Race – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “When Race Doesn’t Matter” – 12/28/2022

“To think on a close friend for their race, or other surface-level detail, is to spit on your memories of them for what goes beneath that.”
– Modern Romanticism

At the point of knowing an individual for there to be a stable structure of trust, a person no longer needs to see them as a stranger. There has been bloomed a friendship, strengthened through trust, only possible because of the vulnerability of finding oneself comfortable enough to confess personal details that wouldn’t otherwise be told to anyone else. Those who wouldn’t be told such personal details are more of a stranger than this befriended individual who is trusted more.

At the point of being a friend, outside of perceiving that befriended individual as a stranger, there is no need to consider a surface-level detail as race. To courage, one has found themselves capable of stepping inside that individual’s life. What purpose was there to being ignorant of them, from the surface for which we could only see them as a stranger? There was no point, same as we cannot look back upon first meeting them to comprehend “why” or “how” we became their friend. There is no limitation to be needed in terms of an explanation, since ignorance, when we once considered them a stranger, was its own limitation. Beneath all surface-level details, there is infinity. There are an infinite number of possibilities, opportunities, and paths to get to know an individual even better. There is a universe that extends beyond the blue sky for two individuals to grow their friendship together.

Why would race matter, when we can get to know someone? Upon knowing them, we no longer refer to them through their race. Instead, we refer to them with details only we know. We can use their name, and if we trust another person enough for a more in-depth detail, we can share that knowledge as well.

If race matters, we are admitting that ignorance, not knowledge, matters. At the same time, we are admitting that fear, not courage, matters. None of these things matter, for as ignorance is aligned with fear, there is never a legitimate reason to remain ignorant or in fear. For people with phobias of spiders, blood, or of heights, it is the same thing. Exposure, for the purpose of conquering such fears, is also with the purpose of stepping outside the bounds of ignorance and avoidance, in order to see the truth. To see the truth, not the facts, since one has, through trust, been able to form a connection out of what is similar, not merely different as strangers may interpret each other. It is not the facts, for facts do not change, though people do. It is truth, because truth, unlike facts, are moldable, as are people. Through gaining their trust, we are trusted with details they would not share to anyone else. As in, they have grown to be comfortable with us, instead of being comfortable with being ignorant and avoidant.

Conquering one’s fear, finding out what is true and also similar to oneself, is the same as recognizing that oneself always has the possibility of being someone else’s fear. As someone else can be a stranger to us, we are a stranger to other people as well. Should betrayal incur, because there is no longer a perception of mutual sameness due to change, a person can become unrecognizable and be no different than something to fear. That fear is now upon being afraid of a repeat of that event of betrayal. However, that fear of being betrayed cannot turn that individual back towards the comfort of ignorance and avoidance.

With the idea of befriending someone else, we have been able to open a book, instead of believing we can know anything by its cover. If we still say that race matters, then we are admitting that a book cover, not its details within its pages, holds importance. A book cover will relate to race. That book’s pages in its details and stories will relate to the person, themselves. Are we ever willing to believe that our own stories aren’t terrifying enough to be labelled as a genre, like horror? It is to mean that we might believe, through some inward conceit, that we are incapable of becoming someone else’s fear. Should anyone be judgmental enough, upon a singular book, to steer clear of it only because of what’s illustrated on the front cover? If it’s romance, though romance doesn’t matter to one person, is romance all it is? In the same sense, if it’s a different race of an individual, while we are still believing that race matters, is that race any kind of representation of that person? We should not think so, when we have yet to compare that person’s story to our own to see similarities, enough for a connection or a friendship.

Philosophy – “Why Skin Color Matters Little” – 8/18/2022

“A focus on exterior details maintains another focus, called ignorance. We do not comprehend a person, when we are meaning to comprehend their shell. We will begin to admit that a person, within, has always been empty. We will begin to admit that those infinite details, within, are meaningless and meant to be kept in darkness.”
– Modern Romanticism

What can there be to understand about race? Nothing. Can there be something to understand about a book’s cover, unless we are playing games of preference and prejudice? It will be only when we are playing those games upon what we trust or distrust, that an exterior detail matters more than what dwells beneath it. All among politics, differences are taken into consideration, because of its rule over divided groups. When considering a democratic nation, more groups equal more voices. However, that becomes a division of people, heading into misunderstanding. This has been because of a focus on change, being a current norm when it comes to non-conformity. When we want change, we want more diversity. When we want everything to be diverse, we want nothing to remain as similar. More groups and more voices will promote division, because it will bring into prominence a focus on exterior details. Greater focus on exterior details cannot be a focus on a person. To focus on a person, one must conform to a reality.

