Philosophy – “Why Progress is Limited” – 8/2/2021

“How can humanity achieve its feats if under constant pressure due to such limitations as time, as illness, as poverty? We are unable to build, if all we’re content with is destruction. If we are left with dissection, we learn, and yet, we are left with useless knowledge. We cannot bind, if all we do is break. Nor can we, if we mean to break, find our wisdom when things are left shattered.”

– Modern Romanticism

Today’s focus on “difference” and “diversity” is the sign that progress is reaching its limit.

Progress is only ever achievable through a recognition of similarities. When things work, we can break limits. Though, when people compete in their differences, able to be stagnantly proud to them, then there is no progress. There is the mere appearance that has no function for itself.

If science gathers data and knowledge, then such findings prove to be useless without a place for their application. It is to say that without a societal focus on similarities, more knowledge becomes increasingly insufficient. Dissatisfaction becomes the focus to those obsessed with difference, since their desire for greater choice comes at the cost for what functions. If what is meant to function cannot, then it was because more had been broken, than what had been mended.

Continue reading Philosophy – “Why Progress is Limited” – 8/2/2021

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 – “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 – 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

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.