Socialism – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why No Government Should Aid its People” 12/10/2021

“Availability to the short-term is negligence upon what is most available, pertaining always to the long-term. What is long term, being most available, is a person’s comprehension of their capability. To know or understand yourself is always to fathom your limitations. Then, to understand everything capable to a singular person is then a presence that cannot be less available, when it is not expendable.”
– Modern Romanticism

If a government provides or is expected to be responsible, it was because its people were irresponsible. A people faced with crisis will expect its leadership to be responsible for it, though such expectations are from those whose characters were revealed to be weak during the start of their dilemmas. What defines a weak people or population to a nation? It can only be the resulting behavior of national crisis from the people, revealed at the beginning of it. If it is true that crisis does not build character, though reveals it, then this is the reason an expectation will be placed, from those who are weak, towards those who are strong.

However, what defines strength is a person’s character. A nation’s development was not due to crisis, itself. It was due to the aftermath of the crisis, or due to how a nation is better able to prepare for the next. If what defines strength is a person’s character, then its judgement comes upon the realization for who should be responsible to potential weakness being revealed. If those who are strong will survive, then they require no responsibility from an external source. When a nation’s government is expected to be responsible for those who are irresponsible or weak, that same government will be revealed for either strength or weakness when the crisis faces them. Would weakness be the result, then the people are strengthened. Overall, what comes of a nation, regardless of what is faced, is the strength of its people when in realization of the weakness to a leadership or government. No leadership or government can replace its people’s strength, because that is the same as replacing their freedom.

It is the greatest freedom of all to remember that the individualist self is wholly responsible for the outcome to crisis. In being responsible, the outcome to crisis comprehending the handling of the dilemma. One’s handling to the dilemma is not without reveal of character, whether being strong or weak will tell of who will hold the expectancy for who should be responsible. One’s weakness of character has been through their lack of comprehension to how it develops, during when the crisis ends. If they are still in favor of another having control over being responsible to the next crisis, then they are a slave.

One cannot expect a system of government aid to last into the long-term, without ignorance to the notion that these provisions will only aid the short-term. The reveal of character, entering into the long-term, would reduce individualism down to willful ignorance. Though, this cannot happen, because that is the same as burying a person while alive. One cannot ignore the person, in the desire to prolong such government support to the uncertain future. If the short-term is believed to be the only necessary focus, the long-term is ignored for such systems in their maintenance. This lack of maintenance will cause those systems to crumble. To focus on what is most practical to the methods of aiding a nation’s population, there is itself only beneficial to the short-term. Then, to wish for these methods to prolong their system of benefits into the long-term is to ignore what is long-term of individualist benefits, being the development of a people’s character. Where is the place to ignore the possibility of a nation’s leadership or government to prove themselves as irresponsible, during the existence of such systems of benefit, only for the people to prove their responsibility? It is that, in the end, the people are meant to be responsible.

Philosophy – “The Faults with Collectivism” – 6/20/2021

A divided nation is born out of the one without heart, being the leader to such a realm. As such, no leadership through example can be the governance. When it is example that leads all others to what was first made for the self, then it becomes possible for others to follow. Then, it becomes the concern that without leadership through example, there is itself in the implementation of force. One cannot utter praises of unification when being without heart, and their people are divided. To care, even of an examples with an addict, must be without division. It is since division is always comprised from the broken heart, in everything missing in a state to individualism.

Since it is collectivism that resonates in division, then it is never a group that relates to unity. Collectives are the places of division, due to individualism not being among it. One is an individual, when one can admit to their faults. In such an admittance, there is connection among other individuals through the notion of what is flawed, innate always of humanity. Though, a collective will be composed of sorts who never believe in their guilt nor flaws.

If to a nation, raised from a leadership with divided heart, there can be from it just the collectivism that amounts to mere deception. Deception is always to the place of the collective mindset, since the heart has no focus for its collection. It is since collectivism comprehends the resource, though to the heart being divided will result in the same for a nation.

