Tag: Equality

Philosophy – “Why Equity does not Care” – 10/26/2021

“No standard of obligation is a claim of care to another individual or even a collective gathering. There is no amount of monetary value that can out-measure what is the heart’s weight in gold. One cannot care, without comprehending what possesses worth versus what has value.”

– Modern Romanticism

All of value pertains to how much money can aid a collective. All of what has worth pertains to how long one can care for an individual. An individual is cared for, through a test of the heart, through a test of character, and through a test of a person’s truth. Truth is displayed, through a set of individualistic principles, that state a person can care when they know themselves. To know oneself is always to understand one’s limits, though upon the monetary sum, only this has a limit. To be in certainty of oneself, means then to find that a heart can hold the potential of unlimited and eternal care. However, since this is a show of one’s love to another, then to corrupt such means to fall upon the feeling of hatred. What was once a show of care, is now a show of resentment.

To be equitable would meant to know what is profitable. That is because equity is a mere show of one’s obligation. Would a company need to offer equitable standards for its employees that the most disadvantaged one are aided, then this is an obligation. It is, since a company must operate like a machine. Though, the heart would not and cannot be mechanical. The heart can either love or hate. On its own, it cannot be a reveal of obligation. The body or the flesh can show its obligation, due to being under the command of the workforce, itself, as a machine. As the human form has limits, then the heart that shows care would know what it takes to sacrifice such energy not needed for the self.

Sacrifice pertains to what is not needed for the self, though could be better suited for another, who might be starving of their bare necessities. To love the individual, to weaponize the collective, or to help the self, where the first holds relation to love or hatred, the second holds relation to obligation or to make use of multiple machines, while the third has relation to personal depletion. One cannot love while one is empty. One cannot make use of anything that has been destroyed. One cannot be together with another with hatred in their heart, unless meaning to destroy. One could be together with another, through love, though risks themselves on the unpredictable, though destructive, feeling of hatred.

What we, as loving individuals, can ever sacrifice, can become a notion, to ourselves, of having been used or manipulated. Though, to be obligatory through means of equitable aid would not be loving when we are deliberate to know it is required. When a company enforces equity through its rules and regulations, it is no longer about individualistic care. It is now about a show of force to it. As individualism rules through example and truth, then what is forceful or deceptive means to be on the side of collectivism.

As individuals, we aid others, of the same kind. Individuals aiding individuals means to trust, through the privacy of knowing another. A collective aiding another collective means to do so, out of sheer obligation. As no one person, out of that collective, came to know every other person in that second collection, means that there is an inevitable factor of forgetfulness to it. One will forget what one has met, though two individuals, who are friends, family, or lovers will always remember the other.

Philosophy – “Beneath the Skin – Understanding Equality” – 6/25/2021

“There is much that bleeds, within. Beyond the shield that stops us, beyond the preference we hold to be different Bibles, there is a light that warms us with the same understanding of reality.”

– Modern Romanticism

Sameness. It is a word that understands the earth, beneath the layers, beneath the cloak. Beneath what guards, love is unconditional. Though humans will place conditions upon the various, depicting their preference in what is known to what is unknown. We are prejudiced in what we are ignorant towards, not for what is understood. Not everything can be understood, until we empathize.

Until we recognize ourselves in another, that for what we hate is the same as what is despised of ourselves, we are prejudiced. We are distant. Distrusting of others, because we failed to reach deeper.

All people bleed the same color, as we all drown at the same depth. We are pained at the same harmonies played upon our bones, broken at the same amount of fragments.

What is love? It can be said that love sees. It knows. Among all there is to love, there is everything to be known. Though, it is for people, that there is understanding to them, the same as ourselves. Believing in love is the same as believing in what was never real, denied to be, until it shapes itself in what was always known.

Crippled are we, in our ignorance. We are equal, within the pages that are innumerable. No ending to a sentence is the final chapter to a tale. No final breath means that a person can no longer speak.

