“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.

Personal Post – “A Thing about Ignorance/Prejudice…”

I began this blog with the idea of writing poetry. Then, it expanded into both prose and philosophy. I write through this blog to share a density of emotions and analogies, carried through the words.

As I see the world today, I am left with the conclusion that people are not close, especially when the focus is on what I call “surface details”.

“Surface details” are the divisions of color. “Colors” can be a race, a gender, a religion, etc. All colors should be referenced as a mask, to conceal truth. What truth? The truth that is in the heart. We have to know a person, be close to a person, trust a person, to understand them, and have the knowledge of them. Not to ever manipulate them, though to feel empathy for hurts, and heal those hurts through love.

Why would anyone wish to focus on their color, when they could take off such a mask, to show the truth of the heart?

As a child and adolescent of a white skin color, the majority of my friends were black. I did not care. I played basketball. I mingled with those who were attracted to that sport. It’s interesting to note, that even as I write this, such details feel so alien. Even now, I do not feel good.

To conclude the last paragraph, my best friend is Hispanic, while the love of my life who all 1,000+ poems on this blog are dedicated to, is Bisexual. But, I say, who cares?

Who cares about such surface details, which if a person is so comfortable in discussing, would make them prejudiced?

I hold a way of thinking that conforms with this blog, that any person is very much yearning for someone else to see their heart. They want that person to handle it with care, with compassion, with gentleness. Why would anyone wish for loneliness to counter company?

Why not see the truth of a person? Why not engage with them? If we throw around a slogan that says, “Only you understand yourself,” we are saying that no one else should speak to you. If we can only understand ourselves, and are openly admitting that, we are believing the entire world would be ignorant of us. We are then proud of another’s ignorance to us. That is a direct enforcement of prejudice.

Prejudice is ignorance, as ignorance is always aligned with fear. We are fearful, when prejudiced, because we do not have the courage to face what we do not wish to know.

Quote – “The Moron who Believed Prejudice to be a Simple Dislike” – 8/27/2020

“The moron who states that prejudice is a simple dislike, is same in the belief that soldiers warring with one another, from nation to nation, simply ‘dislike’ one another. How could a soldier simply dislike his enemy, over fearing them? Fear is a refinement tool. It tempers any individual to comprehend certain wisdom. Whether to trust or to distrust, makes either the courageous or fearful individual. No one neutrally dislikes, without prior experience to what is disliked. By that prior experience, a person is fearful of outcomes to what is embraced, gotten close to, of whatever is cast off into distance. Their distrust, their dislike, resonates in fear of outcomes to being close to whatever is kept at a distance.

One cannot neutrally dislike what is given that reproach, without being occasionally reminded on its existence. What forms prejudice in this world is the distance. Such distance always pertains to the fear in never being close. For the only reason to not be close, is in the fear of seeing something one does not wish to know.”

– Modern Romanticism

Quote – “Why not Believe Prejudice as a Fear?” – 8/27/2020

“When prejudice is believed to never be a fear, it becomes a one-sided standpoint on who can possibly take a form of it. When prejudice is believed to be a fear, equality is soon promoted in the belief that all sides, when prejudiced, feel the same thing. For when emotion can be realized, in terms of sameness, there is a unison involved where comprehension becomes commonplace.

Whether in love, or undergoing a tantrum of fear, there is comprehension. As an example of a solider to see another of his kind, there is the same expression in either’s eyes.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “The Impossibility of Equality” – 8/25/2020

“To wish for empathy, then do not trust those who’ve been known, not by their individualism, though by the system they are in, to be deceitful.”

– Modern Romanticism

The greatest deception in the world, is to believe that a person in a system of it, can be honest. There is no honesty from a voice that calls out to the herd, and does not speak to the individual.

It is needless to even speak of a world leader as “prejudiced”, when their own profession is very much limited on what it can know, of every individual. Within this world, to believe that a politician can be empathetic, is much in relation to how often we share our private information for social media monitoring.

