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.

Continue reading “Philosophy – “Why Choice is more the Slave’s Route, than Freedom’s Route” – 9/18/2021″

Quote – “To Kneel, is to Submit before your Masters” – 2/18/2021

“If those who kneel outnumber those who stand, then freedom is lost. Weakness festers in the eyes of those who choose to bend a knee, to their slave-masters, who’d return an act of rebellion with a word. For in today’s world, as whips have been replaced with such vocabulary, kneelers are in submission to greater forces. Their weakness is a darkness, somehow allowed to foster in these sorts who bring themselves low. How else is it not a representation of submission to masters, if one lowers themselves, lowers their mind and status, to something they must view to be higher?”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Possible Reason for a Nation of 50 States” – 2/1/2021

“Liberty belongs in the scenery one attributes themselves to. Did one grow up in America, or did one grow up in Kansas? Did one grow up in America, or did one grow up in New York? Would one call America their home, or would one call Michigan their home? To belong, is to identify where one can be naturally situated, while still being a citizen towards the same nation.”

– Modern Romanticism

Belonging. It’s a word that resembles acceptance. Though, upon its opposite, of something related to oppression, there is rejection. Perhaps the more abstract idea behind composing a nation of 50 states, was in the aspect of that “belonging”. To know where one stands, to become one where one feels most supreme, or to simply feel welcomed, must be to the liberty for which an American understands their actual origin. It is their origin, with the secondary reminder, still necessary, that they are unified with the rest. Split into 50 states, it is still America, though there to offer belonging not merely in one country, though in the diverse realm of acceptances that make the 50.

How can it be that a system would, in such a nation where “belonging” is a factor we find most precious, be universal, without erasing such a notion of acceptance? If each state possesses individual faults within either its show of standards or lack thereof, or of its show of culture, there could not be more of a fitting realm of competition given to us, even of the good sense. If we erase acceptance, then we erase the 50 states to perhaps become the New America. Though, that erases belonging. That erases liberty. Must liberty be what we call a sense of where we fall back to, being our home? Of the American soldier who yearns to steer back to such warmth of their home, and not to the dictator’s realm, there can be things better attributed to a state, of that belonging, rather than simply for the entirety. Though, it would still be America, as it will always be such, even with where its citizens belong.

Could a system, so universal, erase the belonging, the acceptance, the liberty for which we find such previous factors enjoyable? We can only be a dictator, enough to erase liberty. Even in the dream of perpetual and qualitative momentum, within progress, within enlightenment, within change pertaining to each voice coming forth, there can be sheer darkness. Nothing would be universal, except for what we understand, deep within. That, beyond the competition of sports, the competition of ethics or perceptions of morality, the value of something according to the monetary standard, all citizens of each state are still Americans. They comprehend each other, unified, as the United States.

Would any idea of a universal system ever come to pass in that idea-maker’s mind, that anything of such an origin as a workaround, does not place in closest regard what an American should remind themselves of? As in, could such a person with that idea ever comprehend why liberty has been embedded into an American’s mindset, that something deemed as “universal” of a system, would not work, due to that it allows them to forget themselves? Americans would forget themselves, as Americans, due to any system reaching itself as universal, would erase the liberty for which one citizen, of any state, would no longer feel their sense of belonging.

Belonging must be understood, of an American, as where they originated, though still with the remembrance that they are from one country. The reminder comes after the notion of that origin.

Philosophy – “The Origin of Selfishness” – 5/31/2020

The origin of selfishness can only come from personal decisions. We believe, at all times, that the decisions we make define ourselves, when such is not true. The decisions we make shape our world, the reality around us, not who we are, within. In fact, our actions would not shape us, as much as those actions were already decided upon, because of who we are.

Selfishness links to personal decisions, because the opposite of selfishness is, of course, the selflessness that links to not having a choice in the matter. Because, for those we love, we do not take the time to contemplate either on what they need, nor hesitate to aid them. For of the former, in contemplation or consideration, even if we’re wise to not approach a tormented friend, it has never been overnight that such a person turned of such a state. And, if one believes this is the case, one has not been paying attention. Then, of the latter, to be hesitant; how does one act this way when their love should compel them to rush to the defense of that vulnerable person?

Having a decision, having a choice, having freedom, is meant to be limited in respect of selflessness. Especially for the subject of “justice”, there is no freedom, as much as there is proof of evidence when being selfless. For to display action on a love, for another’s sake, will appear more potent than a mere few words to only tell of that commitment. In the name of justice, we are objectively selfless, not acting on personal motives.

It cannot be supposed that when we make a choice, we can be selfless. It is because a choice requires thought, that one will begin to reason themselves out of confinement. A marriage is confinement. A vow or promise is confinement. A friendship is confinement. One can reason themselves out of these commitments, involving thought and not the heart, should they be discontent with them. When we choose, we are not loving another. We choose based on what we want for ourselves, not for others. That is because to know another is not like experimenting for the self. It is to know someone, and then comprehend what they like, what brings them happiness.

To have paid attention to them, to know what brings them healing, is the mark of being loving to another person.

When we focus mostly on choice, we are focusing mostly on ourselves, while mainly omitting the idea that were one to not have a choice, they’d be focusing on their own happiness, regardless.

Quote – “A Need to not Tolerate Interpretation” – 5/30/2020

“Think of the ‘interpretation’ of an event, of an individual, of any single thing the two eyes of someone can lay upon, as falling on the side of ‘personal desire’ versus ‘justice’. No one should be allowed to interpret what justice means, in this world. There are certain things to know, certain rules to follow, that are supposed to have the strictest set of laws so that those followings are never broken. Give people enough freedom, and they will fall on that realm of ‘personal desire’ versus ‘justice’. Do not claim vengeance to be the same as justice, and do not claim ‘your’ breed of justice to be any different from anyone else’s. There is no freedom to the word ‘justice’. There is only freedom to the word ‘interpretation’, as that is a freedom to create the onset of pitiful human desire.”

– Anonymous

A Debunk – “To Why Black & White Creates Sense” – 8/20/2019

“To the center, is what the business will say to every consumer. And to believe in yourself, to make a choice, is what the business will say to every consumer. And to understand yourself, for those choices, is what the business will say to every consumer. A moronic society of ‘choice’ has come about, in the ‘positive attitude’ of approval. That is, a head will nod in the direction of the product most desired. A head will then, as well, turn away from the product least desired. At the center, where people are comforted, at their core, in their understanding, is there each person is most vulnerable. Do we experience equality in this? We do, for we end up massacred in every situation where we fight over the last scrap. When two looters rob a store, there will be the expected chance of the two looters exchanging glances, and immediately comprehending their thoughts. And we end up exploited, in this, for a choice is as loose as to choose to end one’s life. A ‘choice’ is merely a notion of belief towards freedom, and yet, it creates only the vulnerability expected of anyone never believing in correct decisions. It merely places each individual at that center, where understanding is made in the realm of comfort. In the realm of comfort, we never take risks, because no soldier is truly heroic, being scared for his own life, and that gray area is where most understanding exists, though for the self. Selfish choices, in the manner of never realizing that without black and white, there is only a world where people are consumed, and consumers only starve themselves.”