Rights – Modern Romanticism

Political Philosophy – “How a Population is Manipulated” – 10/23/2021

“Leadership does not govern according to its people. As for the politics of leadership, it will govern to what it might find useful or advantageous. As there is nothing more advantageous than of the fruit of chaos, for a people to believe politics sides with a nation’s population is to forget that it exists in consideration for what it might plunder. As all freed nations have become such out of the sufferers becoming the leadership, makes to what is political, in nature, as nothing more than the desire to possess freedom to itself.”
– Modern Romanticism

No leadership connects to its people. All leadership is an advantage for itself, mimicking what former leaderships had done to gain their own display of power. A nation’s population, with its freedoms and rights, are as life, with the idea that both freedom and lives are vulnerable enough to become stolen. Would then a nation’s population believe that rights and also life are precious enough to be protected, means that such are not gifts with the intent on never stealing it back. Does one steal back a gift? It cannot be the case, when this was deemed as mere sacrificial, in essence.

Life cannot be given, as is the same with rights. Freedom is not a gift, because along with rights and life, all of these things are there with their vulnerable nature, always within the threat of being stolen and lost. Rights are lost when such are, though landed in the possession of another who is the thief, speaking of the term “loss” as now on the side of the thief. Rights or freedom or life is lost to the thief, because such were not given to the thief.

Rights are a blessing to have, though even a blessing is earned. A curse is to what is lost of being blessed, though is more the case that the person, with such a loss, lacks the will to take back what was stolen. Their curse is their lack of will, since what was stolen was done by another without the desire to earn, though took to the convenience of theft. If in the recognition of what was worked for, becomes then the recognition of what was lost to ourselves, then the outcome is to take back what was taken from our hands. It is in death that a thing as life, loved by a multitude, can be lost for eternity. What has now amounted to loss, being of a thing now in possession by another, must be understood as something of what was allowed for them to have or not.

True manipulation lays in the mindset of whomever states that their rights are under protection by their nation’s leadership. Such would not be the same as having rights, though instead is the power that is ever-more endangered than life, freedom, or rights. Would one have power, being of the tyrannical sort that dictates who should be free and who should not, is always in danger from those who yearn for their freedoms. It is an inevitable factor that those who want freedom will have it. It is since such a desire to not be deceived nor manipulated will grow to a proportion that its eruption is an unstoppable occurrence.

To those who believe their rights are guarded by their political favorites, are only ever returned the favor by those same political favorites. This manner of manipulation is through the obliviousness that a person’s rights are as guarded as their life, temporary and vulnerable to the notion that all can be stolen. If a person believes that their own rights are protected by those who are leaders to their nation, then their next statement is to believe that those same political favorites hold greater loyalty to their family or friends.

Philosophy – “Why Neither Rights nor Life is a Gift” – 9/17/2021

“We each wonder when something will run out. Some believe the time for life runs out, as though this could be equivalent to money drying up in someone’s bank account. Is time more valued than life? Is time, for which relates to survival, to hold more value than the money that is said to be necessary for such survival?”
– Modern Romanticism

A right cannot be a gift. Life cannot be a gift. These things earned. It is because no tyranny whose purpose was first to strip a people of their rights, will give them back. No people will stand in the streets, begging as any common pauper, demanding that very tyranny to give their rights back. The person’s rights, even if not wearing the rags of a literal pauper, were stolen. Now they are poor. Impoverished, to belong to the life of nothingness where such souls beg.

What compares to an addiction? It is the material. Each thing that can be depleted is materialistic, by nature. Life cannot be this way. We cannot compare life to an addiction, because an addiction does not feed nor uplift the life. Then, to uplift addiction, being of the pauper whose life is of nothingness, would mean to give to this person their power. Uplifting those who had never earned a thing for themselves means to lend power. However, in lending power, further rights are taken away. Neither rights nor life is a gift, when power is being included for those former two things to be stolen.

Philosophy – “Why Rights are the Same as Privileges” – 3/16/2021

“Treat that which is meant to be temporary as meant to be permanent, then one has merely offered their life upon a silver platter directly to their executioner. As life is temporary, then death will be permanent.”
– Modern Romanticism

All things so precious to the individual, are there to be treated as temporary. If we did not believe these precious things to be limited in their time, we’d never compare everything that is temporary or meant to die upon a certain time, to life.

