Philosophy – “A Problem with Tolerance” – 5/24/2022

“To compel love does not result in love. Love cannot be forced, unless hypocrisy happens to be one’s motto. When one enforces love, love cannot come naturally. When love forces itself, it becomes rape, or it becomes what one cannot tolerate.”

– Modern Romanticism

Human nature dictates that a person must fall in love or form a human connection, on accident. That accident had been a result of being unaware of where a connection will go. Soon as information becomes flooded into a receiver’s mind, there will be more doors to open for that receiver to give their information over, under a banner of trust.

On a dating website, where deliberation intends for love to happen with purpose, there can be emotional attachments formed. However, accident had been that connection’s initial formation, due to that same ingredient of trust for all of a giver’s information. Information becomes given to a person who has also been trusted enough to present their care for it. Without their exploitation of said information, further trust can be enhanced, and thus deepen this connection.

Tolerance depicts itself as an enforcement of it. However, its way for being hypocritical resides in not being aware of one specific fact. That fact comes in an idea that no human can absolve themselves of preference. As preference remains opposite of prejudice, a person who enforces tolerance will be unaware of their preferences and their prejudices. Such comes with an unawareness of both human traits describing like and dislike. As a person tolerates, so too can they be intolerant of another’s presence. To believe we can be tolerant of all means an ordinary human being can be capable of renouncing their innate characteristics of preferring against a sight of them being prejudiced. As all humans hold appetite, their hunger for something preferred happens to be outside of their desire to be apart from where they express dislike or prejudice.

To enforce tolerance will be no different than enforcing someone to like another thing. In that, a rapist’s mentality exists. A rapist will force someone to submit to liking their acts, as within a law’s understanding of rape, even arousal does not mean consent.

If rape, of its definition, can be compared to theft, one can believe that compelling love will refer not to love, though to unconditional and unbarred trust. To trust, that of itself can only be unconditional if one happens to be being manipulated. Stealing information, therefore, falls under this definition of unconditional trust or to compel love. As love cannot be compelled, it will refer to trust. Forcing another to trust them can be no different than a victim to a rapist who hopes for no greater extent of harm to come to them, after this forceful act concludes itself.

To steal information means to take such on an enforcement of tolerance to what cannot be enforced, though happens to be believed as possible. Tolerating theft will remain of its own understanding under a tyrannical policy similar to Bolsheviks who took property from those who were wealthy to allow it for those who were poor. Tolerance for those who are poor of their own information or who have nothing to steal from means that those who hold or have success are truer victims to a scenario of this hypocrisy. One cannot be tolerant for those who are claimed, from people who enforce it, to be victims without not comprehending that tolerance can only be a mere compelling of desire and lust, not love, upon those who have material possessions.

Philosophy – “A Critique against the ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement” – 5/10/2021

“Justice is, what denial isn’t. We cannot, as we might, find ourselves to find fault in another, without rejecting our own humanity. Our nature, to be imperfect, to be flawed, is to comprehend that the sides to a coin do not represent a sheer division; rather, they represent what exists to inevitably work towards the other’s needs or conveniences.”

– Modern Romanticism

It is all too alike, as we’re bound to find, that a fragile thing like Justice is often corrupted by the facilities of egotism and ambition. Upon this, what with the specific movement to discuss, that their catering towards the victimization of blacks, has resulted in extensive manipulation of purport. A purpose, by which one finds meaning in it, would ever be manipulated by a highness to one’s attitude, that perhaps had always been.

Among politics, egotism is the place of the survivor. For the one willing to outwit or outsmart the other, a task to manipulate has incredible hold upon those who are swayed to be under their arms. Within their grasp, and then, the manipulation is perceived to be a sight of goodness. How can one comprehend the truth of the politician, when one does not know them? Yet, they’ll admit to somehow knowing the victim, their place for what is needed, comprehend what limits are stirred for the sake of their unlimited power.

No one is ever “empowered”, within this movement, or those alike. The more dependence, the less gain, not the more. This should be common knowledge, though the person most willing to depend is also most unknowingly being deceived and manipulated. Lies are the weapon of politics. To be swayed under a politician’s control, is no longer through force.

