Tag: Philosophers

Philosophy – “Why Racism is a Product of Fear” – 12/2/2020

.Reading time 5 minutes.

“The greatest weakness of all is for one to believe they lack it.”

– Modern Romanticism

In a realm of situations, there are specifics. In one pointed out situation, there’d be a person who could say, “It is subjective for what one thinks.” Though, that situation was merely broken down from all others, alike it. To the specific situation of prejudice, it is like all others. For there is a universal trait that we do not normally consider. We’d not consider it, since it would expose human flaw.

It is fear that we do not consider.

Fear is universal in each situation of prejudice. Among all those situations, that unifying factor could indeed be the key to unity. Among all human weakness, people are joined together to heal.

Fear is a weakness, there for either the soothing of it, or the exploitation of it. Since the latter option is always available, no human openly admits to what they fear, on normal circumstances. In fact, who would admit their fears to a stranger? Who would, besides those who are never heeding caution upon that stranger, that such an unknown person might exploit it? For it is that humans always come upon strangers, and it is that a stranger becomes a friend when they are trusted.

Trusted for fears? That requires closeness. To be close, would mean to mend such weakness, that through togetherness, two people fear nothing. For they are no longer alone, when holding hands of differently-colored lights.

Beauty is that which always is weak. We are weak, when beautiful. As it is, “beauty” should only be defined as what makes us lost in ourselves, at first unable to trust anyone with our history. We hold beauties within ourselves, about ourselves, saved for the acceptance by another. We do not loosely toss truths about, anymore than we should nonchalantly tell a mother her child has died. Humans hoards their truths, being same as all things beautiful, saved for a person who could accept it, and continually compliment them. A man can call a woman “beautiful”, as she’d never thought of herself in such a manner. Then, that man is trusted by her, if his words were sincere. As it is, all things so beautiful come together, are unified. Though, weakness still remains, since further insecurities will lead to needing further reassurance.

Who can one trust, without looking into the eyes, without being close? And, if one is betrayed, one still learns. One has learned what shouldn’t be, versus what should. One has learned the falsehoods from the truths.

Again, could fear be our admitted element, out of us, to the open where in each of these situations of prejudice, we are unified? We can know such truths, to not be distant out of ignorance and fear. We can see past the surface, past the skin, past the eyes, to the mind and heart of an individual.

We need not be so ripped apart, as a wound is when the flesh has come undone. For we can also penetrate flesh with empathy. We can make a person weep, without stabbing them. We can hold what is trusted, in our arms, without betraying them. For if we did stab them in the back, they’d be ripped free from us, once again. Is that the “freedom” people wish for?

Love is the mighty forgiveness, of this world. It forgives histories, grievances, among all flaws a person had placed entirely too much focus upon. After death, forgiveness is the power that forgets negatives, as it remembers the positives that had made a person live.

Though, if fear could be the singular flaw, that instead of stabbing a person, could be admitted, then the other side could, too.

We can admit to being so afraid, that we all clash together, not as fire, though as water, as tears. We could break as the waves, against the rocks that be the earth at our feet. Why don’t we?

No situation of prejudice is so different, that this universal aspect of fear cannot be the key to surrendering ourselves to who is meant to be loved.

Philosophy – “Why an Artist should not Explain their Work” – 12/1/2020

.Reading time 4 minutes.

“Meaning. As a word, it should explain itself.”

– Modern Romanticism

Art has meaning. It has meaning within meaning. It has layers of its own meaning. Each layer descends atop the previous one, just as clothing for a woman might be removed to reveal the beautiful and vulnerable sculpture beneath.

Peel back the layers, and one sees truth. Yet, it should be done, immediately. Why must an artist need to explain meaning? Upon when a viewer becomes confused to the “message” behind a work, why should someone else, even the artist, explain it, to remedy the confusion? If such becomes the case, then the artist has failed is their attempt to make meaning universal. They’ve become among the arrogant of this world, believing their meaning to be “specific” to them, rather than creating art that can connect. For it is only the narcissist who sees their reflection in its specific shape, not ever daring to see another’s.

