Victimization – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why Collectives are often Victimized” – 5/16/2022

“Up to a collective, their victimization resonates through an inferiority complex. Contrasted from that, an individual remains superior. An individual can dominate a collective, to name simply that group as inferior, when an individual has not been regarded first. Capability to an individual can only be through them, though when they regard themselves first as among a collective or group, their perspective of inferiority to themselves become evident.”
– Modern Romanticism

While knowing an individual, with this operative word being “knowing”, their collection of group-thought can come secondary. Turning oneself into a singular understanding for where one belongs will disregard oneself, as oneself. This has been because all examples of regarding a collective before an individual will evaluate all within that group as never superior to a leader who dominates them. Regarding a group before that group’s individuals will render them as inferior to leadership, subjecting all within this collection to a lack of perception to who leads them whether through respect or tyranny.

In our knowledge that respect must be given, never earned, makes it ideal for a group to not be involved with acceptance, though tolerance. If respect shows itself as a gift, respect becomes a later improvement of it upon an individual, within a group, to their capabilities. Knowing an ability of an individual will mean to regard them, before their collective, group, or movement in where they find belonging. Defining acceptance cannot be compared to tolerance, for as tolerance remains something earned if not brought on to a collection or group, acceptance defines itself as loving. Loving an individual, if not a group, will be a reveal to special understanding of them, far outside of where they once sheltered themselves in a state of belonging.

Belonging has always been an ideal, to an individual. When that individual discovers belonging in a collective, their acceptance among it cannot be to that aforementioned definition of tolerance. Though a collective will want for tolerance from their surrounding world of other groups. However, if an individual, with that group or among any group, separates themselves from it, there can be acceptance from other individuals. No tolerance can come from individual to individual, though remains as a desire from group to group.

When a group can believe itself victimized from lacking tolerance, there can be understood from this a belief of inferiority to that entire collective. This means for a person to regard themselves first as among their own accepting collective than as an individual with knowledge of their own abilities. This becomes an inferiority complex when there can be no such thing as a capable collective. Regarding a collective before an individual shows itself no different than tyrant’s understanding to a slave as capable, though still a slave and thus no better than an expendable.

As a set of parents with multiple children must regard this group of youths as possessing their own individual characteristics, instead of simply a group of children, this example shows contrast between a tyrant and a leader of respect. A collective, given respect, has been done in a mere second of its deliverance due to such not requiring a prior ingredient of it without a thought of acceptance over tolerance. Among a collective, individualism must be indeed regarded first, though without knowing categories of different abilities, there cannot be a notion of ability. Along with comprehending individualism before collectivism, for our sake of seeing a person as not merely an expendable, there must also be a placement of automatic respect from leader to collection. This instant awareness from leader to collection remains existent, so that no special attention can be given to a separated individual without further respect upon their improved abilities. With such enhancement through practice, this remaining danger to accept from leader to individual stays when separation cannot be to an extent of granting what has not been deserved.

Philosophy – “Of Pride and Egotism” – 6/5/2021

“An excuse can be set for the matter in which one feels prideful, when one has committed no action for the feeling of it. It would be the foulest of sensations to boast, especially within earshot of those aided, of the noble actions one has taken in the name of self-sacrifice.”
Modern Romanticism

For nobility, one does not take to the gain for the self. For the occurrence of self-sacrifice, one knows its difference from loss. One places themselves, through humility, at the level of those who have lost, to then raise them at the cost of the self. It is to sacrifice, where a person does not lose out of the sensation of grief. One sacrifices, because it was no choice to do so. One does this, because another needed the material substance more than the self.

It is the prideful individual who believes themselves capable of all. It is them who cannot fathom the idea that they cannot be indestructible. For it requires the certain necessity of dropping one’s own pride, to the notion that they require aid. That is individualism, in the finest sense of the word.

Individualism is the swallowing of pride, for the greater sensation to another’s care that one would be relieved by. Though, to prideful sorts, they are not so much to believe they are incapable.

Then, what is a human? Are we not imperfect, enough for the comprehension of it? We are, because to our mistakes, and then in our admittance that we have caused one, is to how we both mature through life’s education of pain. Pain is thus tolerated for the sake of individualist education. Then, it is to the prideful person who must believe they should remain ignorant, never to admit they were wrong of a decision.

How does a person learn, if not willing to sacrifice what was not needed? How does a person know what they need, versus what is a convenience? Humility is the place of self-sacrifice. Whereas, it is pride that will keep to the self, in the notion that one does not deserve the criticism that would deconstruct.