Among what maintains itself to be real, a human being is. Human emotions. As these are what tie into realism, understanding what hurts will not be among surface details. Understanding what hurts will be to retain a focus on internal notions, since all pain, through human emotions, resonate internally. An ideal, however, opposite from all realism, relates to talent. As in, what a person believes themselves to be born with or will admit that their identity has not been with choice involved.

Even with identities prevalent among being believed as opposite from choice, choices retain their place for trust and distrust, or for preference and prejudice. People choose, based on those exterior details. As it might not have been with choice involved to how a person comprehends themselves, choice gets involved when others will see those surface details, to inevitably turn towards or against what can be viewed as either similar or unsimilar. People’s emotions, not ever a surface detail, will be a familiarity that cannot be given prejudice. For it will be inevitably a contradiction to do this, that in telling someone else off for their display of emotions will make them appear less than human.

Race, among all other surface details, resonates with ignorance, due to how it can be compared to a book cover. Within that book, or within that person, there are infinite more details to discover. Alongside that, all details in either a book or a person resonates not with ignorance, though with knowledge. One can be prejudiced towards a book genre, through noticing artwork upon its cover, making them express their prejudice when that genre does not fall inside their preferences. However, both preference and prejudice are overridden when their efforts, to compare realities, identify one overlooked book as similar to another book. Preference and prejudice, at that state, become what gets overlooked, because ignorance never mattered. A more familiar example will be when people are given this same degree of understanding. To not be prejudiced, though to know details within a person, comes always with a desire to compare an understanding of someone else with oneself. One holds standards for what can be understood as real, not for an ideal, when these comparisons compare only similarities.

With more differences, comes more ignorance. Even when one recognizes themselves to understand themselves, a result from others will be a misunderstanding into prejudice when such a person who understands themselves has made this knowledge an exterior detail. As with book covers with their artwork to display their genre, divisions among people are viewed upon their surfaces. Knowing oneself, though also wishing for others both understand and accept them, will not have this latter wish fulfilled when such knowledge remains as a surface detail.

Philosophy – “Why Anti-Racism is, in fact, Racism” – 9/21/2021

“One can be ignorant without being prejudiced, though one cannot be prejudiced without being ignorant.”
– Modern Romanticism

Ignorance is to the notion that something is missing. This would not be in alignment with hatred, because one cannot hate what one is ignorant of. Instead, one fears what one is ignorant of. Two things aligned with the other, of ignorance and fear, is then for hatred to be allied with knowledge. Hatred is the place for being knowledgeable to another thing. Though, in being ignorant, there is complete blindness. In ignorance, it is very much like the act of first falling in love. To that extent, it is blind. To be blinded through hatred is not possible, because this suffocating emotion can be the result of having loved.

Racism, so much conjoined with both fear and ignorance, involving the distance for the interior, then causing a person to be confined for view upon the exterior. To this, there is no hatred. There is the fear that questions what could not be asked for of its truth. This is due to being knowledgeable would involve closing the gap that fear has caused, and when truth is known of a person, there can be hatred that is bred from it. As hatred is only possible because of the existence of love, humans do not feel it in their blindness. The result of love can be hatred, because through love, there was the attempt to understand and to know the value of another person. After betrayal, there can no longer be closeness, as another gap becomes built without the desire to repair the fallen bridge. Although, the secrets that were once shared between two individuals are now taken in opposite directions. In vengeance, people can exploit those secrets, even expose them, due to the knowledge gained.

Philosophy – “The Ignorance in Focusing on Race” – 6/15/2021

“Ignorance sustains itself, when an individual never performs crossovers to others among its own kind. For each people, there is individualism. For each human, there is realized imperfection enough to state to the self that not all can be accomplished, while alone.”
– Modern Romanticism

Racism is an issue comparable to depression. It is, for what it represents.

Racism represents absence.

Absence of what? Absence of others, to fill the void a prideful individual immersed in a collective has kept as a gap within themselves.

Since pride will keep a person collected in their stubbornness, chaos is to their hearts in the belief they should not care for other individuals. Other individuals, who require not the convenience for what is most familiar, though the necessity that reveals itself as knowledge. We are in understanding of other individual, not collective, crisis when we possess this knowledge. The collective will remain ignorant, in that its sheer focus on surface-details, as race, punishes them in refusing to acknowledge the essence of sameness to crisis in other individuals.

Equality is the place of knowledge. We understand others, beyond the surface, and then comprehend ourselves the same as them.

The beauty of a human is in comprehension of our likeness to another, in the respect that we can form unity around such a notion. Togetherness is achieved only by the understanding of pain, mutually so, not to ever compete on its level.

Upon the surface, we notice the physical self. Within, we notice something more. Of others, we see difference in appearance, apart from ourselves. Though, within them, we see that greater essence that is meant to receive itself to us as all the same. It is a sameness, though the surface would block the prideful and stubborn individual from being its witness.

Whether upon the surface, or to another, to see the exterior, such as a detail of race, we are blocked from seeing that sameness that proves crucial to the creation of unity.

