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.

As racism is the offspring of its parent figures, of fear and ignorance, then to its place in a world, its representation is absence. Racism, the offspring of what is absent of knowledge and also defines the gap between individuals, can compare to the term “absence” because of these two elements. Ignorance and fear are products of absence, thus making racism its mere counterpart. If to be anti-, with the prefix being used to refer towards what can only be presence, then to be so of absence holds no meaning for the notion of its reversal. That is, one cannot be anti-racist, let alone anti-depression nor anti-death. It is to mean that there is nothing in being anti- to the absence, when such refers itself already to the anti- of presence. Anti-racism is the double of absence, making it an oxymoron. There can then only be racism or absence, or presence. It is the same to be ignorant or knowledgeable. It would then make being anti- to racism a place of itself, because there is the ignorance to presence.

Hatred is one-sided, set to be against equality. Hatred conforms to victimization, because it is the presumed victim that, through their supposed innocence, will state they know they know everything to the situation that transpired. At the same time, they know nothing. Since with hatred, there is the refusal to forgive. This makes the hateful one not omniscient, as love will take this place upon a mantle. As there are a million snakes to one devotion for ourselves, we can then state it only possible to fall in love, with truth for it’s happenstance, once. Should betrayal or even a false perception for it be an occurrence, there will be hatred. Had one been in love, there will be hatred. Had one been infatuated, there will be nothing but to forget and remain ignorant.

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.

“Inside, there is Everything” – From “The Prejudice of Globalism” – 10/31/2020

There is everything of the inside of a person, beyond the color of skin, beyond the stains. To the essence of truth, coming from within, it is never a shallowness. Then, to the politician who cannot see that, will say against a teller of truth to merely hear their words. Though, not merely to the words that they’ll scorn, though to place blinded eyes upon their actions. For no person who merely speaks, will be one who ever acts. And, no person who is scorned for their language, can ever be someone who does not act.

Truth is always something that pierces, for it is always something that shocks. Just as the bullet penetrates skin, causing a shock, or just as a simple poke of a finger against a person’s flesh, is the same resulting feeling. “Shock” is the reaction of surprise, astonishment, amazement, all resonating from the irony of what is normally expected. This is to say that for the population who yearn for a well-spoken politician as their leader, are those who will take offense to the truth.

To all truth, resonating from within, makes the politician of mere words, as the one who objectively deceives. Words are the shallow aspect of all things that linger upon the surface. It is then that we can prove that all things upon the inside can be comprehended as truth. As truth, for what is tended to upon the inside, will never be received with prejudice. It is in the knowledge of what is within, that makes a betterment towards leadership. It is in the “everything” aspect of what can be better understood, that makes such a politician with this vision, unable to be prejudiced, nor deceitful. It makes the leader with the populist perspective, a person unable to be neither the racist, the sexist, the prejudiced one, nor the deceptive one.

For of each thing pertaining to the outside, makes such notions all of ignorance’s definition. Among what pertains to the outside, is a mere focus upon the external. Of all things external, is what pertains to what receives prejudice.

What receives prejudice, is upon the outside. We are never prejudiced towards what is within, for how can we be? How can a person be prejudiced towards the favorability of what one easily comprehends? One, upon the external, merely forces meaning into it. It is something already so simple to understand, for the politician to make a drawing. A painting or image to the skin color, is the same to the solid color of a wall. The solid color to a wall had been covered. Its nakedness, already clothed. It makes the deception for what one does not yearn to see, beyond. As such, “nakedness” is the result of what is “revealing”, being always in reference to truth. One, in the case of a person covering themselves, is not trusted to see truth. As such, the shock of what could be seen, is becoming the suffocation unto the death of that truth. One covers, and now the curious are distrusted, for it is now the intent to never reveal the truth. It is now the intent to be dishonest. Just as the nude form causes shock, it is the same for all truth. If one adds to the example of graffiti, with tattoos, is the act of merely applying another layer to cover what can be revealing.

Vandalizing truth is the same as sparking prejudice. To the person who claims there are those who wrongly ridicule graffiti, should perhaps wonder why anyone would question the outside of anything. To the one of objective intellect, will question, not merely listen to, what remains upon the surface. To the canvas for the painting, as it was not ever first a surface, though a sheer blankness. Graffiti is merely a covering over a surface, already drawn. Therefore, it is objectively a covering upon truth, creating deception. It makes the painting the creation of truth.

To the focus upon surfaces, is never the focus upon the internal, for it has been covered. We can apply innumerable layers, though truth remains forever waiting to be unearthed.

As we are always prejudiced to what is external, we are not ever the same to what is internal. This makes the globalist perspective as the mindset of prejudice. Such means, that for the globalist perspective, there is purely external endeavors being enacted. Then, to what is within, there is purely the avoidance of could be seen, and could be solved of grievance. This marks the politician of a globalist perspective as one who is prejudiced. For in what a person can know best, makes them not prejudiced. It makes a person who attempts to comprehend what is outside, someone who will be ignorant. It is unknown territory where one dwells, marking a strict focus upon the outside, related to looking upon one’s skin color.

The outside, which holds the same definition as anything to be prejudiced towards, is opposite from the inside. To say it, again, the internal is what cannot be received with prejudice. And, to say it, again, the one with a globalist perspective, believes not in aiding what can be known best, being within. It is to say that when a supposed leader holds such a perspective of globalism, makes what is within, secondary to their focus.

How is anyone to say that the leader who holds a populist mindset, can be prejudiced towards anything? It is objectively not the case, when to have a populist mindset, is to focus on what is within, being opposite from the prejudiced and globalist view upon the external.

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

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.