Only what resides in what is personal, from person to person, can there be something resembling equality. Yet, in today’s time, it has been painted over with a “collective” approach, as though each industry, each system of a society, could be transfigured into a picture of empathy. Though, what machine meant to use cogs, like a task meant to employ a worker, has anything become achieved, if empathy is wanted?

Within Business and Retail, for example, a person cannot be known at a deeper level. Business and Retail are industries that do not care to know a person’s heart. That is where deception and blind trust are involved, in such areas of industry. The businessman trusts the other businessman, out of blindness. Have they ever spoken? Have they ever talked about something that might reveal a secret? Have they ever befriended each other? If they did, that could be exploited. This is why when people desire empathy outside of home, they become deceived, and used as tools or slaves.

Why would a worker demand empathy from his or her employer? Why would a citizen demand empathy from his or her world leaders? Why would a person, as a victim to bullying, demand empathy from an “anti-bullying” Activist? It cannot be the case, when such sorts who are expected to give empathy, are not in any position to know you. These people have a job, and only a job that offers them a very shallow perspective of the entirety.

Worlds leaders cannot even be called “racist” or “sexist” or anything else, when they were never your close friend, to begin with. For any word like that, would be a representation of betrayal. How can a world leader, or a celebrity, betray a “promise” when they do not know you? They promised the nation of the task. Though, did they promise you? Did that world leader call your phone, to specifically speak to you about the task? Did he or she keep you in mind, throughout it all? If not, they do not care about you, in specifics.

Empathy cannot be given from a system. It cannot be given from a person, an industry, a realm that is not there to know you.

For nothing in this world would be achieved, if everyone within a workforce of systematic behavior, became something of comfort and stagnant bliss. Everything would halt, business could collapse, as poverty would be rampant. If each employer, each politician, each celebrity, was meant to offer empathy, honesty would be believed as the forefront of what these people are believed to know.

This is all because empathy is the domain of comfort. When we empathize, we halt a task that could cause harm, to focus on “inner hurts”. We focus on what is harming the individual, within themselves, of their emotions. Though, as the task is halted, the entire machine of society stops. No one gets their bread, nor their milk, nor their clothes, and people lose their homes.

If one expects empathy, then gain it from home. If one expects empathy, then gain it from a lover, from your mother, from your father, from friends, from siblings, among all those one can easily trust.

For empathy and love is a gateway out of motion, not a gateway into it. In comfort, we fall silent. In comfort, we stay still. In comfort, we do not wish to rise to face our newer tasks.

Quote – “The Collective, the Color; The Heart, the Truth” – 8/24/2020

“All colors are depictions of gatherings. They are the prettiness that exists upon the outer, while the truth is within to the inner. How much to be distracted by those colors, those divisions? They are infinite in their spawn. They do not fight with one another. They believe themselves unified, under those colors.

Yet, it is the truth that will scare colors away. For truth holds no color, no distinction, no separation, from itself. Truth is merely what lies beneath the skin, the surface, the shallows. A human will resent truth, when their fear compels them to stay afloat, never to dive beneath to see something deeper. For it is that they’ll believe themselves drowning.”

– Modern Romanticism

Book Concept – Title: “The Book Cover” – Philosophy on Prejudice – 8/15/2020

Appearances are the way for a human to have penetrative eyes. As in, to have the ability to see through deception. For deception only brings itself on to lacking itself as appropriate for what one sees. Why would the pauper dress as a rich person, if they were not rich? That is one example. Why would the rich person dress as a pauper, if they did not first dispose of all their funds? This is the opposite example. Deception, to the eyes, cannot be penetrated when what is first seen is never appropriate.

The book’s cover was plainness of former days. It should be believed that this had encouraged readers to not ever judge a book by its cover, by its condition, nor by its title. Titles were not very exciting. Titles such as “Les Miserables”, meaning “The Miserable” would not garner attention, during a time when “exciting” titles are better “marketable”.

