead by example means to aid the self along with what one knows best, showing to other nation’s leaders that the rule of loyalty and commitment shows itself best through actions, not beautified words. For the leader to aid what is closest will show to the rest of the world an example that is being set, causing either the effects of envy or the education of those same factors of loyalty and commitment.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “When a Nation has Reached its Peak in Progress” – 9/19/2021

“Prominence for the focus of difference or diversity is the sign that progress or development can no longer be achieved. When it is similarity that, through being able to set aside differences, brings about the result, this is not ever achievable in a society that has instilled its current focus on what is different.”
– Modern Romanticism

Wars have only ended, because of similarity. No one did win, though a white flag was waved to indicate surrender. Everyone loses. No one wins, during a conflict that cannot decide a victor. There is no place for everyone to be a winner. There is, instead, infinite places for each individual to lose. Progress is achievable with relation, with the same example of a white flag that indicates surrender to be understood as more a symbol of understanding. The white flag says, “We have lost, though you won nothing.”

Philosophy – “Why Choice is more the Slave’s Route, than Freedom’s Route” – 9/18/2021

“Were choice to ever compare to freedom, then we’ll always say the tyrant should never be accountable for their decisions. Freedom is deserved, only ever upon the realization for the consequences to such decision-making.”
– Modern Romanticism

We are not free through choice, for that is the route of the slave. A slave does not choose to be free. A slave is meant to be free, because as any life, it is not meant to be imprisoned unless for the purpose of being responsible for wrongdoing. Though, a tyrant would enslave, if through the offering of choice, that to their people would gladly take without question for its source. Just as the desperate addict would not question what the source is to their addiction, nor the businessman so afflicted by greed care for the intent of the one whom their sales are sold to, all is corruption under endless option.

Options do not make the freedom. Instead, accountability for the consequences of any person’s decisions allow the freedom, as such is deserved. Freedom, or rights, are earned, same with life. Life is earned, though a tyrant is not willing to allow it in the same sense as a kidnapper is not allowing freedom for their captive. Those who believe liberation lies in choice, are in fact slaves to the ignorance of outcome.

Philosophy – “Theorizing the Origin to Divide & Conquer” – 6/21/2021

“A people are divided when their home is never secure.”
– Modern Romanticism

Leadership should not defend its people, due to its focus meaning to be the nation. Leadership should support the nation, not the people. If the opposite is the focus for leadership, then the nation becomes neglected. When a nation is neglected, the people become divided the same way an earthquake breaks apart land. Groups are formed, under the divided crust, metaphorically so. Divided crust, being a metaphor, though in relation to how a nation, when neglected, divides the people.

Unity is not the motive to a leadership that focuses on its people, while neglecting or even rejecting the values their nation have upholded. Erasing these values, is to replace such with chaos. Order is the same as a unification to a nation, because a leadership cannot unify a people without force.

Forcing a people, not ever setting the example, is to make slavery out of those who attempt to be individualized among such set collectives. Among division, there is different collectives, not individuals who can be told apart. It is chaos, mingling together, that cannot be differed apart. Groups are compiled with the individuals, within it. Though, nothing is told apart when the collective refuse the value of individualism.

It is individualism that sets the example. Leadership, through example, is to value the individualized nation, not its focus upon the people. Individualism focuses upon individualism, forming connection out of admitted incapability. Though, a group, through its pride, would not admit to such. Incapability is to individualism, though stubbornness unto pride will be to a collective or group.

A leadership can divide a people, when the singular support, individualized on its own as a nation, becomes divided beneath them. A people are divided when their support, being the land or nation they have walked upon, is divided. This was, again, because of the current leadership not focusing on the nation, though the people.

A leadership can conquer a people, when such never is together under true unity. Individualism is stopped under first the negligence to the nation, and then the people neglecting or rejecting each other.

10 Reasons why Love has no Relation to Consumerism – 4/8/2021

1. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, in that it has nothing to do with division.

2. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself relates to never having a choice.

3. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mind has more to do with wanting an excuse, being able to reason, and having infinite choices.

4. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because “having a choice” would be more oriented towards cheating or committing infidelity.

5. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself has more of a relation to honesty. It is honesty that has a relation to a lack of freedom or a lack of the ability to excuse oneself.

6. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because it bases itself on remembered standards, which the consumerist mindset has none.

7. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset has more of an affiliation with easily-manipulated & exploitable feelings, over anything eternal.

8. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because itself has nothing to do with manipulation. It is manipulation that compares to the ability to reason, and then to wriggle oneself out of responsibility.

9. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset has a better comparison to freedom. It is the concept of freedom and infinite choice that limits itself in terms of a value’s longevity, to be more aligned with worth for the infinite amount.

10. Love has nothing to do with consumerism, because the consumerist mindset comprehends infinite choice as the independence of the person. It is independence that compels a person to rebel against the past, for which love encompasses.

Philosophy – “Why Representation can go to Hell” – 3/24/2021

“Whether decided to be qualified enough for a position, is not for the display of yourself upon the pedestal. Even choosing between the apple or the orange is considered for either’s health properties, not for how it appears.”
– Modern Romanticism

You are useful. You should not wish for distrusted sorts to tell you that you appear beautiful. You are not meant to be accepted by your appearances. Instead, you are meant to be accepted by what you can do. You have only one mother. And, you have only one father.

If weak-enough people deem all as meant to be their mothers, then they are insecure. They are addicted to comfort. As a mother will always tell her child that he or she is simply “good enough”, it has also become the common rhetoric of the 21st century. Being perfect enough or good enough is not ever for the ground of function. One can always become better, in terms of function. Though, to better oneself on appearances will only enhance insecurity. It is because one is always insecure when considering their appearances, never for anything else.

One is not insecure for anything other than appearances. This is due to the state of being secure, simply means one is being guarded. Guarded, that is, for beauty. If beauty is taken into consideration by the protector, then it means that they believe the beautiful one to be weak. Though, among people, even of women who display this same rhetoric of wanting to protect themselves, fail to comprehend that capability is there to protect others, not the self. One is never capable for the self, though possesses their skills for the necessity of preserving life. Protection, that is, meaning that the role behind function is of the ugliness to the toiled human form being able to either construct or reconstruct beauty.

If to be secure means to have protection near, so that one’s appearances could be “accepted”, then representation merely displays a person as guarded enough because they are weak. As in, they are meant for their minds to be kept wholly in unwavering dependence on their protector. That is, if the workforce has gained a wish to “represent” the so-called “unrepresented diversities” of the world, it merely means there are certain people who can be deemed as needing to drop their strengths and skills. Such means, their security will come by way of complete and unshakable dependence.

It is now to be said that when a person relies entirely on the protector to guard their own appearance, the “motherhood” aspect of this becomes realized. That is, through the addiction of comfort, we can believe ourselves either perfect or good enough, though never strive for betterment in terms of our skills. As another’s protection will simply delude ourselves into thinking that we are good enough to the protector, then it is our capabilities that remain stagnant to never be improved. It is that the desire for one’s representation is a weakness that stunts individualism.

Again, appearances are what are secured, not one’s skills nor their function. If one’s body is the sight of either what is beautiful or functional, then it is to the latter that shall protect the former. It is always what is functional of this world that protects the beautiful.

It is out of our dependence upon what we comprehend to never betray nor abandon ourselves, being of what we can fully trust, is how we are protected or secured. It is the ugliness to the human form, toiled, battered and vulnerable by a day’s worth of protection, symbolizes how it serves to protect what should be preserved.

Nothing of our functions, when the workforce has garnered a wish to “represent” certain sorts out of their appearances, could be accepted when such a realm has its focus on security. All the more security for those who are insecure enough in their appearances, merely extends the view that these certain sorts should indeed remain weak and increasingly dependent. No person, so dependent on their appearances to be guarded, in their display of being represented in the sense of being diverse, can rely at all upon their own functions or skills. In being weak, a person has no need to guard. Though, were such “represented” people to be strong, they’d find more of a need to protect others.

Philosophy – “Why Politicians are Incapable of Compassion” – 3/19/2021

“Know always that the face that never even is truthful with the self can spread upon the grieving fellow the coat of sugar that reveals only the deception he’s believed in.”
– Modern Romanticism

Nothing is as kind as deception. It is what we mistake, of the politician, for compassion. We refuse in the attempt to see past the face of theirs to notice something that would not blossom with truth. Truth has never resided in them, nor from them and for the world. Among the politician who shares his consolation towards grief, comprehend only that deception is the softness he brings. Comprehend only that he is not there to bring you truth of any matter, since through deception, what will ease the grief is only what has been a part of him.

