Is political activism dead?

[Oeaohoo]

@BlueOak Ah right, I see what you mean. I must confess that I am only interested in politics from a very idealist perspective, like Plato said in the Republic when people were criticising his vision as Utopian:

Quote

Perhaps there is a pattern of it laid up in heaven for him who wishes to contemplate it and so beholding to constitute himself its citizen. But it makes no difference whether it exists now or ever will come into being. The politics of this city only will be his and of none other.

I agree with you that ability and awareness might not be simultaneously present in a person. Looking through history, I think you can see that there has been a shift from the reign of awareness to the reign of ability. The leaders today have no awareness but they have tremendous ability.

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Daily interactions can initiate social change, just two people speaking or interacting refines it. Many movements are entirely benign, they just tend to be slower and so harder to spot or see the contrast.

Fair point. Remember, though, I was not denying that social change can be initiated by "the people". I just think that for that change to have an impact on anything greater it must find a way to have itself established at the top. I know you won't like this so best to leave it!

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Material reasons are not necessarily bad either, if people miss all the more subtle reasons, material reasons are then brought into focus.

Yes, absolutely. That people have missed all the subtle reasons is bad though!

4 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Pyramids imply status over others to me and maybe that's my bias.

Status over others doesn't have to be a negative thing. Parents have status over their children but if they are good parents the child will benefit from that relationship, probably much more than the parents will! One of the reasons I like to insist that power is a top-down phenomenon is that there is such an irrational hatred of this idea today. It's like people think the only options in this world are people sitting on the grass smoking weed in an egalitarian hippy-fest or Nazi Germany! A real hierarchy benefits everybody, not just the people at the top, and ideally, especially not the people at the top! The priestly caste was generally above the regal or warrior caste in ancient society but the priests generally led a much more austere and restrained life.

All of your suggestions for how to break out of the present mass manipulation are good but I can't say I see any of them as being effective. Not that I have anything better. I go along with Zarathustra in that regard: "that which you cannot teach to fly, teach to fall faster!"

14 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

If you want something else radical that you won't like, stop people giving up their power to figureheads. Which forms the foundation of this discussion from my perspective.

I actually agree with this in various different senses. There are many obvious cases today where the ideal of the figurehead is totally inverted (any sort of one-man state, the extreme case being somewhere like North Korea). We shouldn't judge a thing based only on its crude and debased manifestations, however. People follow a great leader because through them they are able to follow themselves. Nietzsche saw that very clearly. Zarathustra speaks,

Quote

A light has dawned for me: I need companions, living ones, not dead companions and corpses which I carry with me wherever I wish. But I need living companions who follow me because they want to follow themselves — and who want to go where I want to go."

Alone I will go now, my disciples! You too must go away now, and alone. Thus I will it. Verily, I counsel you: go away from me and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he has deceived you.

The man of understanding must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends. One repays a teacher poorly if one always remains only a student. Any why would you not pluck at my wreath?

You revere me; but what if your reverence should some day collapse? Be careful lest a statue fall and kill you! You say you believe in Zarathustra? What does Zarathustra matter? You are my believers: but what do any believers matter?

You had not yet sought yourselves: then you found me. Thus do all believers: that is why all belief is worth so little. Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you.

Verily, with different eyes, my brothers, shall I then seek my lost ones; with a different love shall I then love you. And once more you shall have become my friends and children of one hope: then I will be with you for the third time, that I may celebrate the Great Midday with you.

And this is the Great Midday, when the human stands in the middle of its path between beast and Overhuman and celebrates its way to evening as its highest hope: for it is the way to a new morning.

Then will the one who goes under bless himself, that he may be he who goes over; and the sun of his understanding will stand at midday for him.

"Dead are all Gods [all false idols]: now we want the Overhuman to live" - may this be at the Great Midday our ultimate will!

Perhaps this is why he subtitled his book, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and Noone"! Of course, all of the great spiritual leaders of history spoke in similar terms. I find it very significant that a modern philosopher could only express it within a fantasy; a "sign of the times", as the Christians would say...

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

For the soul/body/mind, any distinction you like to make can be created, or can be collapsed, its all the same.

If you have fully realised the teaching of non-duality, who are you talking to right now? Of course I am not saying that I have, and my insistence on a relative dualism is a way to remind me of that!