An old book was a simple hardback, with perhaps a border that surrounded it from edge to edge. No painting, no other print, was ever included into the cover’s design. It was plain, with most often just a solid color for its entirety.

What this represents is that the cover to a book should not be like the cover to a person. What person wants to show themselves off, either in tattoos, or piercings, or excessive cosmetic, or avant-garde clothing, if not to even subconsciously reject anyone from knowing beyond it all? Such an outer bizarre appearance, makes another not wish to see beyond it, for it is that trust is rarely ever an ingredient. To the eyes, all one can see is the appearance, if such is so intricate. Yet, what is also intricate, if not deception? A lie is swallowed up, even to the viewer, and from this, intricacies and wonderments blossom in that viewer’s mind. Thus, what becomes of this is prejudice.

Prejudice is an obscure and wrong belief, originating entirely from ignorance, making what is believed to be seen, now an intrusion. What they see, is never within that person whom is shared prejudice. For if all they see upon the outer is ugliness, then that ugliness will remain a barrier, and it will promote prejudice. For what is beautiful, must be appropriate for what it is. Why would one disguise themselves, if to not, again, represent the lie?

Quote – “Why One should not Discuss Race” – 8/12/2020

“To ‘discuss race’ would be equivalent to ‘discussing the cover of a book’ before the book is even read. For who does such things, if not to be afraid of knowing the book’s contents? It’s the same example as stalling to meet someone, for fear of either being exposed or knowing something one does not wish to hear of the other. This, in truth, promotes fear.

Why discuss the external, when there’s an infinite amount more details to discuss of the internal?

The politician who sympathizes with race, does not sympathize with the culture of that race being equivalent to the contents of a book.

The fearful leader is not a leader.”

– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “As Racism is Simple Ignorance” – 8/3/2020

“Were more people to engage in discussion of background, we’d not need to check for it, so that one could be allowed beyond a line.”

– Modern Romanticism

Racism has nothing to do with race, as much as to do with difference of culture. The aspect of “distance”, when coming down to that aforementioned ignorance, has most to do with what one to another does not comprehend. That is, to comprehend the background to another, of their upbringing to their own set of principles, might allow for comfort among individuals, in closeness. For not in distance, though in closeness, could a person understand another, not by their race or genetic origin, though by their upbringing. Of all things that could bind the open wound of distance, it is a knowledge of background, to how a person, in pain, had formed their own life, will create such closeness. For distance is a wound, literally so, by how a wound is shaped. It is a part in the flesh, so in the distance of people, it is a part from one person to the next. A gap, so to speak.

The race or other genetic origin will create the distance that forces another to see only the surface to an individual. The more genetic “identities” we manufacture for a human, the less knowledge we attain of another individual, through simple conversation. For there is nothing a person can comprehend, that one could identify with, or relate to, of genetic difference.

To be a homosexual, to be a transgender, to be a black or white person… if these things are not choices to be, then they are not identities of background. For all to a background, is pain. To be past the pain, is to come out of where one was merely a bud, and thus, became a blossom. That blossom is what another person sees, throws curiosity towards, and wishes to understand it for every aspect. Again, genetic difference to the difference of choice, makes the former incapable for relation, to the latter being capable for relation. For what woman would take pleasure in ever identifying with the fact that she has a pre-disposition for breast cancer, due to having a family history in such a disease? If she were to tell another of such a risk, would they love to relate to such a fact? Never. As in, to relate to something one can escape from, marking the culture of a person as the possible relation, makes the distance become closed. For that is because love can only ever be felt, when we feel everything.

The everything that relates to every thought. The everything that relates to every word. The everything that relates to every breed of gentleness, makes distance the closeness each person desires.

For as “hate-speech” is always to be an oxymoron, as hate can only come through proof of action, words will remain as the gentle approach of debate, discussion, or negotiation.