Philosophy – “The Inherent Problem with Progression” – 4/10/2022

“If progress takes a side, it will never be outside of what the progressive views of everything around for the world’s potential change. Progress can only change the world into a different color, alas having an issue with everything that is wrong except for what is wrong with the self. The progressive therefore either avoids personal fault and the requirement to be accountable or never believes the self could be improved.”

– Modern Romanticism

Progress steers a world, a nation, a people towards development, though only of what is seen outside of viewing their own reflection. We can speak of equity as though it’s progress, though only because it avoids the reflection, being the idea of what is understandable about another that we see in ourselves. If what is flawed to another is the same for us, then we can recognize where we once were, upon a time, that whether disadvantaged either through being imperfect in skills or being disabled through a physical disfiguration, the improvement, through progress, is never advanced with the self. Progress advances what it sees, even if that means to treat a human as a mechanical object requiring tinkering and toying to allow for its continued function to the greater machine.

For if progress were to see the self, understand what equality represents through comprehending the self the same as someone else, it would develop at a slower pace. It would perhaps develop the world, while a human is the center of everything else. It is in the recognition that a person changes the world or themselves, not the world changes a person without the acknowledgement that a person created their environment.

In the exactment of change to the world, as the progressive loves to tout for promotional sake, there does not seem to be sight upon the self. The reason being, is that no change could come to the self that the progressive does not already believe has occurred from “the world” among its supposed victimizing to all manner of desperate people. A progressive must then believe that “the world” was not built by human hands, as the argument remains to say, “Why rely on the same people who caused the fault to begin with?” Why rely on those who should not be trusted to solve what is that is still wrong with the causers to the fault?

Those who cause a problem should first look at themselves. When they do so, they might see that themselves are as large as the problem having been caused, and therefore see their reflection in the problem. If the problem is equal to themselves, then no progressive can admit being able to solve it, without refusing to admit that they have caused the damage. Progress, itself, is unable to accept accountability for a wrong, because that is the same as slowing progress down. When progress is slowed, it is because of having taken accountability or responsibility for the damages being done, that questions arise as to the worthiness of the achievement.

Inherently so, progress, itself, is unable to hold the self, the progressive, accountable without jeopardizing all of progress. That is because the desperate rely on progress for the betterment of their surroundings. However, if the desperate blame the progressive, then they may as well blame themselves, as well. That is because they are seeing a reflection of themselves, to the progressive, that they are just as much faulted to being human as all others.

Philosophy – “To Debunk Pride” – 2/22/2022

“Being proud is a damning thing for the identity. Why? When you are proud for who you are, rather than what you can do, then you are the one who would favor the value of a book cover, instead of the interior pages. You would be the prejudiced one to consider the exterior’s worth over the interior. For what you see at first glance, the book cover, is the ignorance to the knowledge that only signals your fear to comprehend what is the understanding of creation. Inner details, the book’s pages, is the value of all knowledge that if a fear is bypassed to see them, will be the freedom outside of an enslaved and captive mindset.”

– Modern Romanticism

Culture is human creation. One can be said to be the betterment over the other. As one’s skills could be said to be the betterment over another, where is pride designated for this? The answer is pride is meant to be reserved for the accomplishment. If, in the accomplishment, a person had committed themselves out of harder worker than others, pride is then available to this achiever as a feeling. Then, who is able to feel pride for themselves, through their identity? Would it not be the mindset of a purest or a narcissist who states that for who they are, who they are born as, makes them better than someone else? That is, if pride is, through its innate feeling of having earned the right to display it, a matter of being able to create a thing that can be displayed, then how it is ever meant to be involved for the exterior to a person?

Is pride felt out of the freedom to express it? If so, then such freedom must have been through the knowledge of an interior, a creation, through the achievements a person took to deserve the allowance of pride. Then, is the one for pride in their identity expressing it doing so because they believe they created their identity? If so, this would mean that their interior is also their exterior, and there is nothing else to know of them. This would mean such a person, proud for simply who they are, bypassed the notion of having a skill for an achievement so that what is believed of them to once be hidden is now revealed. Again, this means that one believes themselves to have created their own identity. This would also mean that for who they are, a creation as their identity is the exterior. To them, ignorance is the same as knowledge, that through creating these identities, an exterior to a person is the same as their interior.

