Politics – Modern Romanticism

Political Philosophy – “A Problem with a Voting System” – 8/5/2022

“Whenever change gets promoted, it has to do with a wish to see all systems redone. Whenever improvement gets promoted, boredom sinks itself into a voter’s mind, because what a voter votes for will be for entertainment and amusement of getting what they want.”
– Modern Romanticism

Change promotes chaos, or idealism. Improvement promotes order, or reality.

Whenever a political candidate advocates for change, it has only to do with wanting to scrap what their predecessor accomplished, to implement their ideals that mirror their vision of an ideal world. Through a political candidate’s vision, their ideals match up with change. A change will implement only idealism, in viewing a prior invention as obsolete, dysfunctional, or too simplistic.

How far can change reach, to improve those lives among those around who did not vote for such a candidate? A problem with a voting system has to be that change will be aligned with chaos, when it never matches with everyone, since not everyone voted for this candidate.

Through improvement, conforming to a current system, ever seeking to reinforce or strengthen it for everyone’s sake, becomes its requirement. Although, such a system will oppose a voting system, when those who vote want nothing improved for a country. Instead, voters want improvements for voters, making those implemented changes beneficial to those who favor that candidate. What aligns change with chaos has all to do with those levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. What never brings aboard unity has to be when sides will form based on satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Even when all yearn for those same basic needs, division becomes pointless when nothing improves. While improvement defines itself as a betterment for all, change reminds us of what we were lacking. What always lacks itself among a social realm will be those improvements that change overlapped. Change overlapped what worked, due to its alignment with idealism. What works will always be a reality. What functions will always be a reality. What changes will be an ideal, thus defining incompetence as a continuous influx of what never works. It becomes a continuous influx of idealism or envisioning dysfunction to overlap onto function.

A voting system has its errors in choosing this change over improvement. A voter wants change, only because of their wish to see things bettered for themselves, these voters. However, as change demands sacrifice, being to overlap on a previous leader’s vision while they bettered it during their time in office, whatever changes may be different, though everything remains the same. Difference remains as sameness, because while change gets supported and advocated through a voting system, nothing gets improved for all.

As improvement will simply better what has already been established, change scraps it, perhaps for dissatisfaction to overlap onto satisfaction. If dissatisfaction becomes paramount among people’s mindsets, sheer chaos becomes a result of a voting system.

Quote – “The Difference Between a Politician and a Leader” – 8/4/2022

“A politician knows their books. To be a politician, one must be expected to hold experience. Experience with what? Well, all experience amounts to one thing only: deceptive handiwork. While we learn, we wish to learn more. A craving for something like knowledge becomes a trait for masochism, when satisfaction remains unreachable. Although, for leadership, a thing like experience or knowledge becomes defined as needless. If popularity held a special requirement for its growth, no leader could influence their people upon a singular word. Leadership requires heart, being something that no book can teach. A heart that inspired another remains divided from knowledge, stemming from brains. Knowledge cannot inspire. Instead, knowledge deprives a person from an aspect called fulfillment. All knowledge goes to waste without a heart that will guide resources to correct designations.”
– Modern Romanticism

Political Quote – “A Backwards-Styled Thinking on Minority Rights” – 6/1/2022

“Whoever claims to be in support of minority rights must also be in support of individual rights. Any greater-in-number minority supported, over an individual, becomes a support of a majority over a minority. If one cannot support an individual right, such as a right to bear arms, one can be disqualified of their credibility to support minorities. If it becomes an incapability for a supporter of minorities to support the smallest form of a minority, being an individual, they have lost all merit to their status.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “A Problem with having Choice” – 5/14/2022

“Some argue that choice can be all one needs. Wherever has been an argument to tell everyone that when it comes to doing right, there can be no choice? A choice often falls into a realm, belonging to excuse. Excuse. Escapism. Or a wish to be free, without earning freedom. A desire to rest, while there happens to be work left to finish. With one choice, an absence of choice remains. In knowing where one commits themselves, choice stays with what defines an excuse, being two choices or one choice outside of what has always been one’s correct path.”
– Modern Romanticism

While one has choice, one can be free. This remains true, though has no one referenced over freedom to an element of it being deserved? Indeed, freedom cannot be gifted, unless we limit life to a simple beating heart. Freedom, for a person, becomes earned when we are able to receive something when coursing a path. Down this path, we obtain all things out of our toil. If life can be gifted all nothing more than choice, or freedom, it becomes something pathless. It becomes lost, thus almost always receiving a guidance from someone who grants a life, a path, though retains control over everything to that. In freedom, undeserved, shows that mental form of slavery.