Equal are we, in love. Within love, within arms, all comes to circle back to ourselves. We can blame ourselves for our ignorance, in not seeing a heart, damaged in the same state of ourselves. We become challenged to break another further, or to break ourselves as the wave upon their shoreline. To hurt further, or to weep upon their shoulder.

Philosophy – “Why One cannot ‘get rid’ of Racism” – 5/14/2021

“Retiring the world of what consists itself as pertaining to absence, is all the effort to bring it about, ever further.”

– Modern Romanticism

To “stop”, or to just “get rid” of what presents itself, to a person, as something that references absence, will indeed, deepen the issue. An issue, as racism, is something that has direct relation to a singular word, being “absence”. Absence, of something that pertains not to unity.

Since absence, just like depression, cannot be forced clean from the mind, it requires a replacement of equal value from what was either lost or never was.

We are equal, in that sense, through the realization that to fill the void of what is absent through racism, means to find value in another person. Another person, not like what one prefers, for one is not picky (or just able to choose) on what is needed.

A person, being equal to any other, is not a convenience. This, in turn, proves the necessity of love, being never a simple convenience.

The one difference between something needed, as love, and something convenient, as a resource, is that the former is everywhere, whereas the latter is never where you want it most.

Treating people as resources, pertaining them all to “representation”, is not the essence of equality.

Love makes all equal, though as racism is a gap in the heart, nothing just preferred will fill it.

If racism is solved through an understanding for what equality represents, on its own, then we’ll find it impossible to prefer what we need.

Philosophy – “A Critique against the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement” – 5/10/2021

“Justice is, what denial isn’t. We cannot, as we might, find ourselves to find fault in another, without rejecting our own humanity. Our nature, to be imperfect, to be flawed, is to comprehend that the sides to a coin do not represent a sheer division; rather, they represent what exists to inevitably work towards the other’s needs or conveniences.”

– Modern Romanticism

It is all too alike, as we’re bound to find, that a fragile thing like Justice is often corrupted by the facilities of egotism and ambition. Upon this, what with the specific movement to discuss, that their catering towards the victimization of blacks, has resulted in extensive manipulation of purport. A purpose, by which one finds meaning in it, would ever be manipulated by a highness to one’s attitude, that perhaps had always been.

Among politics, egotism is the place of the survivor. For the one willing to outwit or outsmart the other, a task to manipulate has incredible hold upon those who are swayed to be under their arms. Within their grasp, and then, the manipulation is perceived to be a sight of goodness. How can one comprehend the truth of the politician, when one does not know them? Yet, they’ll admit to somehow knowing the victim, their place for what is needed, comprehend what limits are stirred for the sake of their unlimited power.

No one is ever “empowered”, within this movement, or those alike. The more dependence, the less gain, not the more. This should be common knowledge, though the person most willing to depend is also most unknowingly being deceived and manipulated. Lies are the weapon of politics. To be swayed under a politician’s control, is no longer through force.

No longer do we live in the days of direct and honest tyrants, who would use force to confiscate someone’s property. We now dwell within days when we are told to be living in “different times”, despite such words are, themselves, a deception.

People have not changed. Nothing has, for “change” would represent itself as mere chaos. Change is a synonym for chaos, to be nothing credited as more. To be within the belief that our species has changed, is ever through the essence of deception. That, to conceal ourselves, means that truth is no longer the boldness. We can be deceived, so much with ease, when we wish ourselves to enforce change, though nothing is ever altered.

As it is through chaos that a movement, as this, would be inspired to take up the mantle for the sake of Justice, then it cannot be. Justice cannot be for such a movement, if it speaks of change. We do not change, unless we yearn to dismantle what is, already. Though, to improve, for such is change’s opposite, would mean to never embrace chaos, though the order for which Justice stands.

By fire, such a movement has control, though none. Through flame, such a movement seeks Vengeance, not Justice. Change is uncontrolled, though it is improvement that is. Fire, spread like the wind, same as one’s voice for carrying out an advocation to another change; this is chaos. A chaotic spread, being of an uncontrolled blaze, is where Vengeance finds its home. And, to deceive those into believing one fights for Justice, using flame, is nothing short of a comedic skit.

