Democracy – 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.

Philosophy – “Criminal Control, not Gun Control” – 5/28/2022

“If a gun can be controlled, who can say if it won’t also be controlled from being outside hands of those responsible enough to utilize one?”
– Modern Romanticism

A criminal speaks a singular language. One of fear. No criminal will remain a lion with bared fangs and claws, if this language can be understood by others. If a language, like fear, can be understood from two sides, it depends on those who can utilize it in a more responsible manner. Even if a language refers to a literal language, such as Chinese or French, you’ll notice those who know to speak when it becomes most appropriate. Others will speak to interrupt. Others will speak to insult or in an attempt to harass to degrade.

It cannot be subjective, for something as speech or language, to be outside moral appropriateness if we can consider manner or etiquette. To that more extreme route of knowing a language, this one called “fear” from a criminal’s way of communicating with their audience, controlling such will require a superior usage of it. A superior usage of fear will, in a simple sense, subdue an inferior usage of that language. If one controls a gun, not a criminal with a possession of one, there might as well be rhetoric that argues that a microphone conveys a literal language told into it, rather than a person who speaks from their thoughts.

A language, as fear, can be subdued. One criminal, as any other, will be trained not as a person, though as a dog. If fear remains all that they understand, it stays as fear to be what proves a human’s dominance over even a literal literal dog. If a dog becomes trained through a usage of fear, which it does when it knows its master instructs it, so can a criminal be given this same treatment.

Speaking a language of fear requires a greater dosage of another’s language, same with fear, to subdue a giant into an ant. To that, one must know that when a tool becomes restricted, being a gun or a mere enhancement to a certain language, what hides itself will be a potential speaker of that language. Whether that concealment relates to that of those who can enact this language of fear for good or for bad, must be depended on this availability of that tool. Although, when you subdue that tool, negatives to those who can express a certain language will become a prominence, due to those deemed as necessary to be silenced to operate in more effective ways. An attempt to silence a speaker to this language of fear, through restricting their tools, will result in themselves operating their crime in areas never given attention. If to make unavailable a tool of an AR-15 assault rifle, an expressor to this language of fear will embrace those hidden crimes that are never seen among this light of greater incidents.

Since to silence language will not be its case, when you restrict their tools, there will become a thinning of their acts to more isolated events. If a mass shooting reaches mainstream media’s attention, it had been because of itself being a popular subject. If another subject happens to be to restrict high-magazine guns, what occurs out of mainstream medias not considering isolated events will be their hiddenness from gaining popular attention. This has been an objective case, and what will remain as this when a popular story can no longer be covered.

Again, to subdue a language will require a greater precision and more ability to that language. If a large incident as a mass shooting indicates that high-magazine assault rifles must be restricted, a language as fear will not be silenced within those more occurring incidents of gun violence by handguns. A language as fear will be silenced, at an almost national or global basis, when a certain world introduces greater speakers of fear with responsibility and appropriateness of it.

Philosophy – “The Inherent Problem with Progression” – 4/10/2022

“If progress takes a side, it will never be outside of what the progressive views of everything around for the world’s potential change. Progress can only change the world into a different color, alas having an issue with everything that is wrong except for what is wrong with the self. The progressive therefore either avoids personal fault and the requirement to be accountable or never believes the self could be improved.”
– Modern Romanticism

Progress steers a world, a nation, a people towards development, though only of what is seen outside of viewing their own reflection. We can speak of equity as though it’s progress, though only because it avoids the reflection, being the idea of what is understandable about another that we see in ourselves. If what is flawed to another is the same for us, then we can recognize where we once were, upon a time, that whether disadvantaged either through being imperfect in skills or being disabled through a physical disfiguration, the improvement, through progress, is never advanced with the self. Progress advances what it sees, even if that means to treat a human as a mechanical object requiring tinkering and toying to allow for its continued function to the greater machine.

For if progress were to see the self, understand what equality represents through comprehending the self the same as someone else, it would develop at a slower pace. It would perhaps develop the world, while a human is the center of everything else. It is in the recognition that a person changes the world or themselves, not the world changes a person without the acknowledgement that a person created their environment.

In the exactment of change to the world, as the progressive loves to tout for promotional sake, there does not seem to be sight upon the self. The reason being, is that no change could come to the self that the progressive does not already believe has occurred from “the world” among its supposed victimizing to all manner of desperate people. A progressive must then believe that “the world” was not built by human hands, as the argument remains to say, “Why rely on the same people who caused the fault to begin with?” Why rely on those who should not be trusted to solve what is that is still wrong with the causers to the fault?