If all a person requests can be endless choices, responsibility will be avoided. A commitment must receive our responsibility. Without commitment, all we are left with remains as choice. Without commitment to life for all it can earn, a choice stays defined as excuse. We are not given choice, any more than we are given opportunity without having been recognized first. If opportunity comes our way without a necessary ingredient as recognition, we are believed to have been gifted choice. However, that will forever be defined as mental slavery.

Mental slavery defines itself as a guidance of those lost, due to a person’s mind not able to cope with their losses, pertaining to life. A person being vulnerable through loss of immaterial value will turn to opportunity displayed as power. One vulnerable person will want for power, as if intending to retain control over potential future immaterial losses or those past ones that haunt this individual among memories. A loss of life becomes a loss of mental soundness, thus bringing on a factor of vulnerability where a person can be gifted choice. This gift’s intention cannot be for this person’s sake to find freedom, through deserving that. This gift’s intention will be to adopt or to find advantage in another’s vulnerability. Through that, this opportunity remains for this manipulator, not for that vulnerable individual.

A choice, when gifted, remains defined as manipulation to a vulnerable person who, in their trauma from loss, holds no understanding to value in an objective sense. When a person, in this vulnerable state, can still believe there are things left valuable to them, this undergoing manipulation upon them becomes proven when one can comprehend what conducts control over a mind. When addiction to power, in some means of escaping being responsible, can override an addict’s view upon what remains as valued, there shows proof within their actions and behaviors. In lost control, their behaviors are found as against their commitment to a value, outside of a manipulative process that controls them. Due to that, their actions show proof of this manipulative process that has gained control over such actions or behaviors, due to this absence of value that interred one potential addict into a vulnerable place of mind. Afterwards, manipulation brings a vulnerable person to discover gifted choice as their place, outside of where such an individual should be responsible.

On Hate – Pt. 1 – “Hatred in Crime” – Philosophy – 4/30/2022

“A concept as hate, as it is a concept, so rare that it belongs to a vendetta, reflects our judgement to it as if all knew each other. Do murderers always know their victims? If so, there would be nothing to fear. Do soldiers come to know their enemies? If so, they’d have less to fear. Do people who empathize with other’s hurts, know those hurts? They do, since they see themselves in it.”
– Modern Romanticism

It is an overlooked thing. Hatred is neither loose nor widespread, nor can it be expressed through bigotry. If anger, such can come from multiple sources. All of those a person should empathize with. If solutions are a group’s belief to find, then no enemies should be made. To know your enemies might mean to empathize with them. If so, there is nothing to fear.

It is another overlooked thing. If a person truly hates another, there might be a legitimate reason for it.

Hatred can only be born from love. When a person loved, they had known another. In knowing another, there was no monster to fear. For when we fear another, instead of fearing for another, we find them less identifying to ourselves. We believe they could never understand us. A reason we disallow that is because they are someone to fear. We disallow their entrance into us, because our distrust keeps them at a distance. Their distance is our safety.

Criminals rebel against their world. Anti-social behavior upon what is around that person afflicted with such a mindset will enable their rebellion against needed understanding to fault and imperfection. A murderer of another might have known another, and so, this crime is overlooked as it does not pertain to fear. There must be a reason why a blood feud or a personal grudge that caused a murder is not as interesting as all crime through prejudice. That must be because something as personal as this notion of legitimate hatred is nothing to be tangled in. As in, we do not wish to be caught inside something we do not understand.