Same with rage, flame is uncontrolled, if spread over the entirety. Only water, being superior to fire, can douse it.

Though, would such a movement find water, the expression of the vulnerable human nature, as the greater weapon to flame? They’d not, for then they’d no longer be manipulated.

Flames can be manipulated, under the command of who causes them, from those so responsible for decieving the world. Flames dance, as such people for this certain movement can be no more than puppets, made to waltz from corner to corner, hot within the ballroom.

A vulnerable side, a human side, would implore a person to find solutions. True solutions, brought from this vulnerable and human nature of people, not belonging to the inferiority behind fire. Water is superior to fire, thus making a solution formed through being vulnerable as the objectively better option.

Though, why would we find ourselves attracted to the flame? To be warm, of course, for it is an addiction. No longer would we become brave against the coldness of who we are, when we break ourselves down, instead of others. Those dependent on flame, or just dependent, will not go far from it.

Were we to find ourselves as vulnerable, we’d discover that anyone can feel our pain. For this is what flame, or anger, conceals. It conceals hurt.

How is it not plausible to attribute flame to deception, if rage conceals hurt?

If hurt is truth, and truth is hurtful, then flame would be the deception that hides it.

Philosophy – “The Definition of Unfairness” – 11/30/2020

“To the introduction of fairness, comes as the introduction of unfairness when it is brought forth to be compassion. Equality is not compassionate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Equality is not compassionate.

Could one “introduce” fairness into a working environment, full of people believed to be treated with unfairness? That is the same as offering special treatment. That is unequal, to the rest.

It is the same as a nurse falling in love with a cancer patient, and soon offering more attention to who they love, over the rest. This makes the only “equality” within the workforce, to represent something of mechanical function. Outside of the workforce, in specifics, a person is understood by one’s family to not be a tool. Within the workforce, there is no more than tools.

One cannot introduce fairness for all workers, without also introducing special treatment. For the introduction of special treatment, is the introduction of unfairness and inequality.

There is only one “equality” or “fairness” in the working environment, and that is the objectification of each man and woman. There is no room for compassion, unless special treatment and attention is in order.

It is true that “special treatment” will be designated, targeted, and specific upon a person taken from among the rest. There is a prejudice to that. Why should that person who has targeted an individual, treat them as an example that the rest would follow suit? Even among a hierarchy, all are at the same level, as tools, as instruments of construction, even when an inch taller on a scale.

Equality is not compassionate, for it always turns into a thing of selection.

Equality and fairness, when perceived by a human to reference these specifics, becomes the human’s way to hijack Nature. We then perform our own way on natural selection to allow only certain specifics to ascend.

Mixing compassion with function always has the former win over the latter. For this is because humanity holds a greater power, seen by the common human as what should always overlap inhuman behavior. And, it always does.

As humans, we are not tools. As humans, we are loved. Though, compassion has no place among a tool, when meant to be one.

The constant feud between tools, or people wishing to be viewed as humans, becomes a series of infighting in one’s own country. A “subtle civil war”, so to speak, as each person fights for their “rights”, among the desire to remain standing. All this introduces is constant paranoia, among a perpetual cautiousness on who to trust.

Could compassion ever be involved in the workforce? It should not. One could say the words, “Humans are not tools.” Though, were they to throw the word “humans” out of that statement, there’d be no meaning left.

For “meaning” holds meaning on something a person finds precious enough to protect. A right to be. A right to be human. Though, to be a tool, and then wish to be human, is all the inequality a person should understand is, in the workforce.

There are only two equalities, in this world:

The first is to be dead.

The second is the toiling labor of a worker, who burns with the motivation to return to their home. At home, they are, at last, a human.

Brainstorm – “Creating Diversity of the Idea” – 11/7/2020

Repetition is not ever in the comprehension of who needs their necessity. A necessity of something so needed, will not be met through repetition. For those who speak highly of mass production, in its relation to equal distribution, cannot ever tell of quality to that necessity.

To need something of the time it is required, will make the patience for it, stand out. For in the want of it, makes the waiting period, the tellable dilemma. The wait of a product, to ease the pains of what is ill, is only due to that the gap becomes narrowed between the wanting person, and the distributer.