Those who cause a problem should first look at themselves. When they do so, they might see that themselves are as large as the problem having been caused, and therefore see their reflection in the problem. If the problem is equal to themselves, then no progressive can admit being able to solve it, without refusing to admit that they have caused the damage. Progress, itself, is unable to accept accountability for a wrong, because that is the same as slowing progress down. When progress is slowed, it is because of having taken accountability or responsibility for the damages being done, that questions arise as to the worthiness of the achievement.

Inherently so, progress, itself, is unable to hold the self, the progressive, accountable without jeopardizing all of progress. That is because the desperate rely on progress for the betterment of their surroundings. However, if the desperate blame the progressive, then they may as well blame themselves, as well. That is because they are seeing a reflection of themselves, to the progressive, that they are just as much faulted to being human as all others.

Philosophy – “Why No Government Should Aid its People” 12/10/2021

“Availability to the short-term is negligence upon what is most available, pertaining always to the long-term. What is long term, being most available, is a person’s comprehension of their capability. To know or understand yourself is always to fathom your limitations. Then, to understand everything capable to a singular person is then a presence that cannot be less available, when it is not expendable.”
– Modern Romanticism

If a government provides or is expected to be responsible, it was because its people were irresponsible. A people faced with crisis will expect its leadership to be responsible for it, though such expectations are from those whose characters were revealed to be weak during the start of their dilemmas. What defines a weak people or population to a nation? It can only be the resulting behavior of national crisis from the people, revealed at the beginning of it. If it is true that crisis does not build character, though reveals it, then this is the reason an expectation will be placed, from those who are weak, towards those who are strong.

However, what defines strength is a person’s character. A nation’s development was not due to crisis, itself. It was due to the aftermath of the crisis, or due to how a nation is better able to prepare for the next. If what defines strength is a person’s character, then its judgement comes upon the realization for who should be responsible to potential weakness being revealed. If those who are strong will survive, then they require no responsibility from an external source. When a nation’s government is expected to be responsible for those who are irresponsible or weak, that same government will be revealed for either strength or weakness when the crisis faces them. Would weakness be the result, then the people are strengthened. Overall, what comes of a nation, regardless of what is faced, is the strength of its people when in realization of the weakness to a leadership or government. No leadership or government can replace its people’s strength, because that is the same as replacing their freedom.

It is the greatest freedom of all to remember that the individualist self is wholly responsible for the outcome to crisis. In being responsible, the outcome to crisis comprehending the handling of the dilemma. One’s handling to the dilemma is not without reveal of character, whether being strong or weak will tell of who will hold the expectancy for who should be responsible. One’s weakness of character has been through their lack of comprehension to how it develops, during when the crisis ends. If they are still in favor of another having control over being responsible to the next crisis, then they are a slave.

One cannot expect a system of government aid to last into the long-term, without ignorance to the notion that these provisions will only aid the short-term. The reveal of character, entering into the long-term, would reduce individualism down to willful ignorance. Though, this cannot happen, because that is the same as burying a person while alive. One cannot ignore the person, in the desire to prolong such government support to the uncertain future. If the short-term is believed to be the only necessary focus, the long-term is ignored for such systems in their maintenance. This lack of maintenance will cause those systems to crumble. To focus on what is most practical to the methods of aiding a nation’s population, there is itself only beneficial to the short-term. Then, to wish for these methods to prolong their system of benefits into the long-term is to ignore what is long-term of individualist benefits, being the development of a people’s character. Where is the place to ignore the possibility of a nation’s leadership or government to prove themselves as irresponsible, during the existence of such systems of benefit, only for the people to prove their responsibility? It is that, in the end, the people are meant to be responsible.

Philosophy – “Why a Legal System should Ignore a Criminal’s Remorse” – 12/6/2021

“What is Justice, if not blind? If a world considers the emotions of a wrong doer, then there will be praiseworthy wrong doers.”
– Modern Romanticism

Justice is blind. It should not consider the remorse of the criminal, because itself is kept upon the peace of society. The peace of society, that the criminal had disrupted, is always for Justice to enact itself upon the individual who was against the social life. That is, Justice is correct to operate against those who rebel against society.