However, all crime out of prejudice is something that can be understood, only due to its place in fear. Distrust, ignorance, and fear are symptoms to a people’s universal distance between each other. We comprehend that, because fear is loose through its spread. Spreading fear is as easy as bringing to light an issue that an entire race of people will advocate against. That is because an understood factor is fear, which in being against a more personal factor as hatred, there is division among groups.

People understand what they fear, because they comprehend their preferences and also their prejudices. If a person were to go against their fears, there would be truth to discover. The discovery of truth is a reconfirmation of oneself. It is outside limiters as distance and ignorance, due to finding truth means having knowledge. That is love. That is how people have reasons and purpose for even hatred, as it excuses how a person could have been ignorant. However, that does not excuse forgiveness, as this legitimate hatred can regress the mind back to forgetfulness of all that is good to embrace all that is bad.

If one person committed a crime out of fear, it had been due to the consideration of another as a threat. It has been due to seeing another as different. This is prejudice, though is not hatred. Hatred, born from love, holds a singular requirement of getting past surface level detail to see within a person. That means to harm another through vengeance and planning. When hatred brews, there are unavoidable thoughts that turn this notion of knowing your enemy into that plan to cause a type of harm that signals reminder. A reminder, being that one that brought about the hatred. There comes, through such reminder, a cycle of repeating vengeance.

Quote – “The Real Meaning Behind Anti-Science” – 4/5/2022

“Anti-science: universally agreeing with science. When a politician will say, ‘follow the science’, they won’t be for science, because that politician is telling you to agree with the science, without ever questioning the legitimacy behind the data. When the scientific method must require falsifiability for itself to be disprovable, then it is science. And when you ask any scientist what science might be, the most basic response might be, ‘science is everything true, until proven false’. If that’s the case, then some politician who tells you to follow the science is telling you to ‘follow the pseudoscience’. It should be seen as normal for a politician to do this, considering their career in deception.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Politics Dulls Entertainment” – 3/28/2022

“If anything structured to benefit the short-term is believed able to prolong itself to create the future, the future will be dark. Nothing that, for its place inside addiction in a short-term high, can create when creation is a space of something remembered. If anything is beneficial for the short-term, it will be forgotten. It will be unlike what is loved, is remembered, because it died.”
– Modern Romanticism

If we are able to define art in a single word, it should be “truth”.

Art is a creation of something that was driven from something spontaneous, in its inspiration. When inspiration strikes, the artist is meant to leap themselves upon it. It is the factor of placing the idea where it belongs, before it escapes. Then, how does politics factor in this, when what runs through the political world is escapism in all its addictive benefits for only the short-term? Politics is attractiveness and popularity. A person votes for what is popular, not what is good.

A good film, poem, novel, piece of music, painting or anything else is truthful. Whereas politics is deceptive, due to its lack of representation for what is good. If what is good for the addict is something only popular, accessible, and available for themselves, it is a mere deceptive “goodness” that, for its short-term benefit, cannot prolong itself without its eventual forgetfulness. That is, if the addict prolongs what is popular for themselves, they will turn to forgetting themselves. Of their goodness, their reason to continue a life aside from everything simply to cause falsehood in their deluded sense of living, is everything to die at its replacement by what isn’t truthful.

Politics dulls entertainment at the hands of what deception deal into truth, that it deadens truth when something deceptive merges into truth. When truth becomes merged into deception, it is deception that has tainted truth, becomes what rules it, through the same example as an addict becoming deadened of their individualism and goodness whenever addiction overtakes them.

Goodness is a person, an individual, of one who is meant to be seen as diverse for themselves. Goodness is alongside truth, that to remember such comes with a factor of itself being able to be prolonged into the future. Goodness is itself when it can be remembered, outside of everything else that has died.

Although, if goodness died, then it was because addiction has overtaken it. Politics dulls entertainment, of what is diverse among art in the inherent sense, because nothing that is popular is ever remembered when it is no longer popular. Dead popularity is not remembered when it is no longer the current scene of awareness among a general population. Whereas what is remembered is perhaps the individual or individuals who began what was once popular, that to revive it means to become that individual, once again. It is always the individual, diverse enough as they are, who will be remembered of their inherent goodness and truth.