Summer Project – “A Two-Step Sequence to Problem Solving – From Delicate Heart to Resourceful Mind” – Chapter 1/50 – “To Define Order” – 5/28/2021

It is order that encompasses what does not, or should not, divide. A responsible person will comprehend order, since to divide oneself from it is to forsake what it means to earn one’s freedom. That is to say that to be ordered, even of the self, is to comprehend that one cannot be given freedom, because to earn it is to understand that one is no longer a slave. To be considered free, or to be freed out of one’s own doing to that station, is the very difference between something stagnant and what must be done.

To see a goodness in the word “freedom”, though never pertain it to order, is with the mindset of believing the former should be gifted through chaos. That is the endeavor of the person who misunderstands that to earn freedom, in its relation to how a person is ordered to the correction of themselves, is to have displaced the self from previous wrongdoing. A wrongdoing that, by example, would have a person incarcerated for an improper action, will make of the individual and only them needing to comprehend personal responsibility. It is in this case, or otherwise the wrongdoer will commit the same objective mistake, over again.

Mistakes become known to be objective, out of the person who realize their inabilities. To be incapable, is to know one is not meant to commit themselves to a certain action that would bring about mistakes. It is in a person’s uncontrolled and unhindered ambitions that causes them to forsake accountability, for the desperate attempt to make a reality out of a delusional epiphany. Since through uncontrolled ambition, a person becomes delusional, it is then through such idealistic actions that a person merely reveals human flaw.

Upon the notion of inability, there is the stance for where resources are met, through where the mind stores them. By a person unable to be responsible is then to comprehend that their uncontrolled spending of resources is to misunderstand what is limited of chaos, out of disregard for order of the heart. If the heart is ordered, then it is not broken to express the flaws of humanity. Humans are always mistaken because it is of humanity, itself, that is represented as a mistake. Were one to speak of themselves to love as a mistake, then they’ve yet to comprehend that it is always through trust, not of love, that causes such a person to error themselves and to reveal flaw.

We can be shameless when we blindly trust, being for resources spent of the mind. Though, we cannot at all be shameless through blind love, that to the heart, is where holds its residence. This depiction of the heart is all by what can be broken, being in relation to human emotions that are the sole source behind all mistakes. A person to make a mistake was through emotions, and nothing more.

Upon all mistakes, it is to be argued that when society is in disarray and unordered, it had always been through the individual’s lack of understanding to the self, as their trust had been gifted to others too readily. Would trust then, as its gift for another, be in comparison to the prior notion of believing freedom is meant to be the same? As a gift, though if freedom and trust are said to be gifted, then it is where we place ourselves, or our fragilities, that we become imprisoned without awareness for personal responsibility.

It is the responsible self who is most willing to comprehend order, as it is its opposite, being of chaos, that represents the dishonest and untruthful self. In being responsible, admittance to the committed mistake is the first step on the path towards reconciliation. Nothing else reveals itself as more dishonest than the one keeping themselves incarcerated, whether within the literal prison or the mental one. Due to the repeated offender’s wish to forgo responsibility, it becomes identified as the repetition of a mistake. Repeated mistakes are like mass production, by itself believed to be perfect in design, though inevitably flawed. Such a perception for what is deemed to be perfect is just as the mentality of the dishonest, irresponsible person who is unable to comprehend the meaning of a mistake. It is that it will be repeated, or mass produced, if irresponsibility resonates with the person of such a nature through sheer negligence, as they mean to expose themselves to the spending for more flawed designs.

The designs for what are flawed is continually by the touch of human hands, marking our creations as never perfect. As perfection would fall alongside omniscience, then nothing more would be learned, especially of what has been created as a mistake.

Maintenance and preservation are upon the foundations to what reveals itself as objective order, being to the individual who has comprehended the self only ever through perceiving incapability. The flaw of a human is how a lesson is learned. Were imperfection not to be of the human, then no mistakes would ever be made. From this, no education would be wrought from the mistake not meant to be repeated. Though, a factory would repeat perceived-as-perfect designs, because what is beautiful, or truthful, or imperfect is inevitably human, while what is perfect is either dehumanizing or represents death. Then, to the order for what can be maintained and preserved, makes what is not repeated kept the same. To that sameness in knowledge for how wisdom is granted, for it to be passed along in words that represent the objectivism within the notion of human error.