How is a person, proud for their identity, at all retaining freedom for the sake of the expression when someone else is only able to know this person through comprehending the interior? That would require a bypassing of fear. If unity, not division, is the place of those proud for their identity, then why believe only the self can understand the self? The self is flawed. If humans were ever omniscient, the first thing we should understand, in fullness, is ourselves. Then, believing to know ourselves, through our omniscience, will divide us from the imperfections of others when we believe our difference makes us.

Difference is a factor of wanting to be paid special attention towards, due to this being a secondary factor of narcissism that which relates to being better than another person. It is because in being different through identity, then to the expression of pride, the attention and recognition is given merely for the popularity to their supposed betterment. If one favors another’s identity through popularity, then it is no different than being the biggest fan of a celebrity who appears perfect, though is still flawed as any other human.

When the achievement is given recognition, it is because it is one better than another. Culture is human creation that does change, though only for the better or worse. Identity is a difference to the place of preference, the same as genres to books are understood from a first glance at their covers. Identity cannot be bettered. Identity can only be different, though these differences are merely given greater or lesser popularity. The same as Science-Fiction might be more the mainstream than Fantasy is also for the identity. If one is proud for who they are, they will hold the mindset of perhaps believing the Science-Fiction genre is “better” than the Fantasy genre.

Philosophy – “Why No Government Should Aid its People” 12/10/2021

“Availability to the short-term is negligence upon what is most available, pertaining always to the long-term. What is long term, being most available, is a person’s comprehension of their capability. To know or understand yourself is always to fathom your limitations. Then, to understand everything capable to a singular person is then a presence that cannot be less available, when it is not expendable.”

– Modern Romanticism

If a government provides or is expected to be responsible, it was because its people were irresponsible. A people faced with crisis will expect its leadership to be responsible for it, though such expectations are from those whose characters were revealed to be weak during the start of their dilemmas. What defines a weak people or population to a nation? It can only be the resulting behavior of national crisis from the people, revealed at the beginning of it. If it is true that crisis does not build character, though reveals it, then this is the reason an expectation will be placed, from those who are weak, towards those who are strong.

However, what defines strength is a person’s character. A nation’s development was not due to crisis, itself. It was due to the aftermath of the crisis, or due to how a nation is better able to prepare for the next. If what defines strength is a person’s character, then its judgement comes upon the realization for who should be responsible to potential weakness being revealed. If those who are strong will survive, then they require no responsibility from an external source. When a nation’s government is expected to be responsible for those who are irresponsible or weak, that same government will be revealed for either strength or weakness when the crisis faces them. Would weakness be the result, then the people are strengthened. Overall, what comes of a nation, regardless of what is faced, is the strength of its people when in realization of the weakness to a leadership or government. No leadership or government can replace its people’s strength, because that is the same as replacing their freedom.

It is the greatest freedom of all to remember that the individualist self is wholly responsible for the outcome to crisis. In being responsible, the outcome to crisis comprehending the handling of the dilemma. One’s handling to the dilemma is not without reveal of character, whether being strong or weak will tell of who will hold the expectancy for who should be responsible. One’s weakness of character has been through their lack of comprehension to how it develops, during when the crisis ends. If they are still in favor of another having control over being responsible to the next crisis, then they are a slave.

One cannot expect a system of government aid to last into the long-term, without ignorance to the notion that these provisions will only aid the short-term. The reveal of character, entering into the long-term, would reduce individualism down to willful ignorance. Though, this cannot happen, because that is the same as burying a person while alive. One cannot ignore the person, in the desire to prolong such government support to the uncertain future. If the short-term is believed to be the only necessary focus, the long-term is ignored for such systems in their maintenance. This lack of maintenance will cause those systems to crumble. To focus on what is most practical to the methods of aiding a nation’s population, there is itself only beneficial to the short-term. Then, to wish for these methods to prolong their system of benefits into the long-term is to ignore what is long-term of individualist benefits, being the development of a people’s character. Where is the place to ignore the possibility of a nation’s leadership or government to prove themselves as irresponsible, during the existence of such systems of benefit, only for the people to prove their responsibility? It is that, in the end, the people are meant to be responsible.

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 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.