No longer do we live in the days of direct and honest tyrants, who would use force to confiscate someone’s property. We now dwell within days when we are told to be living in “different times”, despite such words are, themselves, a deception.

People have not changed. Nothing has, for “change” would represent itself as mere chaos. Change is a synonym for chaos, to be nothing credited as more. To be within the belief that our species has changed, is ever through the essence of deception. That, to conceal ourselves, means that truth is no longer the boldness. We can be deceived, so much with ease, when we wish ourselves to enforce change, though nothing is ever altered.

As it is through chaos that a movement, as this, would be inspired to take up the mantle for the sake of Justice, then it cannot be. Justice cannot be for such a movement, if it speaks of change. We do not change, unless we yearn to dismantle what is, already. Though, to improve, for such is change’s opposite, would mean to never embrace chaos, though the order for which Justice stands.

By fire, such a movement has control, though none. Through flame, such a movement seeks Vengeance, not Justice. Change is uncontrolled, though it is improvement that is. Fire, spread like the wind, same as one’s voice for carrying out an advocation to another change; this is chaos. A chaotic spread, being of an uncontrolled blaze, is where Vengeance finds its home. And, to deceive those into believing one fights for Justice, using flame, is nothing short of a comedic skit.

Same with rage, flame is uncontrolled, if spread over the entirety. Only water, being superior to fire, can douse it.

Though, would such a movement find water, the expression of the vulnerable human nature, as the greater weapon to flame? They’d not, for then they’d no longer be manipulated.

Flames can be manipulated, under the command of who causes them, from those so responsible for decieving the world. Flames dance, as such people for this certain movement can be no more than puppets, made to waltz from corner to corner, hot within the ballroom.

A vulnerable side, a human side, would implore a person to find solutions. True solutions, brought from this vulnerable and human nature of people, not belonging to the inferiority behind fire. Water is superior to fire, thus making a solution formed through being vulnerable as the objectively better option.

Though, why would we find ourselves attracted to the flame? To be warm, of course, for it is an addiction. No longer would we become brave against the coldness of who we are, when we break ourselves down, instead of others. Those dependent on flame, or just dependent, will not go far from it.

Were we to find ourselves as vulnerable, we’d discover that anyone can feel our pain. For this is what flame, or anger, conceals. It conceals hurt.

How is it not plausible to attribute flame to deception, if rage conceals hurt?

If hurt is truth, and truth is hurtful, then flame would be the deception that hides it.

Philosophy – “Victimization is Equivalent to Pampering” – 12/17/2020

“Our hunger increases upon noticing what is wrong, needing to be rid of, in the world. And, for all we see to be wrong, we must consume, must dissect with utensils, to understand. Keeping us beneath, however, in the food chain, we realize soon that when we fatten, we are soon to be consumed, by the wolves who have set the table for us.”

– Modern Romanticism

It has been said. If you consume, then you shall be consumed.

Lives are wasted on the fattening of the self, for the sake of “freedom”. A choice? Perhaps it is only in our desire for what we can eat, pertaining to preference by way of taste or palette, that a person makes a meal out of the world. Our choices, therefore, are limited by what is available, and become more arranged for an order of its deliverance, when we yearn to grow.

When we victimize ourselves, we point to the wrongs of the world, needing to go. Where do they go? Where, if not to be consumed? If not fed to the Earth, then fed to an animal or person. When upon blaming the world, pointing the finger at our surroundings, at society, we comprehend we are regurgitating. For when we do not change ourselves, change our hideousness of fatness, what is around us appears the same, though not for long. We wish for more order, more arrangement, though only of the betterment to the meal, and only for how it appears.

Victimized people are never in blame of themselves. How could they be, when to discover evil in the world, means to believe that the blamer is innocent? The one who points their finger must be innocent, to the guilt of another, representing the deception that is of the person who blames. And, it is “innocence” that translates to denial, in this sense, and perhaps in all definitions to the word. Innocence is denial, directly meaning a person who blames does not wish to become involved in the matter of fixing an issue. And, it is always innocence that is upon the person who never knows what is wrong with themselves. “Acceptance” is, therefore, always for the victimized, while tolerance will be for those who are deemed as wrong in their endeavors. How else does one who lives within a nation, as a citizen, differ from perhaps a refugee? The insider is accepted, while the outsider is merely tolerated.