Politics is escapism, due to its absence of reality. Art is truthful, for its place among reality. Fusing politics with art makes art deceptive, the individual dead while never remembered, as the goodness of all people is forgotten in the stench of something new that is popular.

Politics – “Biden – the Face of Weak Leadership” – 2/24/2022

“When character is neglected for its objective value, then no matter the title to the leadership position, leadership, itself, becomes ruined.”
– Modern Romanticism

The definition of leadership is not meant to be subjective.

Although, some fools will take the meaning of a thing that it defines itself to whatever a person says it means. Universal meanings for certain definitions that are meant to be kept whole, unchanged, to be passed on through their preservation is what resists a nation’s divides.

Some fool has said that art is art because the artist said it is art. Then, some other fool will say that one other definition to a thing is itself because the definer to it had said so. Is leadership caught up in this curse? I would think so. Whether art or leadership or anything else, such essences cannot be defined according to the singular person. Preservation to the meaning of a thing must be kept intact, because our greatest long-term divide is to lose the meaning of it.

Why are human ever divided? It is always based on miscomprehension. Whether art or leadership or anything else to the meaning of it, it was rendered a Nihilistic meaninglessness because of simple misunderstanding. Yet, being misunderstood is also an insult. If one must tell the world who they are, rather than show themselves to the world, they are a deceiver. If there is no proof and no evidence, then you do lie. Leadership, in specifics, is not what it is when a person must explain it through words, rather than reveal it at first glance.

Then, how should a leadership be judged? It would not be based on experience or knowledge. It is more based on what is seen at first glance. Weakness to a leadership is through character. A strong leadership displays the objectively correct character. And how is that character determined as correct? It is, when the leadership is judged by another nation’s leader.

Weak leadership lacks heart. To the heart, there is care for one’s country. To the mind and some fool’s value to it, for leadership’s sake, that something as knowledge and resource is the betterment for a leadership position, will simply result in the division that another leader will exploit. An exploitation, as this, refers to the weakness of the leader for how such focuses on the value of the resource (the mind) over care or correct character (the heart). A divided heart is merely a missing heart. A focus on resources, over the heart, is how a nation becomes divided, through its incessant infighting over them.

A stronger leadership comprehends what is divided to another nation, meant to be understood, during some former time, as the strongest over the other, enough to exploit how the heart is missing. One leadership with its heart as absent is going to be divided over resources. The exploitation is in how the heart compares to character, and if such is seen to be weak or missing from another nation, the once-strong nation will not be taken with much regard for remaining strength.

Define what is strong, in the objective sense, to a leadership, and you have the correct character. An incorrect character is a missing character. That character, being absent, is going to be seen of its void to the strong leadership with a present character. One cannot have their character divided, though missing, because when you lead, what is valued is not your experience nor knowledge, though what is felt upon the observer at first glance to you.

Philosophy – “The Purpose of a Polarity” – 2/15/2022

“Are we meaning to make more than what simply is, being the vastness of one subject or the landscape of different views of those meant or should be given light? There is a necessity to a divide. It comes during an era of complexity. Boundless complications require their simplification. If simplification wasn’t a response to the complex, we’d not understand the complex.”
– Modern Romanticism

The world is filled with politics and genuineness, business and honesty, religion and rational thinking. The world is filled with polarities.

Most believe people in the notion that not everything is black and white. Although, even if a person attempts to reason one out of war-like or conflict-introducing thought, it was the “unique perspective” that, perhaps being outside the norm, merely was the polarity of peace to the war.