It was always due to ignorance that the person, now named a criminal, had done a wrong. Since we are ignorant always of what is not close to us, would then make society always a place for rebellion’s sake and causes. When society is rebelled against, it is always criminal behavior, due to how ignorant is to the mind of a person who could not be close to their environments. A rebellion against an environment is to never find their surroundings familiar. In contrast, the familiarity of one’s own child will not be received with as much likelihood of rebellion. Although, even if the child is neglected, it is a crime to be considered from those the criminal personally knew to be more of a shock. If to rebel against society is seen as the norm, however, then both ignorance and crime dealt from such ignorance also are.

We cannot consider what we are in knowledge of, such as our children, as able to be rebelled against without the literal definition of betrayal being applied. If society is meant to change, if systems are meant to be improved, if structure is meant to be rebuilt, then none of this can compare to things always familiar.

It is the knowledge of what is familiar that becomes something seen as unchangeable. It was not meant to be, in a protector’s eyes, altered or damaged. Though, the remorse of a person is clear for what they know. If any criminal act, even one of genuine betrayal, is understood by Justice, then it would not even consider the remorse from even those crimes considered most personal or emotional. When in consideration of remorse, Justice releases its own blindfold. Justice becomes aware. Though, Justice is meant to consider how an individual has disrupted the peace of society. If it considers what society thinks of an individual, then it becomes social justice. Social justice is only for the purpose of noting what a collective can do for an individual. If that were the place of actual Justice, then we will inevitably praise crime and wrongdoing. That is because this method of awareness for crime and wrongdoing, when perpetrated out of ignorance against society, will only consider what is meant to be aware of the individual, the criminal. There is then no legal system. In these aware methods for social justice, there would not be the understanding of what such crime, out of ignorance, has caused.

We view the emotional cases, as viewing a criminal for perhaps murdering their own child, as more shocking than to kill a stranger. However, it is the murderer’s betrayal of what is known of that person, that they became content in believing their loved one should receive damage, instead of protection. No one will defend society, because it is what is there for rebellion’s sake. However, humans are perhaps cursed to dwell among society, making it their inevitable habitat. If society receives endless change, then it will receive the same treatment of rebellion. Knowing only the ignorance of the criminal to that society is how Justice should operate. It is since their ignorance is always born upon the eternal understanding of society as unfamiliar.

Philosophy – “Why Anti-Racism is, in fact, Racism” – 9/21/2021

“One can be ignorant without being prejudiced, though one cannot be prejudiced without being ignorant.”
– Modern Romanticism

Ignorance is to the notion that something is missing. This would not be in alignment with hatred, because one cannot hate what one is ignorant of. Instead, one fears what one is ignorant of. Two things aligned with the other, of ignorance and fear, is then for hatred to be allied with knowledge. Hatred is the place for being knowledgeable to another thing. Though, in being ignorant, there is complete blindness. In ignorance, it is very much like the act of first falling in love. To that extent, it is blind. To be blinded through hatred is not possible, because this suffocating emotion can be the result of having loved.

Racism, so much conjoined with both fear and ignorance, involving the distance for the interior, then causing a person to be confined for view upon the exterior. To this, there is no hatred. There is the fear that questions what could not be asked for of its truth. This is due to being knowledgeable would involve closing the gap that fear has caused, and when truth is known of a person, there can be hatred that is bred from it. As hatred is only possible because of the existence of love, humans do not feel it in their blindness. The result of love can be hatred, because through love, there was the attempt to understand and to know the value of another person. After betrayal, there can no longer be closeness, as another gap becomes built without the desire to repair the fallen bridge. Although, the secrets that were once shared between two individuals are now taken in opposite directions. In vengeance, people can exploit those secrets, even expose them, due to the knowledge gained.

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 Hate is not a Free Emotion” – 3/10/2021

“From love, people will trust. From betrayal, people will hate.”
– Modern Romanticism

Hatred is circumstantial as to who becomes the unfortunate soul to be targeted, by it. Though, by the one fused to this suffocating emotion, can be when a lie is what has convinced them that someone has caused betrayal. Through this delusion, hatred can be born. Deception is indeed sometimes the route that causes a person to be sunken into hatred. Though, as a suffocating emotion, it cannot be felt freely. As in, hate is impossible to feel, towards a race, towards a gender, towards a religion, towards a nation, or towards anyone or anything broad and numbered, within itself.

Individuals hate others of the same singular, though only when love unto trust was the scenario, first of all. Love unto trust, and then, when hatred was the next transformation, it was only due to a perceived betrayal that brought the hateful person low. It was love unto trust, because as hatred is no free emotion, it is always specific as to who is targeted. Specific, since hatred came from trust. Utmost trust, and when it is slashed, the perceived betrayal caused the now specific feeling of hatred to be birthed.

