“Any government that promotes love is a government that will never comprehend anyone’s pain. It is pain that is the comprehension, and yet, the politician upon his tower, sees one as the rest. He will not take into his arms, the individual someone, and understand their story. Empathy is personal sight, upon personal pain, for love to be given, personally. And no politician has ever been the Saint to do this.
Even Christ named his disciples, his closest followers, and remembered their tears, their sorrow, their pain. Had a politician ever had close friends? Perhaps. Though, it is always the matter of ‘like attracting like’ that causes platonic relationships to form.
Rather, it is ‘sympathy’ that such governments promote, to state that Individualism matters for nothing, to state that each person desires the same needs.
Demands are indeed exceptional, when they are not met by the voice of the needy, though by what corruption voices.”
A: It is because whenever I see a person aiming to engage in Journalism, I see no more than the smile of insanity or excitement. Logic is never in the equation of Journalism, nor in its existence, and femininity has merely encompassed it, like a spread of peanut butter on a slice of bread.
Q: What makes you intolerant towards Journalism?
A: Journalism resonates upon its sole ingredient: excitement. The thrill of the chase after the truth, is much different than a spread of directions, a spread of paths, as this relates more to the lie. A lie is complex, as are emotions, and each emotion is a different path. The source of the confusion comes from simply witnessing these emotions in their drama. Unless someone has the idea of writing of lost cats or children with sore legs after kicking a ball, there will be the crudeness of engaging in the lie, itself.
Q: What is the lie, itself?
A: The definition of a lie is simple complexity. A complexity that creates numerous paths, this is a lie. A deception, that is easily convincing, marks the essence of the emotion. Journalism strikes me as the only weapon that employs this. The usage of emotions, and never the consolation towards them. The witnessing of tears or fear, for the sake of the camera, makes it a reality, despite both the emotions and the presence of a camera making the scene an unreality. The viewer had not been there, though viewed the deception through a lens, and it all becomes a mere “perception”.
Q: What do you make of perceptions?
A: It is the one-sided story, the essence of the debate, the source of division, as each “perception” created from a sight upon a television screen, creates the feeling of loneliness, separation, and anxiety. Each viewer of a screen has been deceived, and now they are the victims from which deception creates puppets. Each string, that is, from the puppet master, marks each separate path towards an emotion. A puppet is only a representation of a lifeless corpse, without the strings. With the strings, the puppet is seen to be wild. It moves, though is still lifeless and without a soul.
Q: And back to Journalism?
A: In utilizing the ingredient of excitement, truth is always ignored. Truth is never discovered in this scenario. A Journalist will be so intent in “rushing within the rush”, so to speak, that they will never make an attempt to look for truth. They rush, lost in the crowd of both spectators and those who perceive, that they remain concealed. Most of them are rushed on caffeine, creating a further “fast-paced” attitude, marking them as the perfect vessel to be the perfect puppet. The wild one, is like a corpse reanimated.
Q: What more of Journalism?
A: A complexity is merely an emotion, and each emotion creates deception. Each person conflicted with a “mental illness” is lied to, whether by Psychiatrists, or by their own thoughts. A simple cure, such as a pill, is still alike the simple cure, that is suicide. The remedy is never to become a robot, though to use logic to uplift those deep in their emotions. It is because, whether it be depression or simple fear, there is calmness that reveals itself as more daunting than the fear, itself.
There is nothing more enjoyable for a human than for them to see where the light is taking them, should that light not lead them to a place where the light has faded. And in today’s world, where “liberation” has become the most prominent of words, there is something very unruly and undisciplined in the word, itself.
We have called upon “freedom” like it were a necessity. Though, have such people ever considered what “freedom” looks like, when it stares at us like the eyes of a child, or of the animals that in today’s time, we preserve for their lives? We adore children, turn them towards the opinions of politics; and, for animals, should we see them within the realm of cruelty, we’ll be most intolerant of it, more-so than for a human.