One should be prideful for accomplishment, for this compares to action. Whereas, one should be humble for who one is, in the knowledge that an action can become an excuse to build one’s own ego. When ego builds, a person does not sacrifice. They keep, because they are always afraid to lose.

Paupers are to this regard, as always meaning to keep what is left when they have lost enough. It should then be fathomed of those deemed as victimized for the encouragement of a prideful mindset, that such sorts will never know what it means to learn. Their pride, along with their refusal to admit to their wrongs, cultivates the perpetual state of ignorance even among the chaos in what they feel.

Philosophy – “Victimization is the Source of Division” – 5/28/2021

“Upon pride, a person takes to addiction, being of the people and places they will never love. To pride, a person takes possession of the material, since to swallow the sweet deception is far more enticing than the bitter truth. No one swallows their own pride, without recognition to their limitations.”
– Modern Romanticism

No one is perfect. Though, the person who victimizes themselves, loves themselves, idealizes themselves. It is to their misplacement of trust, that they will now never believe themselves to have had fault in what was errored.

Victimization is the place of self-idealization, because to not believe oneself is at fault is to never learn from a mistake. To division, a person of this nature will further distance themselves from potential connections. It is because it is the human way, not God’s own, to form ever-lasting connection with the one who is also imperfect. Through pride, there is external blame of others, while the self clings to addiction over love.

One cannot love the self without idealizing themselves, or to remain ignorant in the impossibility of omniscience. It is God’s way to be perfect, so therefore He is called “omniscient”. Then, the oneness of omniscience could not be repeated, without the resulting division that is among those who attempt it.

Ignorance is of the person who refuses to believe in self-fault or imperfection of the self. Individuality is not to capability, though to incapability. It is why a person who victimizes themselves associates with a group, because through individualism there is understood fault between people. Love is then how the individual sees to the depth of another, rather than to themselves where their understandings are limited.

Quote – “Why Victims are the most Prejudiced” – 4/14/2021

“If victimization is equivalent to innocence, then the latter will be equivalent to denial. Of a denial that comes forth from a disbelief that one, as a victim, cannot possibly be like those who antagonize them. In this, there is more than a likelihood for such victims to be as their supposed ‘enemies’, even to wear their face, though in deception of all others who side with them. It is always at the highest possibility that one will become as those they resent, in the sheer disbelief that they are nothing like them. Such denial is the dropping of one’s own defense and self-awareness.”
– Modern Romanticism

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.

Philosophy – “Why Representation can go to Hell” – 12/12/2020

“Pride is restricted for the achievement, though only when it bases itself upon selfless acts of objective nobility. Pride is restricted for the self’s own image, though only when it bases itself upon the selfish inactions of both inward and outward negligence.”
– Modern Romanticism

Freedom corrupts itself when it is taken to the materialistic convenience, for a person. Freedom is pure, when we neutrally comprehend it as something pertaining to the heart, of love, for things that break ourselves from confinement. We are free, only when we believes ourselves to be, and never a victim. It is that “freedom” can only be itself, when we never ask for it, never plead for what we already possess. When we never plead for something we innately possess and can share, is when we understand ourselves as always being free. When we do plead for something already possessed, we turn to materialism. Then, “freedom” becomes merely about “who has the most”.

Representation of image is for the sake of sheer vanity. One wishes themselves to be a reflection of how elevated only materialism has made them. They were offered the convenience of being fattened to the point where they always glance upwards at their master. They are the slaves of materialism and convenience. They believe themselves not free, unless someone hands them “attention” upon a platter.

When we state we are victimized, then we are as any fly for the frog’s tongue. When one is fattened, they are soon to be consumed. Metaphorically so, for it is the person who wants more for themselves, who soon possesses no humility left, that another then wishes to become as they are. They become as the disease, spread as lard to make the meal for another’s consumption. As it is, lust is the heat that boils everything able to be consumed. When one consumes, they are soon to be consumed. The slow herd is able meat for the starved carnivore.

Representation of image always reflects back-and-forth mentality of the average consumer, making each person the bread to someone else’s hunger. To each thing that grows with quickness, of each element that spreads with the same speed, such as the fat or lard, such as the flame, it is the growth of a hungry population.

All this marks what is a human’s hunger to be represented. It is merely the hunger of being known, among a population too overgrown. Such means that one wishes to appear the largest. One’s own ego, massive enough to stand above the rest, is only the representation of vanity for the sake of itself.