This maintenance and preservation of wisdom is of its sameness to what has already been learned. Wisdom is not subjective, when its simplicity such as to not put flesh near the flame is to know one might be only ignorant for the experience of this. If personal experience is what proves, then let it be so for the person who disbelieves in another’s warnings or wisdom.

For order to be comprehended through a singular relation, it would then have a similarity to Justice. To this reference, Justice can be defined in the same manner as order would be, through the wisdom that blossoms from the one who has learned to be responsible or has just simply been educated. Then, one cannot connect subjectivity to wisdom, nor to the responsibility that would stem towards consequence from one’s mistakes through their freedom. To be subjective about order, or being responsible, or of wisdom, is to remain ignorant by never learning from choices. As choice relates itself to freedom, then so is the subjective self all about the decision. Though, to the limitations for freedom, is then to the same limits that relate to human imperfection, pertaining then to all flaws that comes from choice to consequence.

If it is order that compares itself with Justice, then it is the latter that never holds a comparison to subjectivist thinking. It is since no mistake, by this logic, could be subjective without questioning the imperfect person of their committed action. Since no action, as a mistake, is ever one without it being already subjected on its own, then further question to it would extend the division that resonates with a lack of order.

While Vengeance is the place of disorder, then through Justice comes order. Upon order, that through a person’s comprehended mistake they have caused, out of freedom to choose, brings about the consequences that responsibility would be required to mend. Imperfect humans learn, and improve, through their mistakes. It is freedom that encompasses choices, while no person is ever responsible with their decisions. Instead, a person is responsible for the consequences to their decision because no perfect choice has ever existed. To justify the mistake, perhaps to excuse the flaws behind it, is to be against order and Justice by how reason certifies itself.

Reason is the essence of excuse. To form reason, is to wriggle oneself out of being responsible. Reason is proven here as the core of escapism, same as a criminal during a period of interrogation might attempt to lie or cheat themselves out of being accountable for their actions.

It is never for the sake of Justice, bound up together with the coldness of logic, that compassion should be given to a criminal. Such is the risk, with those who would most certainly take advantage of offered compassion for their selfish benefit. Offering compassion to one who has not learned yet to be responsible, is the same as gifting freedom. Gifting freedom, or to offer compassion to a criminal is no different from breaking an incarcerated individual out of prison.

Once responsibility is learned for the future benefit of the once-ignorant person, order is maintained so long as this individual does not betray anyone’s current trust to their continued betterment.

Since it is by human error and incapability that a person will admit to being flawed and imperfect, then to all comprehension for the self is by way of knowing order cannot be subjective. To believe in such is to divide among the literal meaning of order, with such a definition that never pertains to division, though to togetherness.

A Critique on Marxism – Pt. 2 – “Why a System of Selflessness should Never be” – 1/23/2021

“In highest knowledge of the issues to a person, is always in lowest ignorance to the individual.”
– Modern Romanticism

When does a government ever comprehend the system of empathy as non-existent? Systemic empathy is the same as non-empathy. To comprehend the many issues a singular person faces, is not to know the universal fault for which is the individual. One could have knowledge of societal problems, though never knowledge of people. One could know the issues a person faces, though should they never get to understand the individual, they have missed the target of the true problem.

Where is the genuine nature of a government? Of a collective comprehending collective issues, is never individuals understanding each other. This is where ennui takes place. To know what a person’s problems are, leaves out the knowledge for what a person knows of themselves. As in, for what an individual understands of themselves, is in fullest certainty, whether hidden or revealed, that they are the source of all their misfortune. For should they be the irresponsibility that caused their issues, then what does a government do for that? If it was irresponsibility of the individual that caused the issues to which the government is expected to care for, then it will be the further irresponsibility of the government that worsens the individual. How can a government care for what it cannot care for, of what it cannot see, cannot ever employ the empathy towards without it being unequal?

Irresponsibility is to never know the issue, while responsibility comprehends the source to all issues. Love sees exactly what a person faces of themselves, and it is that a government can never be loving. As that source is the irresponsibility and lack of accountability to an individual, it will be the opposite mindsets that makes a person know themselves. One fails, without knowing themselves. One loses everything, without keeping track of themselves. If one has lost their course, one has lost themselves, one doesn’t understand themselves, and then one desires a new identity. Why should selflessness be a system, when people are not systemically capable of it? Why should it be a societal measure, when empathy cannot be emplaced through such a mechanical way, called a “system”? Why is selflessness ever defined as such, when we are consistently ignorant of people?

