Liberal – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Equal Rights are Forever Unattainable” – 11/20/2021

“The most fundamental part of being human is to want more. However, in only being fundamental, many forget that there is a necessity to rise beyond the convenience and comfort of the monetary sum. If we ever attained that which would freeze our movements, then we would have no need to rise beyond the poverty of a lacking life. It is a right that cannot be attained, the same as your life is already your own.”
– Modern Romanticism

Humans fight. It is because we show our power to those others that are lesser, to ourselves. There is a trap to this. To want more is to be aligned not with freedom, though with slavery. A person confines themselves outside the necessity to go beyond mere survival. If Classical Liberalism once defined modern human rights as more concrete when given, it has been only because the most concrete thing to human understanding is materialism. Human flesh is material, though when loved and protected, it is beautiful. Beauty is this, outside the changes to it that can distort truth into deception. What is most deceiving to a person is themselves believing that they can be equal with another in their right to gain, when rights have more to do with one’s right to be.

One’s right to be, is believing that nothing can be more accessible than the self or own’s own individualism and abilities. Knowing this, and there is no reason to change, though there is reason enough for improvement. Change involves believing there is a wrong or an injustice either with the self or with the world. Although, to accept reality as is, without the desire to change, will instead involve improvement. Improvement relies on understanding where either the self or the world is, in its current place, and then rising from that point.

As the most concrete understanding to a human is materialism, it can be of no wonder for why the gift can also be understood as not meaning to be taken back. However, when the Liberal believes this, their ignorance is upon what is taken from them through their self-deception that a right will be gifted and not be a purchase. What is taken, for the value of the collective or collected materialism, is always one’s freedom and individuality. That is because individualism cannot be numerous as something of materialism can be. If material objects can be collected or gathered, then they can be divided. It would then be everything material that is collected more representative of division, while individualism defines truth, unity, and equality. Individualism is then a oneness, because it is always the common addict to the material substance that gives themselves away for it.

Individualism cannot be more accessible than where it is, within the individual. Though, the common Liberal will be suggesting that the most material of things be more accessible and also more affordable for the common man. In the value for collectives or collected material substances or objects, there is a greater rejection towards the individual who believes in what is most accessible and most affordable. Again, what is most accessible and affordable to the common man the freedom to care for their faults and to reject what is given to them. That is because individualism cannot be given to a person, nor can it be a free thing to give of the care a person requires to take care of themselves and their loved ones.

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.

Political – “Why Political Liberalism is an Oxymoron” – 6/30/2021

“Politics. The realm in which anything sincere becomes as blackened as attempting to fry an egg in an erupting caldera.”
– Modern Romanticism

Liberalism or to be a Liberal, as the most fundamental of definitions, is to be a decent human being. Though, that is outside of politics where such is possible.

Politics, in the most fundamental of definitions, is the insincere aspect of speech, carrying more weight through to the populace over actions.

To combine the notion of being a Liberal, meaning to be a decent human being who is willing to help another, with politics, turns everything contradictory. How so? It is because to combine something that is meant to involve a sincere heart, with something else more inclined to be manipulative and deceitful, the latter always wins over. It wins over, by turning something else’s pain into gain. It would not tell another that their pain is their gain, through the understandings of individualism.

Political Liberalism is an oxymoron through how sincerity becomes a deceit. One can be a Liberal, or just a good Samaritan willing to aid their community, and never become involved in politics. Because, to be involved in politics with a so-called sincere heart is to no longer hold such within the self. It is to then become a deceitful echo of perhaps a once-honest and truthful heart.

Outside of politics, sincerity is pure. It holds the heart of willing to sacrifice, for another’s sake. Once again, to involve the honesty that is the root understanding of being sincere, with politics, is to reverse it into dishonesty and deception.