A gap, for this is the reach of the distributer to the one who is required of a thing. Their reach will become narrowed, due to a forceful person’s wish for it, due unto their impatience. Yet, to narrow the gap, comes at the cost of opportunity for what is available. This is due to there being a contrast between patience for a specific, and the straight-up immediacy for it born out of impatience.

Quote – “Objectification is the Workforce’s Equality” – 9/30/2020

“All people are treated under the same equality within the workforce. That equality is the objectification of each worker. Were compassion to be the desire for a worker, from an employer, it soon becomes a battle of usage versus what does not relate to usage. It is compassion that has no relation to usage, any more than a person is manipulated by a compassionate person.”

– Modern Romanticism

Excerpt – “Why Prejudice is a Fear” – 8/27/2020

“The ignorance of a human, in contrast to knowledge, resonates in the fear in distance between people. To what one knows of another, makes knowledge. To what one does not know of another, makes ignorance. This much, is obvious. However, to be fearful, would also mean to be ignorant.

It is the case of any murderer who kills their victim, without compassion, through such ignorance and fear. If they had not been knowledgeable, then they had been ignorant. Their fear enters the picture by way of not stretching outside the realm of selfish discontent of the world, being the murderer’s mindset, to be compassionate. For if the murderer were compassionate, were brave, and not fearful, enough to step outside what has shut them inside their mind, they’d discover knowledge.

It is to be Xenophobic, that the fear a person feels, is only because they do not have the slightest interest in knowing someone. For in being too comfortable with what they already know, they are fearful in knowing more.

For why else would a person not wish to know another, if they did not fear what they possibly could hear of them? It is the greatest pang of fear by a human, to hear something from a source one does not like, and be shocked by its truth. As it is, all truth comes from sources where the fearful one does not wish to acknowledge can be the onset to a unity outside of such fear. If they were to see another, know another, being one other individual, they’d form a bond. That is a fear that comfortable humans do not wish to face.”

– “A Fine Line for Justice”

Philosophy – Rewrite – “A Fine Line for Justice” – Chapter II – 8/27/2020

Chapter Two

“The Danger of Blurring Lines”

A common human way with our Nature is to believe one should have a choice in any matter, for freedom’s sake. To possess a falsified sense of freedom means to have the reasoning in escaping from the task of being responsible. To be responsible, means to be logical. To hold reason in one’s grasp for a weapon against responsibility, means to invent excuses for why one should not ever be such. It is then to say to have a choice in reference to responsibility, means to always steer in the direction away from it. A person of choice, wants paths. They do not wish to be led down a path, without their choice.

Another common human way with our Nature is to say that what one can choose, cannot be controlled by another. It is this that states a person has freedom of choice. Though, within responsibility, there is no freedom. Among a nation, to throw “responsibility” upon the shoulders of a citizen, force them against their will to do as the nation says, causes rebellion. To force a collective group to think, to behave, to motion on a certain path, defines slavery. Among the individual, however, should they rebel against their own personal responsibility, their immaturity has compelled them to want a choice away from Justice.

For the self, a person has a choice, or a personal endeavor to see a random change to themselves. Among the individual, a person is choosing their path for their life. Among the collective of individuals that makes up a nation or any population, there is only slavery being made of each of them, should such a nation desire control over all. To take away freedom, means to do so by force. Forced unity is a resemblance to slavery, when that system rejects the individual’s motives to earn it. A nation does not gift a person their freedom. For all true freedom, is earned, making the slave only such when they belong in a collection of their same kind. A person can indeed make themselves the slave, should they neglect the idea of earning freedom, and continue to believe it as a gift.

Between Justice and Vengeance, a human who truly fights for the former, does not take to human desire. Desire embraces a path for the self, stepping on the side of Vengeance, over Justice. Justice takes a path for others, stepping into a realm where sacrifice, honor, and selflessness takes place. A person offers wisdom, keeps structure, and above all, forgives enemies, upon when they know that retaliation will cause a war. To feel anger, means to want retaliation. It then becomes a feud, of opposite contrasts, where no closeness is found.