Would it be more brave to help a person’s issues, or to help a person?

Does empathy ever offer the equality people wish for, or is it selective based on what we personally comprehend of ourselves? It is always the latter, as we know empathy to be.

This is not selflessness. This is not empathy. One should never expect the collective to understand nor to empathize with the individual. It is impossible. Only an individual can peer into the eyes of another, to understand their imperfections are the same as the former’s own. That is called “humanity”.

The most beautiful part of a human being is to know another human being. That, there cannot be a perfect system of selflessness, if we are unaware of ourselves being imperfect. Closeness, between individuals, would be the inevitable result of people who understand that a “fault” has to do with “being human”, not developing a solution to counter such an eternal problem as to be such.

To know ourselves, the individuals, as imperfect, is to comprehend another as the same, as another individual, with imperfections all of the same origin. If we diversify this, then we divide, and then no individual understands where a person’s true problem resides. For when we never understand an individual, though only focus on what they are challenged with, that person despises themselves more often for what they secretly know of themselves.

When all people become individuals, then they understand the truest threat, being themselves when only knowing their faults, being left alone with such imperfections, without the necessity for comparison.

Philosophy – “A Critique upon Marxism” – 6/22/2020

“No living human can see themselves, to believe the world has shaped them, without neglecting themselves without a choice. In the lack of choice, we behold ourselves responsible. To this, why not the individual see themselves the responsible one, to blatantly ascribe to be something unlike the world?”
– Anonymous

Marxism will state that society and the world, are the issues of Man. It deconstructs, utilizing the methods of science to engross the world in mass change. To what change respects, it is chaos. To what union states, it is improvement. Unity resonates with no dissection of a world, for that inevitably causes the dissection of ourselves.

When we dissect what is around, the damage is reflected upon ourselves in our lives. That is because even to the child, there is our responsible self being reflected in their eyes, to what they have learned. Have we abandoned them to know on their own? And, to society and its realms, it is the same as the example of the child. What is around, is what we have either created or caused. Creation to causation. It is the two modes of the lifting that pertains to the improvement, to the dissecting that pertains to the change.

Improvement and change, they are not alike. We must bring love into this critique, to understand that “love”, by how it is defined, is the union. No dissection is under love, while no improvement is under change. Under change, there is randomness and a lack of attention. A lack of focus, means for those with material power to gain their material ground. They gain their material ground over those without attentiveness. For those who possess power over the ones with attentiveness to themselves, comprehend the population as blind. Blindness believes in what it can feel. Therefore, blindness will not ever believe in what it cannot see. Such means it will not believe in union, and will always believe in dissection.

What is change if not the transformation, of randomness, of the unexpected, of the uncontrolled, of the chaotic, of the unpredictable?

What is improvement if not the uplifting of what is weak, been abandoned out of negligence, been left for dead?

Marxism divides opinions, divides voice, until the words of a public become fainter and fainter. Does love shout? Or, is love simply boldness? We cannot deconstruct our environments, without deconstructing ourselves. We prove ourselves as the ignorant one when we look upon our creation, to see what we have caused, and never have built.

It is the bravest thing for any human to realize that they possess no choice, in a matter when they want one.

Quote – “How there is Ease to every Difficulty” – 6/1/2020

“In our current times, pain is seen as subjective, along with much else. It is seen in this fashion, only to divide ourselves into a competitive state, of believing one person’s pain deserves more attention than another. From the Socialist mindset, to ‘take care’ of the individual from a governmental standpoint, would mean to inject worry and fear into a populace. From this, there will be leaders wondering who can be better suited to being treated. For how else does a person say that their pain is not needing simplicity to be treated, when they will instead add complexity to it? They will add these complications, act as infants, so that they are treated first. In such pain, they believe themselves special, crying out as loud as the infant.”
– Anonymous