If life is not precious, then what is? This is to ask of what is precious, if not the most temporary of things. Is it not our love that protects the most temporary and vulnerable, enough to be strayed from death as long as possible? We comprehend that death is inevitable for a life. If so, then we should also see that love defies death, wishes the protected life to remain.

Of everything temporary in our lives, treated as precious, meant to be protected, are all things so similar to a privilege. It is to say that we are not gifted our lives. Instead, we are privileged to be alive. It is our love that can be gifted to a life, to show it is more than just another number upon this earth.

We have no “right” to live. We have a privilege for it, meaning that no right within this world is permanent. If it is ever believed to be the case that a right should be permanent, then we’d never find it in our hearts to protect them from vanishing. This is the same thing to mean that if we ever vainly believe a person, whom we care about, won’t die because of perhaps a smoking habit, we’d never find it in our hearts to protect them from it. As in, we’d be heartless.

A right is only ever “permanent” enough, so long as it is protected. Though, who does the protecting? It should be the right-wielder. It should be the one who can understand that what is precious to them can disappear, at any moment. That would be anyone, for all people can understand such a thing.

Love protects, as it protects life from death. All things that are vulnerable require this love so that the inevitable, being of death, is prolonged. We hope. We conquer the weaknesses of ourselves or another, to allow strength to flow. We are blessed by love, not by life. However, we are blessed to be alive, because love has allowed that.

Philosophy – “Why Family is not a Choice, in Contrast from Work” – 2/2/2021

“Who claims that love is a choice, other than those most likely to find betrayal of trust a fitting design over the area where one must be responsible? Choice has little to do with responsibility. When we are trusted, we are so because of our duties. Of duties that renounce the freedoms of childhood we vainly believe can be eternal.”
– Modern Romanticism

As a child, we once had a family to care for us. When we grow up, we find that we must take care of other people we deem to be held dear in our hearts. Where does this phrase “remain forever young” originate from? More important, what does it reference? To be universal on the latter, it should reference “how to forever depend” or “how to never be responsible enough to claim one no longer has a choice”. When we are children, or have childish mindsets, or are simply immature enough to not understand the importance behind dutifulness, we wish for infinite choice. We call this “diversity”, though only by how it separates ourselves from those who did trust us, of those who believed us better undertakers to their care.

Between family and work, there is only a “choice” for one of these. It is the latter. It is, because that’s a place where a person inevitably desires a vain gift for freedom. Such people believe, through their emancipation, that work is more attractive than family for the reason of its realm being a “gift”. Such a perceived gift, being where one can “have more”, outside of the satisfaction that love would eternally bring. We can be eternally satisfied, with love. Or, we can hold the same mindset as a cheating husband, who forsakes his wife to have another woman of more attractive assets.

We either have a choice, or we do not.

We either have our freedom, or we do not have it and thus take to the dutifulness of being responsible.

However, how do we properly gain freedom? The answer is, we must earn it. The same way a slave earns their own life back, through knowing the meaning behind freedom. Though, such “meaning” dissipates over time, when future generations after that slave’s own time forget that rights and freedoms are meant to be earned. Those future generations begin to believe that freedom is a gift, as they compare this with life.

Life is not ever free, until such freedom is earned. To compare this to a worker who earns their rest or their time to head home, is the same.

Choice is not ever linked with dutifulness. A worker chooses their labor, though earns the time for what they yearn for most, being their home and family. For it was not the work that related so much to dutifulness, as much as the reminder to the laborer of what their purpose is for working. As another example, why does the soldier fight? It is to simply show off, or is in the remembrance of what they’re fighting for?

If a soldier wishes to show off their skills of combat to the rest, then they’ve instantly forgotten the tactics for which guarantee the lot’s own survival. This would be a person who yearns for choice, though out of selfishness has forgotten about loyalty. And, when a soldier no longer understands who trusted him, he gains the pitiful freedom of being on his own, though never earned it.

We betray, when we yearn for a choice, beyond the understanding that we must earn it, not simply be gifted it by law. It is an innate human comprehension to have something so precious as freedom, and only ever deemed as such because it is in relation to life. Is life not precious to us? The same as anything else viewed in the same lens, is it ever permanent? Or, are all things we find to be “precious” what we protect, even with our own lives?

A life can be protected with a life. Freedom can be protected with the forfeiture of another’s. Were this to happen between perhaps two friends, there has been trust built enough so that vulnerability can be the protection over what is seen, through love, as too precious to disappear.

As with freedom, as with family or love, as with the things we can retreat to, there are no choices to them. We merely earn them, because just like a paycheck to a worker, it was not stolen. As it is, life cannot be “stolen”, unless it is “chosen” to be killed.