Without a strict focus on the objective definition of Justice, there is only the distance of prejudice that sparks the paranoia of a person’s next vengeful action. For within one action of Vengeance, comes the next. After the next, comes the third action, causing the cycle that repeats, incessantly. Nothing quits this cycle, until forgiveness takes place. There is always fear in it, because fear equates to the distance of lacking forgiveness. Forgiveness involves foresight into knowing that the future will only involve further bloodshed, if such a forgiving behavior is never implemented.

Any human’s first instinct is to be selfish, to feed themselves, to clothe themselves, during a time of survival. It is because of this, that when lines are blurred, Justice is never discovered. For who buries a corpse that had fallen, from being alive, without another’s hands to do it? Who is the Vengeful sort to do this, when they only aim to beat the dead body? Forgiveness has only one objective: to forgive the past, of all experiences during when that corpse was alive. It can be said of the same for anyone, that when selfishness become selflessness, we bury, we forgive, though cannot forget, what had fallen. As any burial, it is a selfless act, like forgiveness. If one were to forget, one would not be able to forgive a haunting memory. It’d never be an ability of a person.

As it is, if to forget was possible, and never forgiveness, then no human would possess a mind stored with the memories of the past. Each fragment of knowledge is a memory, kept in mind from being taken either from a book, or from word-of-mouth. It makes the lacking of fear of any individual, when forgiveness and compassion can be the things offered towards memories that haunt. We know, through memory. Therefore, we can know, through forgiveness, when we understand that what haunts another is at the same level of torment as what haunts us. When humans comprehend that they’re both in fear, both vulnerable, then love can take place, by knowing that not one is stronger than the other.

The ignorance of a human, in contrast to knowledge, resonates in the fear within the distance between people. To what one knows of another, makes knowledge. To what one does not know of another, makes ignorance. This much, is obvious. However, to be fearful, would also mean to be ignorant.

It is the case of any murderer who kills their victim, without compassion, through such ignorance and fear. If they had not been knowledgeable, then they had been ignorant. Their fear enters the picture by way of not stretching outside the realm of selfish discontent of the world, being the murderer’s mindset, to be compassionate. For if the murderer were compassionate, were brave, and not fearful, enough to step outside what has shut them inside their mind, they’d discover knowledge.

It is to be Xenophobic, that the fear a person feels, is only because they do not have the slightest interest in knowing someone. For in being too comfortable with what they already know, they are fearful in knowing more.

For why else would a person not wish to know another, if they did not fear what they possibly could hear of them? It is the greatest pang of fear by a human, to hear something from a source one does not like, and be shocked by its truth. As it is, all truth comes from sources where the fearful one does not wish to acknowledge can be the onset to a unity outside of such fear. If they were to see another, know another, being one other individual, they’d form a bond. That is a fear that comfortable humans do not wish to face.

To be vengeful, or to cling to the side of Vengeance, is unlike fear. One knows, through the personal desire to be vengeful, that the one such Vengeance will be directed upon, has committed an act of betrayal. It is knowledge that acts as the motive for Vengeance, not ignorance. Though, to what the vengeful person is ignorant of, is something that will not birth the forgiveness needed to halt such a cycle of Vengeance. That is the further knowledge needed to complete the tale, bring about the death, and the life is laid to rest. It is the same when one forgives to break a cycle of Vengeance, that one can forgive what can no longer be destroyed, being a corpse or ended life.

A person’s task to be responsible would then mean to be the one who forgives, and breaks the cycle of irresponsibility and Vengeance. It is in the knowledge of who we have forgiven, that we can lay to rest whatever has been strained by hurt, for however long was the time.

In the manner of personal desire, a person does not act responsible. To blur the line between responsibility and irresponsibility, or logic and reason, or Justice and Vengeance, means to, again, fall on the area that is most suited to human instinct. Selfishness is a part of human instinct. Since it is, one should never compare love to the instincts of a human.