A Quote of Wisdom – “Why Socialism Results in Poverty” – 3/22/2020

“Realize a philosophy that has stayed true to life. It is a philosophy that deals with the ‘one day’ scenario, of when we lose all, from trading too much away. A great reliance on something of seemingly greater force, is not relying on sincerity or genuineness.
Imagine an adolescent depressed enough from either parental abuse or from bullies, to want to commit suicide. As he or she contemplates it, there can only be one reason why such thoughts are taking place. It is not because of the abuse, though because of the lack of a genuine heart.
What have we traded away of our freedoms, when other’s hearts are not being leaned on, in that genuineness? We are meant to be free, through our heart. Love is the freest emotion, though it is being divided on what we prefer, and that is where Socialism gains its ground.
To divide those who cannot comprehend that love’s objective definition, is freedom, away from the confinement of continuous toil, is Socialism’s goal. It is because a Socialist wishes for all to rely on what cannot objectively be offered a genuine degree of trust. It is the lowest of things to consider, when one should know that a genuine degree of trust, only comes about when one can see eye-to-eye the intentions of someone else. Otherwise, leadership rapes us.
Have we felt that feeling of force? Or, are we willingly giving away such freedoms, for that illusion of security? It seems to be the latter.
We will pay prices, makes vows, and attempt to win battles, though do we know that we will lose these things, one day? Upon the day of our death, we lose everything, because we have lost. What is like then, upon the brand of Socialism, to live a life of death?
Trust and loyalty comes inevitably at the cost of trading away secrets, for nothing in return, but the continuous uncertainty of another day to live. It is only this, when there is no genuineness. Why trust, or love, when it is not requited?
Love is what we adore in any place of genuineness, of another’s heart, when we can see the intentions of someone else, because we know them. If a leadership hoards secrets like a child hoards misunderstandings, then it is objectively true that there is no factor of genuineness, among this. It is pathetic to know that we will give what we know of ourselves, to a modern leadership, for nothing in return.”

An Observation/Excerpt from Former Post – “The Definition of Corruption” – Psychology – 2/6/2020

What is “corruption”, as a definition? Corruption is appetite, and “appetite” is the most fundamental of human desires. Hunger, is always a trait for the self. Practical ways will not cure it, but more-so make people give into selfishness. Corruption comes around when we realize our own nightmares and fears are stemming from a continuous distrust in those who actually may feel our pain. They rise, these nightmares, like Hell made a reality. A pauper feels another pauper’s pain, like death comprehends death. But, what of a former pauper to feel a current pauper’s pain? That is empathy. That is identical to life seeing death, and understanding it. Forming a relationship through empathy creates closeness and trust. However, forming a relationship through sympathy will always operate more on distrust than trust. For the “sharing of bread” is most certainly the same as the “sharing of pain”, and we have empathy in that.

Dialogue – “A Sympathetic Government” – A Debunk to the Idea of a Caring Nation – A Debunk to Socialism – 6/24/2019

Q: You say that sympathy is the only utilization of any form of government?

A: It is correct.

Q: Why is that?

A: There used to be a time when the common American would empathize, not sympathize, with their nation. Understand, this is purely a psychological argument. This was during the time when only men were allowed to storm on foreign soil, during a heated war. Psychologically speaking, men went to war to “free their lands” and this means to keep the weak free; that is, to keep women free. Empathy was in their hearts, and such battle cries were there for inspiration. What America’s founding fathers fought for, was for the government to fear its people, not for the people to fear their government. When the people benefit the nation, the people love the nation, through empathy. When the government benefits the nation, the government cannot understand the individual, or individualism, so therefore, the common American is neglected of their ability, which relates to their ability to work and prove themselves.

Q: You mean that when a population of people use empathy for their nation, then the people are seeing the nation as a one?

A: That is correct. A population of people who see their nation as a one, will be the same as an individual viewing another individual as a one, and never part of a group. A nation’s government, whose leadership views its people as a one, will again, never see its people for individuals. Individualism is left to die, and the government becomes the one.

Q: And this means that the people will, though unknowingly, empathize with their government?