If an individual sustains their own ignorance in staying afloat upon the surface, then their cowardice is proven simply by never having the yearning to know more. If truth shocks or provokes fear to the individual, then looking beyond the surface is in comparison to seeing past the cover to a book. If those pages, just like the details of a human, are read, then there is greater knowledge to be had over the ignorance represented of race.

Philosophy – “Why One cannot ‘get rid’ of Racism” – 5/14/2021

“Retiring the world of what consists itself as pertaining to absence, is all the effort to bring it about, ever further.”
– Modern Romanticism

To “stop”, or to just “get rid” of what presents itself, to a person, as something that references absence, will indeed, deepen the issue. An issue, as racism, is something that has direct relation to a singular word, being “absence”. Absence, of something that pertains not to unity.

Since absence, just like depression, cannot be forced clean from the mind, it requires a replacement of equal value from what was either lost or never was.

We are equal, in that sense, through the realization that to fill the void of what is absent through racism, means to find value in another person. Another person, not like what one prefers, for one is not picky (or just able to choose) on what is needed.

A person, being equal to any other, is not a convenience. This, in turn, proves the necessity of love, being never a simple convenience.

The one difference between something needed, as love, and something convenient, as a resource, is that the former is everywhere, whereas the latter is never where you want it most.

Treating people as resources, pertaining them all to “representation”, is not the essence of equality.

Love makes all equal, though as racism is a gap in the heart, nothing just preferred will fill it.

If racism is solved through an understanding for what equality represents, on its own, then we’ll find it impossible to prefer what we need.

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?

Quote – “Why Victims are the most Prejudiced” – 4/14/2021

“If victimization is equivalent to innocence, then the latter will be equivalent to denial. Of a denial that comes forth from a disbelief that one, as a victim, cannot possibly be like those who antagonize them. In this, there is more than a likelihood for such victims to be as their supposed ‘enemies’, even to wear their face, though in deception of all others who side with them. It is always at the highest possibility that one will become as those they resent, in the sheer disbelief that they are nothing like them. Such denial is the dropping of one’s own defense and self-awareness.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Hate is not a Free Emotion” – 3/10/2021

“From love, people will trust. From betrayal, people will hate.”
– Modern Romanticism

Hatred is circumstantial as to who becomes the unfortunate soul to be targeted, by it. Though, by the one fused to this suffocating emotion, can be when a lie is what has convinced them that someone has caused betrayal. Through this delusion, hatred can be born. Deception is indeed sometimes the route that causes a person to be sunken into hatred. Though, as a suffocating emotion, it cannot be felt freely. As in, hate is impossible to feel, towards a race, towards a gender, towards a religion, towards a nation, or towards anyone or anything broad and numbered, within itself.

Individuals hate others of the same singular, though only when love unto trust was the scenario, first of all. Love unto trust, and then, when hatred was the next transformation, it was only due to a perceived betrayal that brought the hateful person low. It was love unto trust, because as hatred is no free emotion, it is always specific as to who is targeted. Specific, since hatred came from trust. Utmost trust, and when it is slashed, the perceived betrayal caused the now specific feeling of hatred to be birthed.

We cannot hate a race, nor can a man hate all women. What we can do, out of prejudice, is simply not know another. Therefore, it is prejudice that relates only to ignorance, not hatred. Though, no media would tell of racism or whatever form of prejudice through a slogan such as “stop the fear”, because that raises the idea of mutual vulnerability. If that were the new idea to speak upon, there would be unity. People would begin to question whether there is mutual vulnerability between those who fear each other, rather than employing a word like “hatred” to deceive others into believing it is one-sided.

For hatred is that, being a one-sided emotion, targeted as specific. Through the deception that makes other believe that racism or some other form of prejudice can be one-sided, it is why they utilize the word called “hate”. It is them that believe that perhaps a racist person, who might be white of skin-tone, is ever only the type to be of such an ignorant mindset.

That is to say that if any certain person cannot be prejudiced, would mean that they are incapable of feeling fear. Since it is fear that has a relation to ignorance, out of common examples of people who are reluctant to get to know another person, someone who cannot be prejudiced also cannot be afraid. It might be right to admit that a person who cannot feel afraid, would also not be needed for education. Such a latter point refers to the media’s excessive usage of the word “hate”, referencing also a one-sided understanding of prejudice, deluding a person into believing education, which would alleviate ignorance, is unneeded.

Would a black person, sometimes said to possess the immunity to racism, not ever feel fear or be anxious? If that were the case, then ignorance has rocketed itself to the level where we might even one day believe that people within black communities don’t suffer from blood pressure issues.

Without feeling fear, one would be incapable of having a high blood pressure, or even a living heartbeat or pulse. We could even admit, aloud, that those who unable to perhaps be prejudiced are vampires or zombies, without heartbeats or even a working lower brain.