Art is never narcissistic, never egotistical, never selective upon who is considered to matter, when it connects through what has depth. Of depth, there is meaning. Among everything meaningful, we are each meant to see ourselves, as humans, as all vulnerable, as all bared to the reflection that might be the painted canvas, before us.

Though, if the artist too much sought to make specifics, and did not implement enough meaning so universal, they will indeed attempt to explain their work. Though, such an explanation will only arrive upon a viewer’s noticeable confusion, to the art.

It can only be that this confusion results, or originates, from the innate function of a human brain that is actually questioning the art for why it is not universal. For it must be that, in their confusion, to see the art as not being “universal”, is the same to say the work is not human. As in, to connect, for connection could only ever be artistic and universal.

Why else would a viewer to art question it, if the very act of being confused is not for segregation’s sake? One can easily imagine the artist pulling the confused viewer to a quiet room, to privately explain the work, in greater detail. Though, why couldn’t the art, itself, do the explaining?

To imagine if a Comedian told a terrible joke, to the reacted confusion of their viewers for what was said, might result in further explanation for clarity’s sake. By then, the humor has dried up, and the Comedian has met failure.

“Connection” would be the implement of a Comedian to make their entire audience laugh. If there are those who did not find the Comedian’s jokes to be humorous, to then begin scorning them, it could only be that such listeners are searching for specifics by way of humor. The “specifics” aspect of this, is all to know the difference between a representation of something certain, to a representation of something universal.

Philosophy – “The Definition of Unfairness” – 11/30/2020

.Reading time 4 minutes.

“To the introduction of fairness, comes as the introduction of unfairness when it is brought forth to be compassion. Equality is not compassionate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Equality is not compassionate.

Could one “introduce” fairness into a working environment, full of people believed to be treated with unfairness? That is the same as offering special treatment. That is unequal, to the rest.

It is the same as a nurse falling in love with a cancer patient, and soon offering more attention to who they love, over the rest. This makes the only “equality” within the workforce, to represent something of mechanical function. Outside of the workforce, in specifics, a person is understood by one’s family to not be a tool. Within the workforce, there is no more than tools.

One cannot introduce fairness for all workers, without also introducing special treatment. For the introduction of special treatment, is the introduction of unfairness and inequality.

There is only one “equality” or “fairness” in the working environment, and that is the objectification of each man and woman. There is no room for compassion, unless special treatment and attention is in order.

It is true that “special treatment” will be designated, targeted, and specific upon a person taken from among the rest. There is a prejudice to that. Why should that person who has targeted an individual, treat them as an example that the rest would follow suit? Even among a hierarchy, all are at the same level, as tools, as instruments of construction, even when an inch taller on a scale.

Equality is not compassionate, for it always turns into a thing of selection.

Equality and fairness, when perceived by a human to reference these specifics, becomes the human’s way to hijack Nature. We then perform our own way on natural selection to allow only certain specifics to ascend.

Mixing compassion with function always has the former win over the latter. For this is because humanity holds a greater power, seen by the common human as what should always overlap inhuman behavior. And, it always does.

As humans, we are not tools. As humans, we are loved. Though, compassion has no place among a tool, when meant to be one.

The constant feud between tools, or people wishing to be viewed as humans, becomes a series of infighting in one’s own country. A “subtle civil war”, so to speak, as each person fights for their “rights”, among the desire to remain standing. All this introduces is constant paranoia, among a perpetual cautiousness on who to trust.

Could compassion ever be involved in the workforce? It should not. One could say the words, “Humans are not tools.” Though, were they to throw the word “humans” out of that statement, there’d be no meaning left.

For “meaning” holds meaning on something a person finds precious enough to protect. A right to be. A right to be human. Though, to be a tool, and then wish to be human, is all the inequality a person should understand is, in the workforce.