We see “freedom”, not in the protection of a child, but in the child’s ignorance. We see “freedom”, not in an animal’s protection, but in the animal’s undeveloped mind. As well, ignorance for that animal, and we once more see ourselves in a space of question.
“Freedom” would make the child ever-more curious. “Freedom” would make the animal willing to develop and evolve, out of Nature’s touch. Though, both would require a master to teach them.
Question is where the “power of reason” originates. Liberation is not a place born out of answers to any problem. It creates the numerous intricacies born within a realm of lies and deception. “Question” is a place where an answer to a large and ancient question cannot be found, so one is content with merely the question. In today’s time, it is common for an answer or a statement to be responded to with a question. It is also common, in today’s time, for complexity to be made from simplicity.
In the past, when religion was our guide, we were infatuated with an answer. In today’s time, we are infatuated with a question. Today’s question, being, “What can I make of myself?” The previous answer, of former times, being, “This is who I am, and there’s nothing I may do for it.” Acceptance, therefore, was more in the hands of former times. These were times of what we know, today, to be “enslavement”. It is differed from today’s time, that is a time for “possibility”.
Would it then be so simple to comprehend that the Universe had created an answer of its own self, out of a question? That, to reject the nature of chromosomes for each gender, that which we do in today’s time, is to reject the Universe, itself? That, because we do this, we make a question out of an answer? That, the Universe had only wanted to create pure acceptance out of a question, when forming an answer? That, because nothing is ever solved today, that this is the reason for our continual confusion?
Slavery is the necessity for humanity, when in the realm of guidance, not cruelty. For a leader must lead through example, and never force.
“The X and Y chromosomes of a man, makes a man only halfway understanding of a woman. The single X chromosome of a man, in the view of a woman with two X chromosomes, makes him commit himself to only one side: lust or love. He will commit himself to one, and never know the other for many women, because the thing a man sees, is typically direct in front of him. He will see a woman, for lust, in the same manner as when he argues with a man. That means, a man will find conflict in the many. And he will discover simplicity in the one. For politics, this makes a man suitable for the answer, when it comes to the simplicity in love, though stupid for the solution, when it comes to the complexity in lies. A stupid man, of many lies, will seduce a woman away from love, and entice her to break her arms, and strain her legs, for petty pride. A woman cannot comprehend a man, as it is impossible, so she must listen to his words. And everything she hears, she believes to come from his heart, regardless of whether it is a lie, or not. A woman, when making assumptions, will have done so out of misunderstanding of what controls and creates, branded in the Y chromosome; and every ear will listen and believe the words, because it is impossible to argue with an emotion. Emotions are as believable as humanity becomes objective to be humanity when revealing emotions.”
“Our obsession with credentials and requirements have forced truth into the books. We no longer pay attention to the hand that is raised, from a person who has offered themselves as a volunteer for a task that may prove life-threatening, and we offer them the ‘position’. Our concern for safety has seemingly even been brought to a leader’s attention. What do we make of a leader? Are they not the vultures? If so, aren’t we the prey meant to defend ourselves? And to what do we offer ourselves? As a sacrifice, or as a loss? There is only one requirement for leadership, and that requirement is willpower. The book will bind us as the spine of the book binds the pages, as our own spine binds the movement of our limbs. As an offering, we give ourselves to a threat. To an evident problem, we conquer it, because we possessed the strength that no one else showed.”
“The fool and his view of religion as control, has made the view of ‘control’ as one-sided. Such a fool will say that religion deems to control, through enslavement, and such a negative view will inspire those to take greater inspiration from ignorance. For there is a positive form of control, and such is guidance and wisdom. The ‘lack of common sense’ and the replacement of political power over the church, has created this. Such fools who say that religion deems to control, are so much the fool that they cannot comprehend what created religion. Faith and trust. These components are the same essences placed forth for the politician. What has changed? Nothing. We promote change, not love. We inevitably begin to yearn for love, and to ‘yearn for love’ is to yearn for the ‘Second Coming’ when Christ returns. This is to yearn for love to return. Is it not true that when hatred and division dominates, that we yearn for love? Religion promoted and promotes the modesty that comes with love. And through individualism, there is, with it, the promotion of change. With change, we decline. We love, we are settled, and we want nothing more than the honesty pertaining to common sense.”