Why would we require education, if everyone can freely state the words, “I hate everyone”? And, why would we require education, if someone can say about the prejudiced person that they are “hateful”? It would be evident, through hatred, that we knew a person, upon a time in our lives.

Philosophy – “How Racism becomes Enforced through the Subject of Race” – 1/19/2021

“Race is no subject, other than being similar to speaking of the two slices of bread, instead of the individual ingredients that compose the sandwich.”
– Modern Romanticism

Racism can vanish on its own. All we simply need to do is quit the subject of race, altogether. It is a subject that, through its continual utterance, makes only note of what occurs on the outside of a human being. For when we focus on the race of a person, we do not focus on people. If we were to even attempt to understand the latter, we’d never express the rage being the emotion so close to prejudice. As we feel rage, we feel fear. As we feel fear, we block others from attempting to understand us. If we were to understand people, we’d find no need to understand the two slices of bread that hide the many details within.

For we are not at all human when we cannot come close to devouring that information, that truth, when all we do is hover upon the outside. When we stay upon the outside, remain speaking of race as though it’s a better subject over people, we are simply hesitant. We are not in consideration of whether it’s best to approach them, for that would be wisdom. We are, in fact, fearful of the idea to ever know them. To perhaps forgive them on whatever we believe they are errored on? It would be a step closer than usual, that makes a person hungry for truth. If we are starved of truth, then we remain alone, burning through our rage the most valued thing we can share to another human. And, that is, our vulnerability.

To continue to speak of race is to speak of solid colors, just like speaking of a covering to inner details. These are solid colors that represent no true “diversity” of ourselves. We are only ever diverse by what we can create, from within ourselves. We are not diverse by how we are divided among those separate colors.

We can show what is within, to paint the art with our tears, our vulnerability, among all things we hid beneath our rage and fear for others. We can show the internal, to never again speak of the external. For even when we stay prideful for ourselves for who we are, we should instead be prideful for what we can do, by the actual and objective bravery that would bring about the ultimate painting. It is the painting of all colors, as such artworks go.

Philosophy – “When Anger becomes the Reaction to Prejudice” – Pt. 2 – 12/29/2020

“Rage is the uncontrolled emotion, spread about like flame, unable to disperse without either nothing else to destroy, or in the touch of its superior, being water.”
– Modern Romanticism

How cruel can a modern world be to tell a certain race that they’re the only targets of racism, or to tell a woman that she is the only target of sexism? Is this not the same as telling a widow that she should suffer alone, in her grief? Should it not be obvious that a reaction would form, being one of anger?

Anger is the veil before the water, being the hurt of a human. As in, so long as nature compelled it to be the case, that oil would float above water, then everything of pollution, allowed to turn to ash, would be something to burn. Of oil, or of pollution above an ocean, or of anything simply not meant to belong, is what conceals the hurt, beneath. Anger conceals hurt, by how a person becoming enraged is merely pretending to be strong. As in, their rage is their lie to consume, to claim that they are strong, despite being weak because of inward hurt.

To tell a person that they’re the only targets of prejudice, would indeed bring about the isolation necessary to spark anger. Any intense feeling of loneliness is an onset to anger. It is here to prove that whoever tells a race, or any group of people, that they are the only targets to this prejudice, are those who support the divisiveness it causes. Because, out of isolation, comes the anger, and soon comes the inability to understand another. It would be understanding that would douse those flames of wrath, as it would be also the thing to cease the feeling of loneliness.

How else does prejudice become erased, if not for understanding? How else does anger become extinguished, if not for revealing what does hurt? And, how else does a person connect with another, if not to be trusted on the reveal for that hurt? We are then truthful in what we reveal, deep beneath what compelled us to lie and be “strong” in rage.

Philosophy – “Why Anger becomes the Reaction to Prejudice” – 12/24/2020

“To tell one race that they’re the only sufferer from prejudice, is always equivalent to saying upon someone that they should feel alone in their suffering.”
– Modern Romanticism

How would anger not be the trigger to an immense feeling of loneliness, especially one so encouraged, upon a specific race? Is not the cure to prejudice to not feel the anger, though to weep against the shoulder of one so understanding?

Anger is the feeling that rises from loneliness. It strikes out against the world. People are angry not because of prejudice, though because of the loneliness that suffering brings when it is not unified. Anger is felt upon realizing one can only understand their own suffering, when it is not the case. Rage poisons the individual, as such a person will not, in their loneliness, release their pain through a cleansing session of weeping.

How cruel can some idiotic celebrity, politician, or activist be to say upon a race that they are the only target to prejudice? Why not then be the ones to say upon a widow that she should suffer in the dark? Why not say to a despondent and alone orphan that no one should help them? If such is the mindset we obey, then we are lost.