There are only two equalities, in this world:

The first is to be dead.

The second is the toiling labor of a worker, who burns with the motivation to return to their home. At home, they are, at last, a human.

Philosophy – “The Reason to say ‘Men and Women’, in that Order” – 11/28/2020

.Reading time 5 minutes.

“Life cannot be born, without a beginning to pain, for no woman could end it without first a care for her own.”

– Modern Romanticism

Why has there been a change, to now say, “Women and men”, in that order?

It is no by means a sexist remark to believe it should be the opposite. Because, to believe the order, being “Men and women” is sexist, goes against logic. In the order, “Women and men” is to say “Omega to Alpha”, or “Ending to beginning”. We can then ask, “Does life begin, or is life meant to end?” Are we just Nihilists to the meaninglessness of life, and that all meaning becomes joined, upon an ending, upon a birth to a dystopia?

Upon disorder, rather than order, we would say, “Ending to beginning”. That’s the “Omega to Alpha”, in the representation of a purge, to the beginning of something else. An ending to something, to the forced beginning of another, without Natural Law.

We would realize, guided from “Ending to beginning” that such beginnings to this world are unclear, as they no longer give us hope. To the “ending” part, there is understood from this an extinguishing of what was always clear, though is now killed.

The most natural thing about life, is that it has a beginning through a seed. Men plant that seed in the womb, thus is the reason for why God was made a Father. A woman cannot become a Mother, without that seed. We can behold before ourselves, the onset to “Progressivism”, by which all things natural are led through progress inevitably towards the unnatural. For how else would life become so unnatural, if we no longer followed things by the “Natural Order” of beginning to ending?

Beginning to ending is the “Natural Order”, though all things so natural become artificial when they are questioned enough to be dissected. Dissected, or rather, destroyed, for that is how order breaks. We dissect, or break, the objective “meaning” of life, down to where it holds none. We are left to then say, “Women and men” or “Ending and beginning”. It is because what is killed, or what has “fallen”, has now become the latter. It has become the representation of what has literally ended, to now the literal beginning of something still so unclear.

Pain is the testimony to a beginning. Labor, which is what a woman runs through, upon childbirth, reflects the work needed to enter pain, to then end it. A woman begins nothing of life, for even if she never engaged in sexual intercourse to become impregnated, she still needed a seed. Even if science took over that natural process, the woman still needed a seed to enter herself.

If pain is what begins life, or creates all beginnings, then it is to its ending where we comprehend that such is the only thing ever meant to end. Yet, it ends, naturally, by the death of it. Is life none so tolerable, that we must numb ourselves to reality? We are then a living corpse.

To say it in the order, “Men and women” merely represents “Beginning to ending”. That is how life naturally progresses in development, within the womb. It ends its development, to begin another one, in active life. The purest creation, being life, requires a seed for its beginning. We say a woman can start a business, rent an apartment for her residence, be a single mother to provide for her children, all on her own. Though, nothing of this can be seen, as no sons nor daughters can be birthed, without the man’s seed, without his beginning.

It is again that we say that God is the Father, for He beholds for us the creation around ourselves. All literal beginnings of life, would have to result from a seed. An entrance, to an exit, is the beginning of pain to its ending. The beginning of development, to its ultimate end. To then, the beginning of something else.

Quote – “Pain, in Love” – 11/26/2020

.Reading time 1 minute.

“Do we ever forget who we love? Or, do we ever forget who loves us? Are we to reduce ourselves to the selfish fool, who cannot appreciate the selfless gesture of kindness? It is in our pain, that trust has died, not ever love. Love does not become torn apart, for that is not what pains us. Whether distrust, or impossibility for continued life, we are pained by the memory. We are only ever in pain, at the time of the beloved’s departure, because we still love them. Whether that be in death, or in a simple leave, the eternity of love is proven upon a singular realization: that, the rooms are empty, though they never left.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The ‘Uselessness’ of Prayer” – 11/26/2020

.Reading time 4 minutes.

