“Speech upon speech, breeds negotiation. Force upon force, breeds war. Therefore, it is war upon voice, or force upon speech, that describes the fascism history relates to, in the purest of its familial blood.”
– Modern Romanticism
Tag: History
Quote – “To Stand or to Kneel” – Pt. 2 – 8/14/2020
“To stand before the tyrant, is disrespectful to the tyrant. To kneel before the tyrant, makes the kneeler approved of their lesser status.
For to stand, makes one challenge leadership, challenge oppressive dictatorship.
To kneel, makes one the slave, in submission to the tyrant.”
– Modern Romanticism
Philosophy – “As Racism is Simple Ignorance” – 8/3/2020
“Were more people to engage in discussion of background, we’d not need to check for it, so that one could be allowed beyond a line.”
– Modern Romanticism
Racism has nothing to do with race, as much as to do with difference of culture. The aspect of “distance”, when coming down to that aforementioned ignorance, has most to do with what one to another does not comprehend. That is, to comprehend the background to another, of their upbringing to their own set of principles, might allow for comfort among individuals, in closeness. For not in distance, though in closeness, could a person understand another, not by their race or genetic origin, though by their upbringing. Of all things that could bind the open wound of distance, it is a knowledge of background, to how a person, in pain, had formed their own life, will create such closeness. For distance is a wound, literally so, by how a wound is shaped. It is a part in the flesh, so in the distance of people, it is a part from one person to the next. A gap, so to speak.
The race or other genetic origin will create the distance that forces another to see only the surface to an individual. The more genetic “identities” we manufacture for a human, the less knowledge we attain of another individual, through simple conversation. For there is nothing a person can comprehend, that one could identify with, or relate to, of genetic difference.
To be a homosexual, to be a transgender, to be a black or white person… if these things are not choices to be, then they are not identities of background. For all to a background, is pain. To be past the pain, is to come out of where one was merely a bud, and thus, became a blossom. That blossom is what another person sees, throws curiosity towards, and wishes to understand it for every aspect. Again, genetic difference to the difference of choice, makes the former incapable for relation, to the latter being capable for relation. For what woman would take pleasure in ever identifying with the fact that she has a pre-disposition for breast cancer, due to having a family history in such a disease? If she were to tell another of such a risk, would they love to relate to such a fact? Never. As in, to relate to something one can escape from, marking the culture of a person as the possible relation, makes the distance become closed. For that is because love can only ever be felt, when we feel everything.
The everything that relates to every thought. The everything that relates to every word. The everything that relates to every breed of gentleness, makes distance the closeness each person desires.
For as “hate-speech” is always to be an oxymoron, as hate can only come through proof of action, words will remain as the gentle approach of debate, discussion, or negotiation.
Quote – “What Defines Prejudice?” – 7/31/2020
“All fear, makes two individuals equal. Though, to what a person can know of what they fear, makes them compassionate. All prejudice does not originate directly from hatred, though from fear. As love and fear are the two primary emotions of a human, hatred is an extension off fear. Hatred is not even a primary emotion, so it is objectively not it that defines prejudice. One acts out of hatred, though one feels nothing more than fear, in the act.
It is, as well, that in the feeling of fear, one remains distant, provokes division, and contemplates nothing except for the imaginings of what a certain person could be.
To think on the tyrant, of whom he has eliminated. Do they feel hatred, or do they feel fear? Their acts of elimination in terms of genocide, have been bred from fear. For that is because, to the tyrant, all truth is a threat.
We fear what may shock us, being truth. Therefore, to know a person, it is truth that is the knowledge. Is is a heart that we do not stab, though embrace.”
– 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
Quote – “The Idiocy in Erasing a Nation’s History” – 7/27/2020
“Whatever soldiers of the past fought for, to end or remain alive, makes those roots numerous by the many tears a storm of the mind had done to topple a body dead. Love protects, like how the mind is meant to protect the form, through wisdom. Therefore, to cut the roots of a nation, embedded in that nation’s history, means to set up the current people for doom. It is to state that current people will not be prepared for a storm, powerful enough to cause everyone to fall. For it is that each person will be on their knees, in submission to that tyranny. They were not prepared, because their roots were lacking.”
– Modern Romanticism
Philosophy – “Why Erasing the Past is the Dumbest Idea” – 7/6/2020
“It is a human’s greatest denial, that their beginning cannot be the same as their ending.”
– Anonymous
An idiot Democrat will believe in creating a clean slate out of history. Their lack of comprehension is in that they fail to notice that history repeats itself, so cleanly. It moves through us, in that clarity. A repetition, so clean, that it is the only repetition somehow unnoticed, by that idiot Democrat. They have built mass production. Though, they fail to comprehend the repetition of history. They have built the corporate world, under Le Corbusier’s ideologies, in a forest of skyscrapers. Since old architects of Post-Modern design, such as that of Austria’s Otto Wagner, they have meant to build ugliness on top of objective beauty. This twisted ideology of “reconstruction” has made levels from a lacking foundation. It has really only ever involved ignorance.
Does the tree ever grow beneath the Earth? As in, if what we see clearly has roots, then those roots represent our past. If we cut the roots, then we are building something beneath ourselves. We are building ourselves directly towards Hell.
A purified lack of wisdom will see the past as needing to be erased. Yet, what idiot Democrat has ever possessed logic? Their lacking wisdom, not ever bound up in Zen, is their easily-displayed moronic attitudes. Those idiots will die beneath their own pitiful cravings, stamped as marks on their own belt. For they will perish by fate and Nature, itself.
A vision that loses sight of the past, loses sight of the future.
Advice on Writing – "How to Write a Good Heroine" – 3/24/2020
Too often do I hear or read the words that someone said, that are, “Why is she not doing anything?” But, what makes a good female character? It has to be a past.
There’s evidence behind the fact that women have more of a chance to develop Alzheimer’s Disease, because their brains possess a far more expansive network, when it comes to memory retention. To write a fleshed-out female character, the writer merely has to comprehend that memories and emotions, matter much for one. Because of that innate memory retention, women are profound listeners. “Doing something” doesn’t make a fleshed-out character, especially a female one. Too often do we want action, and never enough history. There is so much ammunition for a good female character, that resides within a past to discuss.
As a child, I saw my grandparents, and observed that my grandmothers possessed far greater hearing over my grandfathers. At my current age, I can now only assume that a woman’s ears are far more in use, than a man and his ears. To pay attention, must be something that contributes to Alzheimer’s, though I’m no doctor who specializes in that disease. But, I can understand at least that to a woman’s heart, vividness when it comes to memories, are very much related to what she finds important.
She sees. A woman sees, notices, and is most aware of things that surround her. Humanity is in her possession. Yet, she is caught up sometimes in what her past signals to her, and creates a false sense of strength by raising a wall between herself and future possible hurt.
Again, to create a good female character, one must add the details. Detail upon detail, because a good female character can create the very backbone and strength behind a tale. A past is full of details, and women often express what they feel, to the avail of wanting someone to understand what she says.
Action resembles independence, but a past can hold someone back, especially a woman, what with her vast network in terms of held-upon memories. She won’t find strength mainly in what she sees, but mostly in what she feels. What she feels, she will understand the most about herself.
All this, I have noticed on my own from having a dominantly female family.
Whatever can soothe a past, for a female character, a writer can write this out by conveying what can lead her away from such shadows.
Once more, a good female character should have vivid detail after vivid detail. She will remain a flat character, not a three-dimensional one, if she is not written with the details that relate so well to an intricate past.
Modern Romanticism 