Philosophy – “The Possible Reason for a Nation of 50 States” – 2/1/2021

“Liberty belongs in the scenery one attributes themselves to. Did one grow up in America, or did one grow up in Kansas? Did one grow up in America, or did one grow up in New York? Would one call America their home, or would one call Michigan their home? To belong, is to identify where one can be naturally situated, while still being a citizen towards the same nation.”
– Modern Romanticism

Belonging. It’s a word that resembles acceptance. Though, upon its opposite, of something related to oppression, there is rejection. Perhaps the more abstract idea behind composing a nation of 50 states, was in the aspect of that “belonging”. To know where one stands, to become one where one feels most supreme, or to simply feel welcomed, must be to the liberty for which an American understands their actual origin. It is their origin, with the secondary reminder, still necessary, that they are unified with the rest. Split into 50 states, it is still America, though there to offer belonging not merely in one country, though in the diverse realm of acceptances that make the 50.

How can it be that a system would, in such a nation where “belonging” is a factor we find most precious, be universal, without erasing such a notion of acceptance? If each state possesses individual faults within either its show of standards or lack thereof, or of its show of culture, there could not be more of a fitting realm of competition given to us, even of the good sense. If we erase acceptance, then we erase the 50 states to perhaps become the New America. Though, that erases belonging. That erases liberty. Must liberty be what we call a sense of where we fall back to, being our home? Of the American soldier who yearns to steer back to such warmth of their home, and not to the dictator’s realm, there can be things better attributed to a state, of that belonging, rather than simply for the entirety. Though, it would still be America, as it will always be such, even with where its citizens belong.

Could a system, so universal, erase the belonging, the acceptance, the liberty for which we find such previous factors enjoyable? We can only be a dictator, enough to erase liberty. Even in the dream of perpetual and qualitative momentum, within progress, within enlightenment, within change pertaining to each voice coming forth, there can be sheer darkness. Nothing would be universal, except for what we understand, deep within. That, beyond the competition of sports, the competition of ethics or perceptions of morality, the value of something according to the monetary standard, all citizens of each state are still Americans. They comprehend each other, unified, as the United States.

Would any idea of a universal system ever come to pass in that idea-maker’s mind, that anything of such an origin as a workaround, does not place in closest regard what an American should remind themselves of? As in, could such a person with that idea ever comprehend why liberty has been embedded into an American’s mindset, that something deemed as “universal” of a system, would not work, due to that it allows them to forget themselves? Americans would forget themselves, as Americans, due to any system reaching itself as universal, would erase the liberty for which one citizen, of any state, would no longer feel their sense of belonging.

Belonging must be understood, of an American, as where they originated, though still with the remembrance that they are from one country. The reminder comes after the notion of that origin.

Philosophy – “The Rights of a Nation’s Citizens” – 1/10/2021

“Those people who firmly believe a nation’s leadership should protect its citizen’s rights, are the same fools who have handed them over.”
– Modern Romanticism

If life is seen as temporary, then it’s not the same as love being of eternity. This must mean that a person’s right to live, is indeed such, though a temporary one. A right is as temporary as life, because it is something earned. Is love earned? Since love is not, then such makes it pertain to power. When certain sorts are accepted in the name of their love, there will be others who are not given room for such an embrace.

A leadership cannot be a citizen’s mother. For if a mother is meant to love her children equally, then it will not be the same of a biased leadership. Of one that chooses sides, rather than stands for actual equality. What mother sees one child as better than the rest? If that is ever the case, it was not love, though the favoritism many people will confuse for love. No parent, along with no government or leadership, can “love” their people, equally. For it must be only that a people can love their own country. That’s the same as understanding the oneness that does not break apart.

A divisionary will see its people as groups, while a patriot will see their reflection in their own country’s soil. No division can come from the patriot’s mentality that coordinates what they see in an undivided reflection, in the earth at their feet.

If a right is the same as life, then power can be the thing given. If a person states to another that they have the “right” to commit an act, it might be confused for them actually possessing the power to do it. A right is confused with power, just as life is believed to be opposite from death, or that respect is confused with love. Is love earned? Is death earned? Is punishment ever truly “earned”? Love is not earned, just as respect is not freely given. Death is not meant to be earned, just as life is always meant to be protected. Punishment is never truly earned, because forgiveness is the gift in which some take advantage of, for another betrayal. Abuse always comes, when not a right, though a power, is misused for one’s own greed.

