Unpopular Opinion – “Why George Floyd’s Relatives do not, and did not Care about George Floyd” – 4/24/2021

“It is impossible to care for the dead. That, it is impossible for them to improve, means that tears are all you need. Though, one cannot care for the dead, meaning they’ll never rise, never to improve, now that they are eternally fallen.”

– Modern Romanticism

What did George Floyd’s relatives do to improve upon George Floyd, in life? Though, they’ll improve upon themselves, in a multi-million dollar settlement, even before the Jury members were selected? Why does it take death for people to open their eyes? Why does it take a tragedy for people to come together, though destructively?

Were George Floyd to still be alive, he’d most certainly be the sole voice of reason to what people are enabling of the world, in his name. He’d be the one-man protestor against another’s pangs of doubt, and of their lack of discipline and dignity. Would he then question his family as to why the dryness and lack of humanity within politics has replaced him? Would he then question why politics, in its debasing and immoral ways, is standing upon his grave, figuratively speaking?

His relatives are not caring to George Floyd, anymore than the politicians are. If they did care, they would have raised George Floyd, differently. Though, it was indeed convenient for the politicians and perhaps even the family members for him to have died at the hands of a cop. It should be said, that with George Floyd’s mindset, were it to not be a cop that killed him, he would have died in some other equally horrific method. And, why does it require his death, for his relatives to find some meaning in this? Their lacking guardianship and guidance to George Floyd, may very well be the origin to his demise. Though, it takes his death for them to even just cast a simple glance towards his direction.

The totality of their absence, of keeping guidance away from George Floyd, is indeed apparent. The man was not raised well, to become who he was. Perhaps it is even appropriate to say that were he not to die at the hands of a cop, he’d be a mere unaccounted and unviewed instance of a black-on-black crime, that would never attain the level of heat and attention the past trial did. Again, for the convenience of political maneuvers and ambition, George Floyd’s death caught the attention of the media, among every gullible child who never knew of him, prior to his death.

We still cannot claim that the family cared, when they did not raise him in an objectively proper manner, that he would not end up this way.

One cannot improve what is no longer able to rise. One should not pretend to care, such as George Floyd’s relatives, when such was absent during his life. Their care, though not their grief, has no significance when such is only heard by opportunistic politicians, celebrities, talk-show hosts, corporate CEOs, among other sorts who crave power trips. It is the people who crave power trips who get off on death, who gain their wealth and influence from the decay of a corpse.

Philosophy – “The Pointlessness of Anti-Racism” – 4/22/2021

“One can be ignorant without being prejudiced. However, one cannot be prejudiced without being ignorant.”

– Modern Romanticism

To be anti-racist would have to mean to be anti-ignorance. However, how can one be anti of an absence, pertaining to ignorance, without broadening the void?

Instead, to make the error of relating prejudice to hatred, would have to mean to be anti-knowledge, if one is anti-racist by way of this hate. It is not hatred that fuels prejudice, though it is instead an absence of knowledge to another individual. In knowing the individual, one knows the culture, because one has penetrated past mere skin color.

A fascinating aspect of individuals comprehending each other is to open one’s doors to who one knows. Though, among immigration, to open doors to who one doesn’t know well, may be to invite danger. One raises walls against danger, inevitably so. Though, to comprehend the culture is to be past skin color. That is the knowledge, that against ignorance, is the only true way to be anti-racist.

One cannot be anti-racist, and at the same time, be anti-hatred. Genuine hate comes as an experience of betrayal, and through this, there was knowledge. There was, at one time, a connection between individuals. When betrayal struck, hatred formed when love, itself, became twisted and corrupt. Love is pure. To then become hatred, means for love to have been touched by it. Though, it is by the aspect of knowledge that two individuals once identified with each other. To be anti-racist would mean to be anti-ignorance, not anti-hatred. If one is anti-hatred, then one is for the notion that toxic people or betrayers should still be around those they betrayed.

If we are to be anti-hatred, as we wish to be anti-racist, are we next going to side with the idea that perhaps a woman should invite her narcissistic ex-husband back into her life out of blind trust?

To trust, is to know. Then, to have that knowledge, means to have wisdom. One has learned, from their past errors through experience of betrayal. More than all else, one has learned how to forgive. Love does not re-enter back into a modern realm, without learning how to forgive.

We are beautiful when we are fragile, when we are open. However, we cannot be open to evident danger. It is the danger that we know it to be, not among the individual, though typically among the collection. Though, we cannot say that the collective represents the individual, when it is through the knowledge of a one that we see a different perspective. Separated from the collective, and then a person is in awareness to an individual, not the group.

Individualism is to knowledge, as ignorance and fear is to the collective. Love has its realm within forgiveness, though must be to the experience of betrayal for it to be appropriate. Individualism should praise the idea of forgiveness, as the collective should reject the afflictions of fear and ignorance in place of knowledge. It is then that individualism rules, by this comparison.

To be truly anti-racist, among all these comparisons, would instead refer to being anti-fear and ignorance. To be anti either of those things, would only be needful, when we are for the idea of individual comprehending individual. To comprehend the individual, is in full relation to what is deeper than what represents the collective, being the external details such as skin color and race.

As it is, can one look upon the race to be like the cover to a book? That, if the book is never delved into, its details would remain in ignorance to the potential reader? If race is comparable to the book cover, then why would it be the discussion of any academic or similar setting? Is not the academic, or the craver of knowledge, more interested in the book’s details, over the cover?