A: For the same reason that a child will look after his or her own mother, in return for the shelter that the mother had offered, by her home, then such a government is therefore, seen as a parental figure. Purely psychological, again, and for a population of people to see their nation, not its leaders, as offering shelter, will mean for the population to empathize and love their nation. This all forms the difference between submission to a government, and submission to a nation, and its individuals. The government would have no choice but to submit to its army of citizens.

Q: And if the people submit to their nation’s leaders?

A: That would be the same as such a nation of individuals remaining as children. Every American that loves animals more than people, subconsciously believes in the innocence that they, themselves, long for, by way of being ignorant. To know nothing, and let a war rage on, or to allow their home to burn, and not react, is epitome of American apathy. As children, and their leaders as a “parental figure” means for such Americans to never mature and become as intelligent as their leaders.

Q: And to the men who protect their nation, or protect their women?

A: When men no longer protect women, it is a singularity of people, a neutrality of people and their inspiration, to ever want to be raised to the height of the nation’s leaders; and the men who once protected women, now protect themselves. It is psychological, because when men protected women, soldiers protected their nation; and this means that men kept their women free, and soldiers kept their land free. The fertility of a woman and her place as a mother, and a nation with its place as a Motherland, makes freedom necessary for the nation and its people, not for the leaders.

Q: Anything else?

A: The basis behind Socialism and its creation of poverty is a war between development and poverty. This is a war between the Primate Brain and the Reptilian Brain. A war between the primate and the reptile. A war between development and underdevelopment. A war between the mind and the heart. A war between leadership and Liberalism. A war between the rich and the poor, as it has always been, for millennia. Two singularities, with one who are rich and the other who are poor, where the rich grow taller and the poor die off.

Dialogue – “A Critique on Socialism” – Title: “A Man in Love with Death”

Q: To recite what you’ve said: you believe that Socialism is merely Nature’s guidance of the Sapient into death?

A: Not only that, for I believe it to be the proof of God, and the proof of Darwin’s theory.

Q: Would you explain?

A: Darwin speaks of devolution, while a belief in God is a belief in love, and represents the highest ground that a human can gain, in terms of the moral and the ethical. How is this? It is so, because when a human is in love, they believe in God. Inevitably. Such a human believes in eternity. What is the message of God, besides to believe not in an entity, but to believe in eternal life? That is love. To love, is to live life. It is because love makes life eternal, and worth the fight. Darwin’s thoughts on devolution should be proven now as factual, through Socialism, because as a human once believed in God, they grew to believe in work, and truth. What a human lacks in trust with God, they soon believe in truth. From modesty and love, comes the view of the flesh. From the view of the flesh, comes the view of the skeleton, if truth, or flesh, is dug too deeply.

Q: You believe that a human, when not believing in God, will inevitably believe in truth?

A: A human desires evidence, when departing from God, so they will search for it. There is not one thing else in this world that does not decimate love, than dissatisfaction. The continual search for truth, is that dissatisfaction. It breeds dissatisfaction. Love does no more than satisfy.

Q: And for death?

A: Death is a different form of equality. We have current generations, once more, believing in equality. Through, it is through Socialism, that they believe in equality. They don’t believe in love. They believe in power. Such a mention of power is indeed objective, because there is nothing more that solidifies the concealment of love, other than the destruction of life, and that is, the power of death. The “power of death” is opposite to the “power of love” and it is a different and more solid form of comfort. It is an end to an end, while love is an end to a beginning. We believe in abortion. The destruction of life. We believe in pessimism. The destruction of life. We are surrounded by comfort, and due to this, we believe in negativity and drama. These things are our new comfort. And yet, would this planet care at all, when are are extinct? No. It would not, because a home, like any home, as the earth, is abandoned, like the cave to the next cave dweller.

A Critique on the Content of Fair Share – “Anxiety as the Universal Trait of Territory”

Q: As for what is anxiety; can you point it out?

A: It links itself to the nervous system.

Q: As for what is discrimination; can you you point it out?

A: It links itself to the nervous system.

Q: Both anxiety and discrimination link themselves to the nervous system. Can you explain in detail?

A: The nervous system is the pain in which a body feels, and there comes the emotions and mental breakdowns based on the level of pain. Anxiety is universal, because all human beings possess a nervous system. All human beings possess a heart, as is obvious, and nothing worth pointing out. Discrimination is faceted by anxiety, due to such crimes of “hatred” actually being crimes of fear. Each human being desires change, but not every human being is willing to extend beyond patience to achieve that change. Radicalism is the essence of impatience, and impatience is what causes the greatest of devastation.