Philosophy – A Critique on Veganism – “A Denial of Humanity” – 2/4/2021

“If one fails to consume, then they shall be consumed by the oppressors we can state are ‘animals’ who resemble humans.”
– Modern Romanticism

How can Vegans be sympathetic towards animals? Is it within the Vegan philosophy to be kind towards other humans, as one? Or, is it within the Vegan philosophy to somehow negate the knowledge that we, too, can be “animals”? And, if Vegans believe a human cannot be compared to an animal, then they must either place themselves as either greater or lesser, to “animals”.

What defines an “animal”, other than what we need to kill, because it does not resemble a human?

Compare the psychopathic serial killer to an “animal”. Compare the pedophile to an “animal”. Compare the raging tyrant to an “animal”. We inevitably bring these people low, from whatever supposed monument they felt was necessary to construct, that they might look down upon those deemed as “lesser”. They deserve no restraint from us, as we “put them down” to a sleep they shall never wake from.

If we can be sympathetic or even empathetic towards other humans, then we do not bend a knee towards oppressors. However, sickened animals, especially of the mind, when they cannot be domesticated like a human, deserve the mercy of euthanization that puts the beast to eternal rest.

If the Vegan can believe humans are not able to be “animals”, then they must believe we are either greater or lesser to them. In which case, if the former is the truth of the Vegan, they contradict themselves. If the latter is the truth of the Vegan, then they are automatic food for those who would “consume” someone who’d not dare to fight against animals.

To be higher than any animal, whether a mere poodle or a domineering tyrant, means to declare oneself as human, as better or more developed than what simply seeks to tear apart. If we do not “consume” what is an animal, then we become consumed by things that are “animals”, though resemble humans.

Quote – “Why it Takes no Politics to be a Liberal” – 8/21/2020

“If to love, to help, to be empathic/empathetic means to be a liberal, then politics would only endanger such heartfelt sorts.
No politician comprehends the meaning of empathy, when their task is to speak to an audience, not an individual. For as the individual would have a heart, then the audience would have a color. The color, is the lie. The heart, is the truth.
We are not close to anyone enough to hear the drumbeats of a heart, whether slowing to die, or fast in fear, when we are divided by colors.”
– 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

Controversial Topic – “George Floyd is the Left’s New Censorship” – 6/14/2020

It is known of the Liberal Left that they enjoy it when speech is silenced, that when a person speaks in a manner deemed offensive, they are quieted from talking. Simply call the person deemed to be racist, a racist, and they are quieted. Even the police in certain nations cannot arrest gangs, out of their petty fear in being called this even pettier word.

To speak on slavery as though the blacks only can comprehend it, is ignorance, in and of itself. What did slave-masters use for their tool to silence a black slave? They used the whip. What do Liberal Leftists use to silence speech? They have their own single words, like “racist” or “sexist” used to silence a disobedient “slave” and keep them from rebelling. Therefore, these methods of silence are only different in that they approach from a more subtle route, rather than a direct one.

George Floyd, in this sense, is dead, and his literal silence is what drives the ongoing riots and the Seattle takeover. Their more-than-disgusting ways have been what they deem to be justifiable in misusing the dead, and taking advantage of the silence of death. The silence of death, the censorship of a dead man, named George Floyd, is what the Liberal Left is taking advantage of. It is because George Floyd would be the “voice of reason” in this heat of unceasing conflict. Were he alive, he’d be the sole voice, as the loudest voice, to speak against current happenings. Were he alive, he’d might have a voice louder than any political leader, or civil rights activist. Were he alive, there’d be no need for something like riots, to occur. He’d lay his hand down and put a stop to them, through his sheer presence and voice.

His silence, in the grave, is what the Liberal Left takes for advantageous gain. For advantageous gain, the Liberal Left understand that George Floyd cannot speak, be the voice of reason against them, and therefore believe they are free through his demise.

This method of taking advantage of the dead, might as well be on the lowest level of committing necrophilia. For it is with the same word, called “usage”, that these Liberal Leftists are using the dead, for lust. As lust relates to gain, and gain is accompanied by the word “advantage”, it is here where we comprehend that these people have greatly lowered themselves.

