advantage into weakness

 

The meaning behind everything I write, is a language of it's own. Whether or not it is understood or not is not up to me. It is to be learned.

Therefore, my own inhibitions rest on a grave of ideas, that may or may not benefit the masses. What I care about is myself as an existential being. If you train your eye to read something enough times, you will begin to learn it. It's like anything new to you, then it becomes what you train your eye to decipher.

Everything I write infers to the laws of OF ONE'S OWN dialectic, trained thoughts, verbalized into being.

The only people I write to are myself, and myself as the other.

If you cannot have a conversation with yourself about anything in the universe, as it commands you, you are not doing the world any favors either. To know yourself, then becoming a language that is your own.

Furthermore, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. I see people in real life who label me. I don't give two fucks what people think anymore. I know better than to take advice from dimwitted wannabe's.

Philosophy to the trained eye is simple, equated, with having a conversation, with yourself, then confidence to make-believe my own imagination can transform the world, strictly based on principles of thought alone. That is my idea of philosophy.

Thank you. Good night.

====================

"Fear is to want, what hope there not is. This is what in principle a martyr does. To instill fear into want, want what hatred does not hope. A martyr is a false witness to the cause of freedom in everything. They want the mercy, they want the glory, they want what everybody else knowing is not their own."

1- In the context of martyrdom, such reason should suggest, a dead proof. That is to say, what (a) "fear is to want" = is the martyr's intention. This follows (b) if fear is to want something then (c) comes only in light of what SOMEONE ELSE wants. What the martyr wants always acts as the conditional. Which we are self-explaining is a false ideal.

If a then b.

Then b.

Therefore a not b.

2- In the context of martyrdom, (a) "Fear is to want" then (b) "what hope there not is."

'a followed b', which is, 'b' as undefined.

Let's answer (b) "what hope there not is."

Therefore, "what hope there not is." is a result of a martyr's belief. That one thing cannot want something out of hope, because the martyr has already decided for you. To want anything is false hope, to you, the end result is your freedom being taken.

In the context of martyrdom basing your fear is to want something in return - therefore, the martyr acts as a means, "you should fear it rather than stand up to it." The martyr wants to take away your right to want anything. To falsify your hope.

In this sense we live in a martyr less-than-kind based society which can only become unconsciously acceptable. It is a breach of trust, that should a martyr be untruthful as they are toward the will of the many, (i.e. the will of the many) shall only depend upon the will of: disparaging unconscionable rights of the martyr. Such civil discord would cause dissidence.

Therefore, the right to freedom is inalienable on no condition or terms of agreement. Then, "what hope there not is." represents the embodiment of a martyrs will to diminish your hope. You cannot want something in return of a favor, so long you depend ONLY on what a martyr wants for you. You have ceased to "hope", to "exist", to "want" anything. Your responsibility has been taken for granted of you. You must obey the martyr's commandeering riffle, or you will be faced with consequences unknown to you, hatred would be instilled you from the martyr. "You cannot hate me." - Martyr's intentional psychology to reverse roles.

==============

=====================