“Though, it shouldn’t be, that through our innate comprehension of love, we’d ‘make use’ of that loved one, whether they’d be God, or of family to friendship.”

– Modern Romanticism

Do we love God?

Do we love our friends? Our families?

Could we love the source to all love? It is in the understanding of love, that we realize we should not ‘make use’ of all that is loved. Therefore, in prayer, in clasping our hands, we should not think that anything practical might be of its result. For that is against love.

Are we saying we should “use” love? Does love have a use, to say that who we place love upon is seen as using oil to fix the squeaking sounds of a door? Again, it is against love to say it holds utility.

Against love, we manipulate, through practicality. Against love, we deceive, through practicality. Against love, we consume, through practicality.

Love is all-knowing, all-seeing, all comprehending; and we may be the same, yet our human hunger stays us.

We want, we crave, we are lustful, so we pray to believe it will ‘do’.

It is an error to fall so easily into human greed, lust, and gluttony that we forget what love is about. It is about the simple understanding, among nothing more. For do we not, as we have a photograph of a deceased loved one upon a shelf, just stare upon it whenever we find it necessary? That photograph collects dust, when it is not touched. It is that we have no desire to “use” it, because it merely represents a memory of the past. A dead past. As it is, this is the objective definition to what is immoral of “using” that which is dead. We do not comprehend who we love, when we negate it by turning to such practicality.

Death is stillness, not the movement in the ravenous behavior that accompanies desire. Therefore, by our understanding of such stillness, it is love that is just as powerful as death.

All stillness, is not of use. And, are we not stilled, also silent, when deep in prayer? Yet, our craving human minds are wishing for the practicality from God. Why is that? Why is it that we have rejected, for so long, the mere notion that prayer is not compatible with practicality and utility?

Are we here to simply say we should manipulate, deceive, and enslave who we love? For is this not the reason we are to “submit” before God, before whoever we love? To never say we have control? Even an Atheist would agree with these words, if they are not the sort to believe it perfectly fine to manipulate who they love.

We are here to believe in love, to guide us upwards. An “ascension” merely equals “improvement”, among nothing more. We are led to Heaven, away from the wind. For the wind represents the forward motions of life. In the embrace of love, we are uplifted, escalated, and risen. The forward notion of life, represent the individual voices. Love leads, though leads up the mountain slope, up the stairs towards Heaven. Life leads itself in unpredictable, randomized directions. We have no control, so long as there is love.

The vain desire for a human to want control, to want a choice, epitomizes deception. Against love, there is choice. Against love, there is control. In our world, for whatever time period one points to, is always the area of idealistic implementation. Of selflessness, through invention, as the gift, humans follow.

Philosophy – “Why Human Responsibility is the Enemy of Progress” – 11/11/2020

.Reading time 4 minutes.

“No human could immediately correct themselves, without needing convenience. Whereas, no human could form wisdom, without an extended time in suffering.”

– Modern Romanticism

To think science would be needed, if there was a way for all humans to “grow up”, is the definition of ignorance. All humans, when errored or imperfect, displaying such in their actions, when observed by scientific eyes are granted as an idea for a correction. A correction. For to correct the error of a human, is progress. Is it “progress” to say that a human has been corrected of their error, through immediate convenience. We can also say that the human form, full of errors, is the definition to things so instantaneous, like lust, exiting as quick as it entered. As it is, all human bodies enter and leave this world like the flicker of lightning. To differ the body from the mind is to differ a “temporary” aspect from an “infinite” aspect.

We could not be errored beings, without our bodies. Not at all could we be understanding of our imperfections, of our flaws, without in the knowledge that such is seen in the mirror. Of our flesh, of what has been sculpted, perhaps to the detail of an amateurish artist. We can protect, out of love, though against what if we never interact, if we live alone?

