“Inside, there is Everything” – From “The Prejudice of Globalism” – 10/31/2020

There is everything of the inside of a person, beyond the color of skin, beyond the stains. To the essence of truth, coming from within, it is never a shallowness. Then, to the politician who cannot see that, will say against a teller of truth to merely hear their words. Though, not merely to the words that they’ll scorn, though to place blinded eyes upon their actions. For no person who merely speaks, will be one who ever acts. And, no person who is scorned for their language, can ever be someone who does not act.

Truth is always something that pierces, for it is always something that shocks. Just as the bullet penetrates skin, causing a shock, or just as a simple poke of a finger against a person’s flesh, is the same resulting feeling. “Shock” is the reaction of surprise, astonishment, amazement, all resonating from the irony of what is normally expected. This is to say that for the population who yearn for a well-spoken politician as their leader, are those who will take offense to the truth.

To all truth, resonating from within, makes the politician of mere words, as the one who objectively deceives. Words are the shallow aspect of all things that linger upon the surface. It is then that we can prove that all things upon the inside can be comprehended as truth. As truth, for what is tended to upon the inside, will never be received with prejudice. It is in the knowledge of what is within, that makes a betterment towards leadership. It is in the “everything” aspect of what can be better understood, that makes such a politician with this vision, unable to be prejudiced, nor deceitful. It makes the leader with the populist perspective, a person unable to be neither the racist, the sexist, the prejudiced one, nor the deceptive one.

For of each thing pertaining to the outside, makes such notions all of ignorance’s definition. Among what pertains to the outside, is a mere focus upon the external. Of all things external, is what pertains to what receives prejudice.

What receives prejudice, is upon the outside. We are never prejudiced towards what is within, for how can we be? How can a person be prejudiced towards the favorability of what one easily comprehends? One, upon the external, merely forces meaning into it. It is something already so simple to understand, for the politician to make a drawing. A painting or image to the skin color, is the same to the solid color of a wall. The solid color to a wall had been covered. Its nakedness, already clothed. It makes the deception for what one does not yearn to see, beyond. As such, “nakedness” is the result of what is “revealing”, being always in reference to truth. One, in the case of a person covering themselves, is not trusted to see truth. As such, the shock of what could be seen, is becoming the suffocation unto the death of that truth. One covers, and now the curious are distrusted, for it is now the intent to never reveal the truth. It is now the intent to be dishonest. Just as the nude form causes shock, it is the same for all truth. If one adds to the example of graffiti, with tattoos, is the act of merely applying another layer to cover what can be revealing.

Vandalizing truth is the same as sparking prejudice. To the person who claims there are those who wrongly ridicule graffiti, should perhaps wonder why anyone would question the outside of anything. To the one of objective intellect, will question, not merely listen to, what remains upon the surface. To the canvas for the painting, as it was not ever first a surface, though a sheer blankness. Graffiti is merely a covering over a surface, already drawn. Therefore, it is objectively a covering upon truth, creating deception. It makes the painting the creation of truth.

To the focus upon surfaces, is never the focus upon the internal, for it has been covered. We can apply innumerable layers, though truth remains forever waiting to be unearthed.

As we are always prejudiced to what is external, we are not ever the same to what is internal. This makes the globalist perspective as the mindset of prejudice. Such means, that for the globalist perspective, there is purely external endeavors being enacted. Then, to what is within, there is purely the avoidance of could be seen, and could be solved of grievance. This marks the politician of a globalist perspective as one who is prejudiced. For in what a person can know best, makes them not prejudiced. It makes a person who attempts to comprehend what is outside, someone who will be ignorant. It is unknown territory where one dwells, marking a strict focus upon the outside, related to looking upon one’s skin color.

The outside, which holds the same definition as anything to be prejudiced towards, is opposite from the inside. To say it, again, the internal is what cannot be received with prejudice. And, to say it, again, the one with a globalist perspective, believes not in aiding what can be known best, being within. It is to say that when a supposed leader holds such a perspective of globalism, makes what is within, secondary to their focus.

How is anyone to say that the leader who holds a populist mindset, can be prejudiced towards anything? It is objectively not the case, when to have a populist mindset, is to focus on what is within, being opposite from the prejudiced and globalist view upon the external.

Philosophy – “Why a Perception is Never through the Individual’s Eyes” – 8/6/2020

“No perception can be, without the necessity to share it. Loneliness remains as a human’s greatest torment, in the realization that we have no one to speak to, about what we’ve seen. For what use is there for a library, if there is no readers? There’d be no books, if the author had no second person to read it.”

– Modern Romanticism

Were there to only one person upon this Earth, there could not be something possible like a “perception”. What they’d see, as the lone human upon Earth, would be everything. They’d not be able to share what they have seen.

However, were there to be two humans upon Earth, they’d be able to look at each other, and tell each other a perception.

This means that no one person can have a perception, as the individual. No alone individual has a perception. A perception is only ever possible, when a human can view something that is not merely themselves seeing it.

As an example, if a hundred people were gathered in a movie theater to view a film, then each person would see the same thing, though interpret it differently. It is in this sense that their interpretation is a deception. For that deception makes up not what the film has displayed.

A camera can perceive. What we share through a camera, is always a deception. That means that the camera acts as a device of perception, though never truth. We attempt to outlaw the gun, though never do we wish to outlaw the camera, despite the harm it has caused upon the mind. The mind is tricked. The mind is tormented by thoughts of confusion. The mind, when confused, causes the body to be a slave for it. It is uncontrolled, as any slave is rebellious, or has the heart for it. The psychopath is only ever bred from confusion and neglect.

In the individual’s eyes, there is no interpretation or perception. Though, when there are two individuals in a room, the only thing that takes place of what is seen, is offered interpretations/perceptions. For in what they see, being the perception, and in what they think about, being the interpretation, is not left alone in one’s mind. As in, the person who believes that, on their own, they perceive, forgets that such thoughts inevitably must be shared. For on their own, they’d not perceive, though remain as the sole individual in knowledge of all truth.