People protect life. We find no meaning in protecting our memories stored in our minds, whether to be tragic or joyful, that inevitably live on, forever. It is that people protect life to make more memories, not so the person who we protected, and now failed to protect, soon becomes one.

If a nation’s citizens have given over their rights, then that is the same as giving a leadership more power. If a nation’s citizens cannot protect their own rights, then that is the same as believing life was always permanent. If a nation’s citizens cannot find their rights to be privileged and temporary, then they have lost the ability to love and protect what can disappear, tomorrow.

Philosophy – “If One should Ban the Gun, One should Ban the Camera” – 8/8/2020

“Deception is the only tactic of those who yearn to prolong suffering, over simply ending it.”
– Modern Romanticism

The responsibility of a person comes first into question, upon the witnessing of an incident.

For if one saw that their own house was burned down, would they blame the simmering fires, the few trailing sparks, the smoldering coals? If one has been cut by a knife, would they blame its sharpness? Does one ever question the eagle on its ability to fly? In science, does one ever question why a person walks? Is there any reason? One has legs. They were meant for walking.

To question the purpose of the fire, the knife, the wings of an eagle, or the ability to walk by legs, is pointless.

One questions where a person is going with a torch, where a person is going with a knife, where the eagle is flying off to, or where the person is walking. For this defines the essence of responsibility.

When we acknowledge the person, who we see with a gun, as responsible, we simply trust them. Why would we ban the gun, when the responsibility lies upon the person who uses it?

The arsonist who set the fire, is responsible for that. The person who murdered another by drowning them in a bathtub, is responsible for that. Or, the person who committed suicide by jumping off a bridge into the ocean, took full control of that action. Whereby suicide is no method of being responsible, it is to the person who cares for that suicidal someone who may stop them from doing this.

What if we were to ban the camera?

By this, it only means that the mind has been damaged by the camera, as the gun damages the body.

Since its invention by a Frenchman, who by no special mention must be understood that such a device couldn’t be made in Zimbabwe or Mexico, or any other place, it has been a tool for deception’s tricks.

The camera obscura was the first usable model of the camera.

Soon after, Photoshop came around, that furthers the deception of this device. Its lies, which are only guaranteed because of its function in taking a shot of a specific place, make such a capturing needing to be very particular. For of any person who lies, only they know the truth. As in, whatever such a cameraman had taken, might not of been the whole scene.

People will say that the camera has saved lives. So has the gun. It should be instead said that the gun is honest, while the camera is deception.

If there’s full-on trust needed for a person with a gun, is there any needed for a person with a camera? Does “trust” even come into the equation, when one could simply use Photoshop to make real an unreality? Yet, when the gun kills a person, the evidence is plain as day.

Think on an example of a hunter. If the hunter heads into the wilderness, carrying a net in one hand, with a rifle in the other, one device will be used to capture, while the other will be used to kill. Think on that, when one compares the camera to the gun. One prolongs suffering, while the other silences it.

Think on the net that the hunter holds, to capture the deer and keep it in some foreign place. Think on that, when one can compare it to a kidnapper, who abducts a child in the streets.

Think of R. Kelley, the infamous abductor, and then compare him to each and every Journalist who lives.

Cameras should be banned, if the gun is to be banned. Prolong suffering, with a camera, with abduction, with deception, and one is merely a torturer, not ever honest about the idea of ending the pain.

Philosophy – “Why the Pride Rainbow is the Symbol that Withdraws Others” – 6/16/2020

“While we focus on the sight of a wound, so external upon the skin, we never notice if there’s an infection. Do we notice the virus that crawls in the blood, the sigh of helplessness from one remembered grief?”
– Anonymous

Reverse psychology in how the “pride rainbow” is shown upon a banner, operates like how a human willfully desires to see something beneath the Earth. We are, as humans, treasure hunters. We long to see something that does not appear dead, like dust, upon the surface of our memories.

Reverse psychology works, in this sense, that by a person telling someone to focus on color, in raising such a banner, that person told such will begin to wonder on what is beyond. That speaking person is, in this sense, telling the listening person to do the opposite. For it is inevitable for any human that they will want to know something beyond the color.

For a banner to attract the focus to color, makes a person who is willfully ignorant enough, able to withdraw their focus to the exterior of any human being. It withdraws the focus from the interior, so that we remain in that ignorance. For those who wish to know something beyond, there is the question that states, “Color is always seen, of Nature, of the world, so what is beneath the color, beneath the grass, beneath the soil?”