When it is about protection, however, of a loved one, that is instinct. It is only due to that love objectively makes the pair unified. They are one, meaning that by one of the two loved ones to protect the other, they are protecting themselves.

All choice, therefore, is not based on the coming death or the coming love. In death, there is no choice, but to understand that it will come. In truth, death is more predictable than love. For what we control, is always our own lives. We are compelled to understand ourselves, as we pull who we love always for a union of singularity. Though, when trust becomes a factor, it is love that becomes limited, only when one now begins to fear something they never wish to involve in their lives.

Philosophy – Rewrite – Excerpt – “A Fine Line for Justice” – 8/26/2020

“The Danger of Interpretation”

An interpretation holds a single meaning.

To interpret is to fragment what has always been a whole, for it to then become an incomplete form. In comparison, a whole could be a mirror. In contrast, the whole of the mirror, when “interpreted”, is now a fragmented mirror. To see something as a wholeness, is to understand that what has been witnessed is not wounded. Currently wounded, that is, for what was once wounded, would not matter for this description.

The person who carries over wounds, not mended, or has been wounded just a few moments ago, is the “interpreted” individual. A wholeness to a person is interpreted, after they had once been assimilated into another incomplete form, to make a union. What is union, in this scenario, besides a complete understanding in the making of that unity? Meaning, one interprets the individual by their place once in a union, whether that be marriage, or their own nation, or anywhere else they found belonging.

Interpretation is perception, making perception to be defined as never seeing the whole, the past, and only the present, of the individual. Though, if an individual holds purpose in freedom outside the union, believing themselves free, then they are not wounded, and feel no signs of betrayal. In that case, they had wanted out.

It is why an individual will always question the obedient collective, being the herd, on their purpose. Once the individual can make a perception, their place in such unity is detached or displaced. They become just one fragment to that whole.

Love teaches a human belonging. Though, it cannot be taught for individuals who do not know each other, between themselves. They are individuals as sheep gathered into a collective by the shepherd. Each of them who chooses to follow does not know the feeling of freedom in detaching themselves from the collection. Loves unites, though it does not unite people who do not know each other. Such a forced unity only ever breeds fear, among such individuals whose distrust of each other enforces the prejudice of distance.

Forced unity, enforces fear. It is because a collection is a wholeness, that when interpreted by an individual, they become detached from the collective. To silence a thought, means to silence an individual, and to believe the voice is one of union from the entirety.

We fear what we are distant towards. We are distant, because we are fearful. We are fearful, because no spark of curiosity has brought us the motivation in seeing something up-close, for its truth.

The dangers of interpretation, only ever reside in external perception upon a thing that requires no insight into it, other than for what it is. Of anything innately defined as what it is, then to interpret it would refer it towards its opposite. In the name of Justice, would such a concept be interpreted, it would become division. That is because the word “Justice” refers to order, and never disorder. To interpret a thing like Justice, inevitably makes Injustice or Vengeance. That is when a person’s anger enables them to makes a choice, being one of many to the interpretations. For when one can shatter a whole, one is in the choosing, in the freedom, outside the collective. It is that Justice, by its definition, relating to order, makes such a word a resemblance of a collective that should not be shattered into “interpretations”. If individuals hold their own interpretation, hold their own freedom, then their desire to freely perceive the objective definition of Justice, creates the danger.

To interpret Justice, makes such a perception become Vengeance, inevitably so. In the rebellion against objective Justice, an individual wishes for a choice. For to have a choice, would be outside of that objective Justice. We can only ever define Justice to be something representing no freedom. It is the same when a convict has no freedom, when they are incarcerated. The reason for the sentencing is to not allow the convict to do more harm upon the world. Their freedom has been forfeited.

Any person who disagrees with Justice pertaining to a lack of freedom, will automatically believe in responsibility to be with choice, to be with excuse, to be with escape. Who escapes Justice, besides those who’d never believe in freedom as earned? Freedom is no gift, like love is given. It is deserved, like trust and respect.