If the politician ever grieves, it is then over their lost humanity. In their mind, it has become a forgotten element, this necessity for being human, so the deception lends itself as a comforting arm to the grieving individual. As in, to place deception in the most shielding warmth, though forgetting about who they helped, since it was never sincere.

No politician is capable of compassion, since the profession allows for a certain contrast between itself and whatever is at their home. Such a contrast to differ the career as a politician, from life among the ordinary. How does a politician perform outside of the succumbing stage act of deception before the multitude of cameras? Is he revealing the truth, at his home? Does he become drunk, strike his kids into being bloodied, thrust his wife with the needed force for the committal of marital rape, to then pass out upon the couch? Such shocking habits would not be caught anywhere on the camera, of one that defends the image of such a politician.

Yet, the most shocking aspects to a person are their truths. It is of things they hide from the world or the entire universe. It allows for endless question upon the “behind the scenes” lifestyles of a politician, as it does for the celebrity. Those we expect to resemble perfection, without flaws, are those politicians whose own grief is their humanity. Is their truth a horror behind the windows, doors and walls of their home? Do they act in ways that would destroy our long-understood comprehensions of them?

As compassion would express a mote of truth, nothing can be of that from the open mouth or caress from fingers offered by the politician. Empathy requires a connection of truth. A lightning-quick access of the heart, as is the signal to empathy’s depiction of another’s pain to ourselves. It is that the unknown aspects of those “behind the scenes” lifestyles to the politician are so unknown, that what we do understand remains as the “truth”, yet varnished.

Philosophy – “A Critique against LGBTQ” – 3/12/2021

“Knowing the self, being a place of limitation, being then what a human is. A source of imperfection. Inclusiveness is, therefore, not the way to involve the everything or anything of the world.”
– Modern Romanticism

Inclusiveness resides upon the involvement of those who are said to not be respected for “who they are”. Yet, their involvement is not ever thought upon, in regards to their capability. A fault with equity is to involve a person, though only upon the supposed knowledge of “who they are”. And, just what is a person known by? If not for their limitations as humans, then perhaps for their drive to be perfect? If to “know a person” does not revolve around comprehending another, as a human, then what for?

It is always the knowledge of another person or of oneself, that relates to them or the self, as a human. Though, the LGBTQ community are there to encourage the world to “involve” those who are never accepted for “who they are”. And, is it in our place to understand “who they are”, if we can believe their limitations should be voided? If not to understand a person by their limits, then perhaps we are simply arrogant and delusional.

If it is not mental illness to be a transgender, then is the former, not the latter, not delusion? And, if we are never delusional while being mentally ill, then is merely the acceptance of certain sorts only there for the inclusiveness of pure incapability? Those who are mentally ill are mainly incapable, though more-so because we are ignorant of what they are capable of doing.

Capability and incapability sticks as the back-to-back resonation for “knowing who a person is”. As we are incapable of understanding someone for their perfections, then it should be comprehensive enough to believe we are instead capable of knowing them for how they relate to us. However, with differing identities, that is more often the case, among the LGBTQ world, as an impossibility. An introduction should not be forced. Diversity is not meant to be forced. That is because an introduction from someone else, in relation to themselves as a fellow human, comes to us as simply natural. It is voided of the artificial nature of force.

Does life force itself? No, though death does. Death is the only thing forced upon. And, since this resides among the place of fear, then the word “tolerance” encompasses the same. As it is, we can only ever tolerate what we are forced to bear with. We can accept what we are friendly towards, because the naturalism of its introduction was never forced. Instead, that naturalistic way was an example of ourselves, as well. As in, it was an example of what should be, not what shouldn’t.

For what should be in this world, is the person who believe they can be everything. Even among those who dream or are ambitious and delusional enough to think they are never incorrect upon what they do, always end up at a point where they discover sheer impossibility.

To be capable or to be its opposite, shows ourselves, in contrast from LGBTQ, that life is a stockpile of what we can do versus what we cannot. It is never to “know ourselves” nor to “know another” in the belief they are a human, when we’ve kept comprehending them as capable of doing anything. As it is, that’s the same thing as using them.