To understand the humanity or the reasons behind a person’s actions, then to mention that what was done cannot simply be “right” nor “wrong”, would also be in comprehension to how a side has been taken. Or it should be. When we understand that the soldier fought not for the right nor wrong reasons, though for their reasons, their view to which we say might be “unique” or “outside the normative ways” is also polarizing in our now-present bout of confusion. This confusion stems from knowing what is complex about a world, or about a person. A person is complex, as this is what confuses us. As humans, we divide because we crave sanity. We are not meant for confusion or the sheerness of complexity in that we are always meant to be “outside of the outside”, so we remain locked in. If we were always complex, then the soldier would not have been one, fighting for their reasons, their cause.

We simplify the complexity of the world, because without doing so, we would not understand what is complex. When we can understand what is complex, we are not constantly proud in the belief of our supposed “uniqueness”. We are not meant to be so much wishing to stand apart from all else, that we soon gain a god complex mentality.

As everyone else, as humans, our divides come from the eagerness to be sane. Our eyes find a shattered puzzle, and we meant for it to not remain as the confusing abstract. Naturally, we build the puzzle, as the same is said for an architect to a city. We build the puzzle, the same as construction workers build the shops, the hospitals, and the museums and libraries. Simplicity is the sanity, in knowing how to divide the purpose of a shopping mall from a gas station.

Philosophy – “Why Progress does not Adhere to Accountability” – 1/11/2022

“To look upon the ruined castle or the Greek pillar, to then state, ‘Why has it become that way?’ and you should put blame on the word ‘change’. Progress is change. Progress suits a singular person’s vision. It is not improvement, this progress. It is merely the change to the world’s colors. A kaleidoscope that once held a well of infinite shades and hues, only to be grasped of a few by one person’s vision and shared with the environment.”
– Modern Romanticism

What improves of the world? Nothing. What changes of the world? Everything. One can witness and be understanding of the great many technological achievements built by great minds, though it cannot ever be said to be an improvement. We are always at square one, in a social realm, meant to be comprehensive of the fact that one change to our environments is destined to be altered or even replaced by someone else’s vision of something different.

One person’s vision is merely one change. A voice or an opinion is always a different one. We speak as one, only when we communicate as individuals, getting to know one another. Shared knowledge within a book is not like shared knowledge in terms of wisdom. We can document scientific research, though when we philosophize about something for a book, another person will interpret the words and it will become a lie. Truth is only measured when one listens to it, as deception is born from disagreement.

Upon a change, we have brought about one when we witnessed deception. And how are we accountable for the sacrifices made, through progress, when we replace the old world with a new one? When we exit the old and bring in the new, can we be held accountable for what we have broken to achieve what we have built?

The answer to such questions is that the progressive is not within their nature to hold accountability for change. Whether great change or moderate change, progress always slows when it must consider what it has brought down to next bring up.

If one of progress considers, even for a moment, what it has destroyed to raise what will be admired, there will be guilt. From pride of achievement to the shame of what was required to die to build something supposedly better, a progressive will be weighed by the guilt of the latter. He or she, the progressive, will find that through this guilt, they must apologize and hold accountability towards those who have suffered for their cause. If such accountability were to take place, progress would reach a dead-end. It might even reverse itself towards what the progressive will state as a “downfall of improvement”.

Just like the change of seasons, the environments alter themselves to different colors. These changes are noticeable whether in the leaves or the blankness of immaculate snow, or in the expressions upon people’s faces. Is the change of winter into spring an improvement? In the subjective sense, so-called improvement is only ever in the display of mood. It is a satisfaction, for the moment, before another change takes place and the mind also alters upon what it is feeling. As it is, change is temporary. It is fleeting. A mood or a feeling is temporary or fleeting. What of an improvement?

An improvement can only take place with the individual. An improvement is never external, though instead it is internal. Whenever we perceive a person to have changed, it is not the case. When we love a person, we have done so because we can. There was no prerequisite to love. We did so, because love epitomizes freedom. And when we say they have changed from when we once knew them, it is actually the case that they have placed layers of deception upon their truth. As was stated before, deception is to disagreement as truth must be listened to. We will disagree with the monster for their intolerant and abusive behaviors. Although, we cannot find it possible to disagree with what is within them, truly wanting to be let loose by a familiar sound or sight.

If we have change, we have lies. If we have improvement, we have truth.

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.