Philosophy – “A Critique on the Existence of Journalism” – Dialogue – 9/22/2019

Q: What strikes your pity to be so prominent?

A: It is because whenever I see a person aiming to engage in Journalism, I see no more than the smile of insanity or excitement. Logic is never in the equation of Journalism, nor in its existence, and femininity has merely encompassed it, like a spread of peanut butter on a slice of bread.

Q: What makes you intolerant towards Journalism?

A: Journalism resonates upon its sole ingredient: excitement. The thrill of the chase after the truth, is much different than a spread of directions, a spread of paths, as this relates more to the lie. A lie is complex, as are emotions, and each emotion is a different path. The source of the confusion comes from simply witnessing these emotions in their drama. Unless someone has the idea of writing of lost cats or children with sore legs after kicking a ball, there will be the crudeness of engaging in the lie, itself.

Q: What is the lie, itself?

A: The definition of a lie is simple complexity. A complexity that creates numerous paths, this is a lie. A deception, that is easily convincing, marks the essence of the emotion. Journalism strikes me as the only weapon that employs this. The usage of emotions, and never the consolation towards them. The witnessing of tears or fear, for the sake of the camera, makes it a reality, despite both the emotions and the presence of a camera making the scene an unreality. The viewer had not been there, though viewed the deception through a lens, and it all becomes a mere “perception”.

Q: What do you make of perceptions?

A: It is the one-sided story, the essence of the debate, the source of division, as each “perception” created from a sight upon a television screen, creates the feeling of loneliness, separation, and anxiety. Each viewer of a screen has been deceived, and now they are the victims from which deception creates puppets. Each string, that is, from the puppet master, marks each separate path towards an emotion. A puppet is only a representation of a lifeless corpse, without the strings. With the strings, the puppet is seen to be wild. It moves, though is still lifeless and without a soul.

Q: And back to Journalism?

A: In utilizing the ingredient of excitement, truth is always ignored. Truth is never discovered in this scenario. A Journalist will be so intent in “rushing within the rush”, so to speak, that they will never make an attempt to look for truth. They rush, lost in the crowd of both spectators and those who perceive, that they remain concealed. Most of them are rushed on caffeine, creating a further “fast-paced” attitude, marking them as the perfect vessel to be the perfect puppet. The wild one, is like a corpse reanimated.

Q: What more of Journalism?

A: A complexity is merely an emotion, and each emotion creates deception. Each person conflicted with a “mental illness” is lied to, whether by Psychiatrists, or by their own thoughts. A simple cure, such as a pill, is still alike the simple cure, that is suicide. The remedy is never to become a robot, though to use logic to uplift those deep in their emotions. It is because, whether it be depression or simple fear, there is calmness that reveals itself as more daunting than the fear, itself.

A Critique on Feminism – “The Destruction of Marriage” – Dialogue

Q: You have mentioned that despite Feminism believing itself to better marriage for women, that it was inevitably to destroy the entirety of marriage?

A: It is correct, because Feminism had a main ideal, and that ideal was discontent. The essence behind love is to make a human not want for more, other than the one who they’ve devoted themselves. Love does not make a human want more, and because Feminism has made a woman want more, then marriage inevitably would have succumbed, as it has done.

Q: Could you elaborate on why love is never to be met with discontent?

A: It is because marriage is there as a lock, and bound together, no two of the ones who are married should ever part from the other. Through the marriage, the ‘leaving of the house’ initiates the process of longing, and the forcefulness of patience. A man lacks the most patience over a woman, and his inevitable ways with discipline, does not make him the patient one. Over a man, a woman will listen to words, and words entice the utmost out of patience. Love cannot, or rather, should not be met with discontent, due to how love operates in the sense that love offers rest. Love offers relief, away from the stresses of life.