Therefore, to interpret Justice would mean to involve freedom in the individualized perception of it. From this, makes Vengeance, in the choice resonating with freedom. For to be free, would mean to reason oneself out of the objective defining of a thing, such as responsibility. We interpret what we believe cannot be objective, in its defining. Such means, that the interpretation to a thing would make choice, or freedom, involved only in the personal desire to what one wants. It is always outside the objective definition to what was interpreted.

Since to be “outside” the realm of Justice, is in relation to a convict being outside the realm of incarceration. The believe, that in being outside of it, they are free. They are only voided of being responsible for their crime. Any human who currently possesses true freedom, had earned it. They were not given it. In the name of personal responsibility, a person understands that what they are giving through their earned freedom, is themselves, no longer a threat to another’s freedom, another’s life.

All of this means that an interpretation on Justice is an adherence to personal desire. There is freedom, and there is choice, in the interpretation. Though, when it comes to interpreting what should never be fragmented by that interpretation, the only freedom there is, belongs in the one who wishes to hold an individual voice. By this, nothing of objective meaning is adhered to, when we can interpret the definition of a word to soon become something fragmented or divided.

Philosophy – “The Impossibility of Equality” – 8/25/2020

“To wish for empathy, then do not trust those who’ve been known, not by their individualism, though by the system they are in, to be deceitful.”

– Modern Romanticism

The greatest deception in the world, is to believe that a person in a system of it, can be honest. There is no honesty from a voice that calls out to the herd, and does not speak to the individual.

It is needless to even speak of a world leader as “prejudiced”, when their own profession is very much limited on what it can know, of every individual. Within this world, to believe that a politician can be empathetic, is much in relation to how often we share our private information for social media monitoring.

Only what resides in what is personal, from person to person, can there be something resembling equality. Yet, in today’s time, it has been painted over with a “collective” approach, as though each industry, each system of a society, could be transfigured into a picture of empathy. Though, what machine meant to use cogs, like a task meant to employ a worker, has anything become achieved, if empathy is wanted?

Within Business and Retail, for example, a person cannot be known at a deeper level. Business and Retail are industries that do not care to know a person’s heart. That is where deception and blind trust are involved, in such areas of industry. The businessman trusts the other businessman, out of blindness. Have they ever spoken? Have they ever talked about something that might reveal a secret? Have they ever befriended each other? If they did, that could be exploited. This is why when people desire empathy outside of home, they become deceived, and used as tools or slaves.

Why would a worker demand empathy from his or her employer? Why would a citizen demand empathy from his or her world leaders? Why would a person, as a victim to bullying, demand empathy from an “anti-bullying” Activist? It cannot be the case, when such sorts who are expected to give empathy, are not in any position to know you. These people have a job, and only a job that offers them a very shallow perspective of the entirety.

Worlds leaders cannot even be called “racist” or “sexist” or anything else, when they were never your close friend, to begin with. For any word like that, would be a representation of betrayal. How can a world leader, or a celebrity, betray a “promise” when they do not know you? They promised the nation of the task. Though, did they promise you? Did that world leader call your phone, to specifically speak to you about the task? Did he or she keep you in mind, throughout it all? If not, they do not care about you, in specifics.

Empathy cannot be given from a system. It cannot be given from a person, an industry, a realm that is not there to know you.

For nothing in this world would be achieved, if everyone within a workforce of systematic behavior, became something of comfort and stagnant bliss. Everything would halt, business could collapse, as poverty would be rampant. If each employer, each politician, each celebrity, was meant to offer empathy, honesty would be believed as the forefront of what these people are believed to know.

This is all because empathy is the domain of comfort. When we empathize, we halt a task that could cause harm, to focus on “inner hurts”. We focus on what is harming the individual, within themselves, of their emotions. Though, as the task is halted, the entire machine of society stops. No one gets their bread, nor their milk, nor their clothes, and people lose their homes.

If one expects empathy, then gain it from home. If one expects empathy, then gain it from a lover, from your mother, from your father, from friends, from siblings, among all those one can easily trust.

For empathy and love is a gateway out of motion, not a gateway into it. In comfort, we fall silent. In comfort, we stay still. In comfort, we do not wish to rise to face our newer tasks.