“If to love, to help, to be empathic/empathetic means to be a liberal, then politics would only endanger such heartfelt sorts.
No politician comprehends the meaning of empathy, when their task is to speak to an audience, not an individual. For as the individual would have a heart, then the audience would have a color. The color, is the lie. The heart, is the truth.
We are not close to anyone enough to hear the drumbeats of a heart, whether slowing to die, or fast in fear, when we are divided by colors.”– Modern Romanticism
“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.
“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.
“If leadership merely required experience, then I’d make all my mules as my generals.”– Unknown (American Civil War)
Leadership is based on the brave choice, not on experience. For what one is experienced in, one has gained ground and knowledge in. For leadership, for politics, a person climbs to the top by way of the lie. When being dishonest, a politician inevitably gains power. Though, to be the politician who has no experience, they become the person who has merely the words to stand by them, which are, “I can do it.” They raise their hand, step forward, and their face is pock-marked with the signs of bravery.
Courage is the only required ingredient, the only needed qualification for a leadership position. It is not the endless schooling, nor the endless studies, and especially not the endless lying that causes a wannabe leader to advance faster. Leadership merely requires might and strength, along with the will to be honest with the nation’s citizens.
Make leadership to do with knowledge, and there has been created from it the endless complications to a rather simple role. Responsibility is the needed attribute for any leader, where they say to themselves, “I have no choice but to do what is right.” If leadership is not based around courage, then it is not based around responsibility. It is, in fact, based around incompetence and deception.
To add, if the leader is ignorant, then it is the people who support him, by way of continual faith. It becomes the people who make the difference, rather than the endless dependency on politicians.