Q: You say that sympathy is the only utilization of any form of government?
A: It is correct.
Q: Why is that?
A: There used to be a time when the common American would empathize, not sympathize, with their nation. Understand, this is purely a psychological argument. This was during the time when only men were allowed to storm on foreign soil, during a heated war. Psychologically speaking, men went to war to “free their lands” and this means to keep the weak free; that is, to keep women free. Empathy was in their hearts, and such battle cries were there for inspiration. What America’s founding fathers fought for, was for the government to fear its people, not for the people to fear their government. When the people benefit the nation, the people love the nation, through empathy. When the government benefits the nation, the government cannot understand the individual, or individualism, so therefore, the common American is neglected of their ability, which relates to their ability to work and prove themselves.
Q: You mean that when a population of people use empathy for their nation, then the people are seeing the nation as a one?
A: That is correct. A population of people who see their nation as a one, will be the same as an individual viewing another individual as a one, and never part of a group. A nation’s government, whose leadership views its people as a one, will again, never see its people for individuals. Individualism is left to die, and the government becomes the one.
Q: And this means that the people will, though unknowingly, empathize with their government?
A: For the same reason that a child will look after his or her own mother, in return for the shelter that the mother had offered, by her home, then such a government is therefore, seen as a parental figure. Purely psychological, again, and for a population of people to see their nation, not its leaders, as offering shelter, will mean for the population to empathize and love their nation. This all forms the difference between submission to a government, and submission to a nation, and its individuals. The government would have no choice but to submit to its army of citizens.
Q: And if the people submit to their nation’s leaders?
A: That would be the same as such a nation of individuals remaining as children. Every American that loves animals more than people, subconsciously believes in the innocence that they, themselves, long for, by way of being ignorant. To know nothing, and let a war rage on, or to allow their home to burn, and not react, is epitome of American apathy. As children, and their leaders as a “parental figure” means for such Americans to never mature and become as intelligent as their leaders.
Q: And to the men who protect their nation, or protect their women?
A: When men no longer protect women, it is a singularity of people, a neutrality of people and their inspiration, to ever want to be raised to the height of the nation’s leaders; and the men who once protected women, now protect themselves. It is psychological, because when men protected women, soldiers protected their nation; and this means that men kept their women free, and soldiers kept their land free. The fertility of a woman and her place as a mother, and a nation with its place as a Motherland, makes freedom necessary for the nation and its people, not for the leaders.
Q: Anything else?
A: The basis behind Socialism and its creation of poverty is a war between development and poverty. This is a war between the Primate Brain and the Reptilian Brain. A war between the primate and the reptile. A war between development and underdevelopment. A war between the mind and the heart. A war between leadership and Liberalism. A war between the rich and the poor, as it has always been, for millennia. Two singularities, with one who are rich and the other who are poor, where the rich grow taller and the poor die off.
“There are only two forms of equality, and they speak the same words: From the rest of love to the rest of death, they are these forms, as love and death, with God resembling the former, and poverty resembling the latter. A decline in the human, has made the human turn away from God, and has made the human as the charitable sort. We have made presidents and prime ministers as God, with charity to their ways. We view them as Saints, though selflessness is not what they promote. The businessman will promote self-preservation, without the need for love. A decline in the human will have made the human turn away from God, and turn unto truth, and through the digging for truth, they will have dug graves. Inevitably, they will believe in poverty, or the ‘closeness to death’ as the new ‘equality’. And this is Socialism, the form of equality that best represents death.”
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.