Human interaction is the necessity to which a person finds error. Through observation, we see error, we criticize it, and then find a need to correct. Though, on the side of progress, wisdom is never for its sake. As in, wisdom does not heed progress’s wish. That is, for progress seeks correction of every imperfection, instantly. It is to the same example of a wound, needing its bleeding to quit. For when the act of pressure to the wound was performed, it was immediate in its desire, as quickly as the wound was observed to be severe.

Wisdom would tell a person to find a dutifulness in responsibility. Wisdom would tell a person to not commit the same fault, twice. Wisdom would tell a person that error is inevitable, and thus, should not be believed it can be extinguished, in absolution. It would be the case, upon two occasions: love or death, making either the time when we stop seeing errors, and consent to the outcome.

It is then that wisdom makes the human not needing progress, not needing science. For if all humans were wise, heeded the need to be responsible, no immediacy of science’s offered conveniences would be necessary. It is rather a petty revelation, to which science only exists to offer convenience, at the absence of wisdom, and the continued existence of human error. For the more errors that scientific eyes can notice, the more there is to correct. It would indeed take more time, to form wisdom. Though, to what science offers, makes time our greatest impatience, and the immediate moment making our greatest desire for a cure.

Virus Talk – “A Lockdown is not the Answer” – 11/8/2020

.Reading time 3 minutes.

“What leader is such, when their goal is not upon the future, though upon the passing moments? Their aim, in that sense, would be to freeze everyone in place, so that the future receives more anxiety than does the moment.”

– Modern Romanticism

Whatever fool believes one should “live for the moment”, pertaining to a lockdown, that strips us of clear vision to the future, has sold their soul for a politician’s foresight.

“Living for the moment” is one of the most obsolete mindsets, of the current day. It is the same as possessing a limited attention span, being the exact implication towards destroyed marriages. For what we cannot pay attention to, being of objective importance over anything else, makes us lose what was best.

In this manner, we should pay attention to the future, for we might learn something of our mistakes, at present.

It is always a person who commits error, in the now, so that the future can become a better focus, with wisdom attached. We are not so certain of anything until we can foresee it. Yet, if a leader, playing the role of a “politician”, does not possess the foresight and clarity enough to comprehend the consequences of a certain mistake, then they have not been paying attention. It is as simple as that. Learn from the moment, so that one’s focus on the future is as clear as the next day.

But, a lockdown? What manner of idiot believes that for the sake of the “moment”, we should believe things can be beneficial? It is the same as stalling the development, stalling trust, and stalling clarity into what inevitably will take place. For when we focus solely on the short-term, the long-term becomes unclear. We are blinded to the future, making the travesties of the current time, become the future. It becomes the future, making all manner of sickness as eternal in its lasting.

To the true leader, allowing people their freedom, means to allow them to choose between life or death. If a pandemic is afoot, then what occurred to the idea of “The strongest will prevail”? If the world shows signs of its collapse, then why place more weight on it? If we are not moving, then we can only be pressed further into the ground, by standing on each other, “in the moment”.

Allow death to be the consequence of idiocy, while actual leadership comprehends what the future will bring.

Philosophy – “The Flaws of Abstract Art” – 11/3/2020

.Reading time 3 minutes.

“Were humans be able to comprehend each other, with ease, we’d do so, through art.”

– Modern Romanticism

It is like grief, where we lose something we found to be more valuable than us, that such sadness becomes a universal understanding. We are not limited by our sadness, for tears are always infinite. The suicidal person may indeed exit this world, in the same way they entered it. Weeping. Yet, the joys of this world come with tears, too, only they are sweet.

From grief, to joys, to all manner of emotion, such universal aspects are not achieved with abstraction. The confusion that relates to a viewer of such abstract “art”, is not in relation to the universal truth of what Creation is meant to be. An understanding. Of ease, in that comprehension, makes up art. Why should we not be the ones to see perfection in the flaws? Yet, if abstract art is purified flaw, then there’s nothing universal of it. It is merely the confusion that sets us apart, through ignorance.