While the focus remains as the exterior, nobody of such promotion wishes to “get to know” a person, comprehend them beyond the simple color. It might be also the same when a person, who raises such a banner, is telling others to never see within them. To perhaps what hurts? To perhaps get to know them, and befriend them?

Why are people proud based on color? Why aren’t people proud based on contribution to what comes from one’s identity? The former is the work of a mother and a father. The latter would be the work of us. Upon the focus of an exterior, the interior becomes neglected, especially of those who have their own focus upon their own exterior. Though, when we focus upon the interior, then the exterior does not become neglected, because it will then become rather simple to apply attraction to that exterior, to that color. It wouldn’t require work, as it never does require any real labor, in that sense, to make something attractive. For attraction is based on instinct, so such a task should be effortless.

For such a task of attraction will be proven effortless, when we can comprehend that the labor of expression comes from an internal source, as not color for the sake of color. We are not laborious when we work to attract, because it is the same as stepping outside to notice what attracts us. Based on instinct, not based on work ethic. What is based on work ethic is our realization to know that what we can contribute in terms of different flavors, is not in how we appear, though in how we make the world appear. When we paint, as an artist, we paint by what we feel, do we not? Therefore, it is our contribution that comes by as labor, that we know it stems from an identity to make into something for another’s connection. Our identity is always another’s identity. Therefore, it is in what we do, that is the contribution, to create color that is not so obvious as how we appear, on the outside.

What can attract, will be immediate, as it is from us to the attraction. What we make to attract, does not require any effort, or should not require it, for we should know that instincts compel us to be attracted. In what we are expressive in doing, that is the work that is needed in knowing someone. We express, because we know, because we have that knowledge through getting to know someone. Though, in seeing color, there is something still so blatant about it, that for it to be a focus, makes us lose contact with being beneath the surface. Is it not that attraction will be instant, upon recognition of it? Why must color be the focus, especially of something so blatant as an external reveal? The work required in “knowing someone” is indeed a task. Therefore, the work required in healing someone, through what expression inevitably does, will be the task. In healing someone, a person has to know someone.

Book Concept – “A Fine Line for Justice” – Based on the Idiocy within the Freedom to make a Decision – 6/1/2020

Within limited choice, there is limited power. There is limited potential, and there is less arrogance. There is less people to believe that destruction is the way to go for preservation of another individual. Such means that not division of origin, being of skin color, ethic background, religion, social status, etc. would be preservation, as much as it is on the side of destruction, provable by its division. When a person upholds motives of preservation, their ideals have stuck themselves on selfless endeavor. They uphold honor and justice, in its objective sense.

When bringing people to believe that “all things are subjective”, what will occur is the dissection and insecurity on what is the objectively correct move. For to be right in doing something only means to never have had a choice in doing it.

When we love another, we don’t hesitate, nor do we consider, the correct move to make. We will only be as those we’ve said do not pay attention, when we take time to consider. In essence, we’ve been blind to trouble, to the knowledge of what to do. Base a society around choice, and continuous consideration is the method of pure doubt by a person.

Choice, or to make a decision, involves consideration. Though, all it amounts to, is what will benefit the self. What comes from this, if made as a purified lifestyle within a social realm, is the negligence of preservation of another, and more of the destruction of others. We will cling to a word that is “empowerment”, never the word that the emotion of love holds to be dear, being “eternity”.

To show someone the world of your own, not merely hiding yourself, would be like nowadays Walmart showing Target its world, its secrets, its motives, its designs, and much would be compromised. Competition yields fewer results, over collaboration.

To be objective, in this world, is to retain the structure of a whole. To be subjective, in this world, is to dissect the whole, so a multitude comes from an entirety.

One cannot look at “justice” in this world, and believe one has their own view on it, their own interpretation of it, their own opinion on it. If they do this, they will inevitably corrupt it into the definition of “vengeance”. Anything born out of subjective viewing makes a thing based around personal gain and desire, not for the benefit, or the preservation, of another individual.

A Quote of Wisdom – “A Power over a Right” – 4/20/2020

“There is certainly a great difference between having the right to do something, and the power to do something. When it is one’s power, rather than one’s right, it seems one can dominate their own individual right, though will dominate the rights of others. One casts themselves as a leader to that right, though since they hold power, their rights are still the same as other’s. Therefore, a power versus a right, is the very difference between tyranny and individual freedom.”