Q: And on why Feminism would have inevitably succeeded in destroying marriage, and even love?

A: It is because the most discontent find ways to make use of things. And the most useful of things, are in fact, the most useless of things. This is love, the most useless thing, because one is not meant to look upon family through lust. Discontent makes the human want more, and in wanting more, one makes use of tools. When in lust, a human is out of love, and in the process of wanting more, and that is either a child, or escapism away from stagnancy. Creation, that is, to make art, and therefore, the artist is always the one who is discontent. A world that wishes to create further stagnancy is a world that is seeking the other form of equality.

Q: What form of equality is that?

A: There are only two forms of equality: love and death. Love, as the former, is the higher equality. Death, as the latter, is the lesser equality. Meaning, love is raised, and death is lowered; or rather, love raises, and death lowers. A skeleton, when relating to death, is just as any skeleton, by the bones. Through flesh, and through love, we recognize life, the breathing, and the emotions, because we abandon the dead, save for the memories of their life. Through flesh, a human will recognize their beloved, just as a skeleton, were it to walk, would recognize another skeleton as the same, and be a slave. It is so, because a slave has no way to distinguish his misery from another slave. In today’s world, death has grown to be the new form of equality, because truth, or a woman, or flesh, is never raised. This is Socialism, because death, or poverty, is the only other form of equality, besides a love for God, or the love for a husband, being the love for a father.

Dialogue – “The Pathetic Obsession with Self-Esteem” – 6/2/2019

Q: What do you propose is the problem with those looking to improve their ‘self-image’ or their outlook upon themselves, which you say is the same?

A: The view of self-worth is the necessary ingredient in creating a world of arrogance. Arrogance, as in, what will always be a Sociopath’s fuel, for every machination that such a one brings to light. Arrogance is the belief in blood, and identity. Liberalism had tried to divert the world away from a system of kings and knights, though couldn’t ever divert the world away from the natural order of a human. The belief in ‘self-image’ comes through an understanding that if the self is worthless, then the self had only become this way through criticism. The coward spits on graves. The coward topples long-abandoned religious temples. The coward speaks of someone not in the room. The coward discusses an issue not before their enemies. In this, such criticism of the dead, of the absent, of the abandoned, is only born out of a mindset that a “criticism on life” is a criticism on those machinations by the arrogant. The “movements” as they are called, are the sight of life, and life in its “progress” to achieve. To reach a desired end, a desired goal, and ultimately rule with an iron fist.

Q: The problem, that is, is to see ‘self-image’ or ‘self-worth’ through the necessity to achieve, is this right? And also, to achieve, and to never take the moment to stop; is this right?

A: The mover among the ‘movement’ that never quits its movement will find that life will place marks on the skin. They are the marks of life that reflect stress, and the continued dissatisfaction that reflects rage and discontent; and among this, follows the destruction of never comprehending what results in an instant. For to face the many thousands of years with knowledge, is the equivalent of performing arson on a library. In the same way as a woman had protected her virginity, it could be lost in an instant; and a world without love is a world without protection. A world of lust is a world full of opportunities to win or lose, and should we lose, though still yearn for love when it is absent, we will say that the loss was still a win. The ‘necessity to achieve’ is the mindset of the monarch, and the dictatorship. Such people stop at nothing to earn what they want, not what others need. They target specifics, and not the entirety. It is a mindset, not a system; a mentality, not a law, that creates this disease.

Q: And for self-esteem?

A: Self-esteem is that belief in ‘superiority’. It is also a very subtle way to seduce someone into joining a side. The answers we receive for questions that remained subliminal, are either arisen from our subconscious to become endless confusion that results in madness, or ‘mental illness’; that, or it becomes a seduction from a rather large source. A source of answers that is always to be deception. For there is no other truth other than the recognition of what is recognized, and that is, the beauty that is original and new to the eye. For the question had been old, and the answer is new.