When a painting or a song allows us to feel, such rising emotions are what all can comprehend. To see a painting that might depict the loss of a child, will relate to any viewer who understands the “pain of loss”. The pain of loss, or the hopes that can also be shared through art, are not of abstraction. Again, “abstraction” is merely the depiction of division. Division, for that is not the connection that a universal understanding would bring.

Abstraction, while it defines itself as a “breaking” of rules and boundaries, is essentially just division. Though, the viewers are especially divided among their opinions, their voices, rather than through universally comprehending what the art reveals. For what it reveals, meant to be universal, is truth. Meant to inspire, for how are we not, when we look upon something that moves us? Stirs us, due to that such an artwork made us feel what we normally avoid?

Humans have a tendency to avoid such secrets, of themselves, as they begin to dream of them when it is dark. It is dark, as such dreams are the light that we, at first chose not to make as art during daytime. As such, we are meant to take what we see, in our subconscious, because that is the artist’s inspiration. Truth. It is because “truth” stands for what we can reveal, out of courage, so that a viewer, or listener, or reader may also understand what they’re avoiding of themselves.

“Outside, there is Nothing” – From “The Prejudice of Globalism” – 10/31/2020

.Reading time 6 minutes.

How ever can a person understand that which is a nothingness, objectively so? A nothingness to what one sees, of outside endeavors, for that is the truth. Outside of what one can comprehend, a nothingness resides. Nothingness, for in the things so uncertain to ourselves, is like reaching for what is unable to be controlled. To the common politician, it is for them to control. It is for them to learn to control, for that is their motive. They will raise the speech, in loudness, though will merely be the deception that comforts those who offer question. For to the common politician, a question is a sign of confusion and worriment. Their words soothe, as easily when they can alleviate a threat of truth.

Outside, a nothingness, for it is the same as seeing the detail for which there is none, of a person’s skin color. Race, among all forms to a diverse world, hold that nothingness upon itself. For in this case, “nothingness” would translate to “what lacks meaning”. In each category that pertains to this “outside”, deception remains the fruit to the politician’s eyes. It is the deception of the outside, marking all politics as wishing for control upon its climate. Upon all climate, there is, too, the surfaces for which we first notice. Upon the ocean, as the surface accumulates the pollution. All things rise, of pollution, to the surface. For it is now to be proven that gravity merely weighs down meaning. Of all things human, to the feelings we should know reside at the deepest level, are objectively not the pollutions that rise.

It is of love, knowing comprehensively that it does not pertain to height, for it lacks a level. Love is not measured by the height of it, for it is impossible to say one loves more or less. It is then to prove that love is a height that extends to infinity. It is then to prove that all humanity is a depth to which resides beneath our pollution.

As pollution rises, humanity declines beneath it. As love cannot be measured, it is never something pertaining to pollution. If any romance becomes toxic, or the toxin of pollution, it is then to prove that better emotions are buried beneath it.

Yet, in that “nothingness”, to which the politician yearns to control, is a thing of its pollution. It is a thing to which a politician yearns to “clean up”. For its aspect of nothingness, makes it upon the side of a politician’s ignorance in what is beneath. To better things, of emotions and humanity that are at a depth, makes the politician who clings upon “pollution”, a person of deception.

It is to the same degree, that the politician who focuses upon “cleanliness”, is one of deceit. For it is to the surfaces of all things, that something meant to be cleaned, cannot be trusted, beyond. We are, in that sense, distanced. Distanced, from what is better to be known. We cannot discuss a person’s race, any more than a person can find discussion in the stark and solid color of a wall. Though to the inner details of a person, beyond the pollution to which the ordinary politician yearns to clean, is where there is purity. There is the purity to which the politician ignores, when their desire to clean the surface has what is beyond, go unnoticed.