We cannot hate a race, nor can a man hate all women. What we can do, out of prejudice, is simply not know another. Therefore, it is prejudice that relates only to ignorance, not hatred. Though, no media would tell of racism or whatever form of prejudice through a slogan such as “stop the fear”, because that raises the idea of mutual vulnerability. If that were the new idea to speak upon, there would be unity. People would begin to question whether there is mutual vulnerability between those who fear each other, rather than employing a word like “hatred” to deceive others into believing it is one-sided.

For hatred is that, being a one-sided emotion, targeted as specific. Through the deception that makes other believe that racism or some other form of prejudice can be one-sided, it is why they utilize the word called “hate”. It is them that believe that perhaps a racist person, who might be white of skin-tone, is ever only the type to be of such an ignorant mindset.

That is to say that if any certain person cannot be prejudiced, would mean that they are incapable of feeling fear. Since it is fear that has a relation to ignorance, out of common examples of people who are reluctant to get to know another person, someone who cannot be prejudiced also cannot be afraid. It might be right to admit that a person who cannot feel afraid, would also not be needed for education. Such a latter point refers to the media’s excessive usage of the word “hate”, referencing also a one-sided understanding of prejudice, deluding a person into believing education, which would alleviate ignorance, is unneeded.

Would a black person, sometimes said to possess the immunity to racism, not ever feel fear or be anxious? If that were the case, then ignorance has rocketed itself to the level where we might even one day believe that people within black communities don’t suffer from blood pressure issues.

Without feeling fear, one would be incapable of having a high blood pressure, or even a living heartbeat or pulse. We could even admit, aloud, that those who unable to perhaps be prejudiced are vampires or zombies, without heartbeats or even a working lower brain.

Why would we require education, if everyone can freely state the words, “I hate everyone”? And, why would we require education, if someone can say about the prejudiced person that they are “hateful”? It would be evident, through hatred, that we knew a person, upon a time in our lives.

Quote – “Why Character Matters Extremely Little for Politics” – 9/7/2020

“The only reason a scandal would target the fiercest at the politician, is because it strikes the heart. Character becomes the only thing berated, of the politician, when the scandal is caused. The heart is the symbol to the emotions. The mind is the symbol to logic. The body is the symbol to vulnerability of physical wounds.
All triviality to character, of a politician, becomes commonplace, when it is only noted upon those weak points being struck, related to their heart, or emotions. It is the cruelest tactic, since it takes the politician out of the political context, and for a moment, makes them human.”
– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “People of Vengeance are Termites” – 9/1/2020

“Deconstructionists are termites. They require extermination. They are pests, who live to tear down development. What had a business done to raise itself, only for a termite wandering in the streets to pull it down? What does ignorance do, of the same? It breaks. People will speak of the power of knowledge. Though, the power of ignorance will tear the structure apart in a fraction of the time it took to be built. ‘Raise’ a child for 18 years, with all the required knowledge. Kill the 18-year-old child after their birthday, and one was merely ignorant of that knowledge.
All structure, built through knowledge. All structure, destroyed through ignorance.”
– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “Politics and Art… or, Logic and Feelings” – 7/31/2020

“In the attempt to blend politics with art, it never is that feelings dominate logic. Whereas, it will be that feelings, being of chaos, remain as is, until logic cleans up the mess. Where a riot will leave a disaster, logic will clean up the wreckage. Where does the cleaner take the rubble? Does he smear it around, or does he head it straight to the dumpster? It is the latter, always. Logic dominates feelings, making the blend of politics and art the overtaking of art from politics, and it is always in that method.
Feelings, in terms of politics, epitomizes chaos. It is because one completely disregards logic, if their intent is to cause chaos. Chaos is never a goal, as it is a method. It is never an end, as it is a means. As chaos is caused, it becomes a distraction for someone’s benefit.
Therefore, it should be that politics and art should remain separate.”
– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “The Idiocy in Erasing a Nation’s History” – Pt. 2 – 7/27/2020

“Is weather the only thing a human can predict? If so, then what storm will not be predicted, because we had no stable structure, because our roots were missing? If our past is somehow erased, then we leave ourselves open to the driving winds, of tyranny or of simple defeat, to ourselves, to our individualism. We cannot love if we cannot forgive past errors. We cannot protect what we currently possess, if because of those roots being severed, we believe we are floating like a cloud, without standing structure. For what person stands, without roots?
We become merely the storm, itself, until each cloud is divided after we’ve destroyed each other.”
– Modern Romanticism