Q: And on the subject of territory, it is said by you that the “fight for equality” is what links itself to anxiety?

A: Anxiety and equality, in the fight for the latter, always feeds into the former. We live in a fearful society because of our fight for equality. Equality is the essence of fair share. Equal opportunity; equal rights; though what human being has ever been satisfied with such equal numbers? No deal in competition has ever been stable enough so that one does not rise above the other. If all were at the same height, no one would see the horizon. No one would see ambition. No one would see the future. This is never the case.

A Critique on Socialism – Part II – “Love is the Modesty of a Home”

“You offer a pauper love, then he or she will not recognize it. They cannot eat love. They cannot drink love. They do not understand that, even as a metaphor.”

Q: Why is it that you believe modesty is related to love?

A: It is because when one does away with clothing, one does away with modesty. After doing this, one only sees their own flesh. One sees truth, and truth always frightens the individual. Modesty is, therefore, the protection of truth, or even the burying of truth.

Q: And what is that truth, or could you describe it?

A: All truths, be they many, reside upon the flesh. The surface of the land, in before there are inhabitants walking on the surface of that land, hide all things that were life, but are now dead, below it. Ashes, as the word follows, are beneath the earth, having adopted the role of fertilizer.

Q: Then, truth is the flesh, and how is it that people are frightened?

A: In the same way that people are frightened or humiliated by their own nudity in public, it is not so the same with the harlot. She will show her nudity out of a shameless endeavor. This occurs naturally as well in the woman who is married to her spouse. She shows nudity without any shame. Though, such fear is also there for the rapist and the girl, as the girl feels total shame and more, for such a terrible experience.

Q: What is above truth?

A: Love is above truth.

Q: Why is love above truth? Isn’t truth linked to love?

A: In understanding what I am saying, there are tyrants who find the truth to be so appealing, that they would laugh at it. In doing so, they seek to hide it. On the opposite end, there are those who are not tyrants, though when they see the truth, they weep before its presence. These are the people who reveal it. Weeping in either happiness or sadness, for tears also come when people laugh. Truth is hidden by love, in the same fashion as truth is recognized for how it appears. Truth is always recognized. Suspicion and paranoia are the seekers of truth.

Q: Though, why does a person ever hide truth? Why is it that love should hide truth from another person?

A: Out of kindness.

Q: Kindness?

A: Kindness is the reason why someone who loves another may hide the truth out of love for them. Even when a tyrant recognizes what is truthful, he will hide it. He will hide out of a sinister sort of kindness against those he aims to fill with denial. As love is also a motivation, it motivates a true loving someone to also hide truth, so that the truth does not hurt truly hurt another. Have there been those who hide such truth, out of kindness for those who may become victims to a revolt, should the truth be discovered? Yes, it has continually happened. Although, it is because the word “kindness” is merely a slave at the command of either deception or honesty.

Q: And what is below truth?

A: Death.

Q: Death is below truth? How is this?

A: Reality is not the same thing as truth. Reality is merely clarity. Truth is awareness, and opposite from blindness and conformity. A skeleton is related to a pauper, because the pauper is most likely emaciated. Above that skeleton is flesh; that is truth. Above that truth is modesty; that is love, or clothing, or shelter, or a home.

Q: What do the impoverished desire?

A: What the impoverished desire differs from what someone who is not impoverished desires for the impoverished. Through recognition, the wealthy comprehend love, because they have a home, easily able to shelter a pauper. Though, the pauper will not recognize that love from that wealthy one, who might be selfless. They will, in fact, merely recognize that wealthy one, as wealthy, whose wealth could be spared.

Q: So what does one do for the impoverished?

A: You offer a pauper love, then he or she will not recognize it. They cannot eat love. They cannot drink love. They do not understand that, even as a metaphor. They will recognize flesh, because that is their yearning. Offer a pauper flesh, and they will recognize truth. For as both truth and love be a yearning, a pauper must sate themselves with flesh, before love.