All politicians of words, are a nothingness. They attract themselves to deceit, for they are deceit, themselves. It is in the motive to speak, that makes them attracted to what remains upon the surface, related to words. Shallowness, for this is the term that relates, as well, to words. Words are the shallowness, not ever matching to something opposite from prejudice. For we are prejudiced to the surface, as we are never to what is beyond. If we are willing to listen to what is beyond, we hear truth. We hear truth, not the deception of surfaces. Surfaces are the deception that is like the Siren attracting sailors. For upon the surface of the ocean, their hearts are deceived, when they deceive themselves. As deception, or those with weak wills, are attracted to the same, it is proven here that “will” always pertains to action. That is, to be in control of oneself, so that one does not feel fear enough to be attracted to mere deception.

The deception is the surface, masking those “inner details” that are ignored, for the sake of the prejudice. It is, as well, for the sake of what a politician of words can control. To control the surface, is like controlling the waves, to control the tide, to control the direction of where people walk.

Quote – “The Differences of Criticism” – 9/19/2020

.Reading time less than 1 minute.

“As hatred cannot be offered by use of words, then it falls to criticism to undertake speech made through use of intellect or idiocy. For when the former takes place, being of intellect, then it is the debate that stages the ground. When it is the latter taking place, being that of idiocy, there is no intellect, and there is merely the insult being hurled.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Identity Politics, the same as Monarchal Bloodlines” – 9/12/2020

.Reading time 4 minutes.

“Written in the ways of purism, is the idea that one blood is inferior, or lacking in quality, over another. To base politics around race, around gender, around creed, is to recede to the aristocracy mentality, though swapped. It is to say that impurity is purity. Perhaps it is that we are all the same, though not in the way everyone wants.”

– Modern Romanticism

Who is pure, in this world of worlds? Who can say whether one person has more in-depth understanding to their “self-discovery”, over another? Who is purer, to another, whose bloodline, whether crossed or stagnant, is only ever different?

It can continually return to the idea that a person, whose bloodline is only different, can be made brand new. Of a bloodline, brand new, it is the same as a bloodline, pure. It is the same as to see something more divisive than any aristocrat, who had power in the past, could make for competition’s sake. For do these people with their “identity” not relate to very obscure bloodlines, so alien from the common man?

All a person knows, so well of themselves, is that they can bleed, just like anyone else.

“Identity politics” is, therefore, an exact relation to aristocracy, in terms of the curiosity for the potency of blood. We can comprehend our ancestry, through a simple “Google search”. Whereas, in the past, we knew it by whoever had sexual intercourse with a woman. We can dig so deep in the past, to discover our identity’s “potential”, and then, become proud of who we are. For to be proud of who we are, is no different than any tyrant who would want to appear good, rather than do good.

The love of blood, is the love of making a statement. And, when do we become the vampires, who like Elizabeth Bathory, drenched herself in a virgin’s own? We do so, by accumulating newness. We make new bloodlines, discovering percentages of ourselves in our supposed “ancestry”. Again, in the pride of who we are, we forget to be proud for what we can do. That makes us ruling tyrants, that without the offered shame for this identity, we can conceal guilt.

People can be wounded, not of guilt, though for pride. Though, whenever will we give in, to a guilt that tells us we have bled others, for the sake of keeping what we most know of ourselves? We have bled other people’s pride, not ever giving in to this guilt we know we feel. Because, for how sour an aristocratic person’s expression can be, we overlook our guilt for how much we bleed. We put to death, another person and their supposed guilt, whether at the stake or at the hanging. To burn, or to choke, is the only punishment a person with a supposed sin, can receive.

It is to those that know we all bleed, that make those who are so vain for their identity, released of their head from their shoulders. Yet, they’ll still run around without intelligence, without recognition, and without identity. Because, as they believe in blood, the rest believes in sameness. The common man believes in same blood, same identity.

Consume the offered shame. Feel your inner guilt. Punish yourself.