[BlueOak]

7 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

I actually agree with this in various different senses. There are many obvious cases today where the ideal of the figurehead is totally inverted (any sort of one-man state, the extreme case being somewhere like North Korea). We shouldn't judge a thing based only on its crude and debased manifestations, however. People follow a great leader because through them they are able to follow themselves. Nietzsche saw that very clearly. Zarathustra speaks,

The figurehead has to reflect what society expects or accepts else there is civil unrest. So while I could say a country's leadership is inverted from my perspective, if the people there accept that governance then I would be giving myself fully to my own bias.

By changing what people accept or expect you change what leadership they will have.
 

7 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

If you have fully realised the teaching of non-duality, who are you talking to right now? Of course I am not saying that I have, and my insistence on a relative dualism is a way to remind me of that!

There is always a greater perspective to have, and I will always expand mine.

I assign meaning to what you say and then react to myself. Everything is contained within the mind, and the mind itself is a concept of consciousness. So there is only consciousness that is shaped and changed by every interaction by every person on earth. 

When it is time and I've learned what I need to, that definition will improve again.

Gratitude for the discussion and your time/energy it was interesting to interact with a different and conscious perspective.
All the best.

@Oeaohoo

Edited June 5, 2022 by BlueOak

[Danioover9000]

@Oeaohoo

22 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

Yes I agree. Just look at how willingly people follow whatever the latest political trend is: “I support the current thing“! This raises another question though: people are already being led. How do you (or any leader) make them want to follow you?

I think that non-duality is often mis- and over-applied. Of course you are right that internal conflicts can manifest themselves externally, but my experience is that there is a relative duality between the body and the soul, material and spiritual, physical and metaphysical. I am aware that all distinctions vanish in God, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t distinctions from our current human perspective.

I’m not sure where this came from. I never said anything about ability or awareness. The people who rule aren’t necessarily those with either of those qualities, it will depend on the regime.

Yes, the village elders or the council were at the top of the pyramid! You would struggle to find a civilisation in history that has not had a hierarchical structure with few (nobility) at the top and many at the bottom. Of course, since the Renaissance and the collapse of the feudal world into mercantilism, this hierarchy is today largely determined by money. In the medieval world it was determined by heroism, courage and valour on the one hand (feudalism), and faithfulness, devotion and holiness on the other.

Yes, I accept there doesn’t always have to be a leader! I agree with all of this except that I don’t think the people often initiate change all by themselves, particularly as you approach the modern day. Almost all of the successful revolutions of recent times have had top-down backing, whether internal or external. Your last point is very true: do you think there’s anything that can be done about this?

Sorry, I only care about the big picture. Maybe that’s why I see everything as top-down!

Yes, nowadays this is probably the best we can manage. Even in Aristotle’s day the age of great monarchs was over. It certainly is today!

   For example, you first lead by a combination of believing yourself at ridiculous levels, developing a valuable skillset that provides value for what group or culture you wish to lead. Take for example Eminem, who's upbringing is both low class and partly in rap culture. To appeal to such a culture, he in private and with some rappers trained and honed his lyrical music abilities such that he eventually became impressive, and provides values by being so controversial yet poetic to the ear. For stage red, Eminem is an acceptable and strong leader even though he lacks the skills of a criminal, but he's decisive and divisive enough to gain attention from stages blue, orange and green, with a few from yellow and turquoise.

   Nice analysis of him here:

 

[Hardkill]

So, you guys think that progressives may not ever be able to win no matter how hard they fight with all of their political activism and protesting and campaign?

[Oeaohoo]

Did you want a feel good answer? I can say it all again while clapping and occasionally shrieking “Hallelujah, praise be to the Lord!” if you would prefer!

Yes that sounds like an accurate enough summary. BlueOak seems to believe in the possibility of progressives instigating change but sees it as largely inhibited by people deferring their authority and agency to figureheads, recent developments in media manipulation and things like that.

For my part, I would add finally that if progressivists really want to change the system they should stop whoring themselves out to it. For example, during the last BLM protest the following marginalised groups came out in full support of them: the Queen of England, the President of Canada (in a recent speech Trudeau called people waving the Canadian flag “racist” while giving a nod of approval to the BLM riots), Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Disney, and all of the other multinationals. Talk about the downtrodden and “speaking truth to power”! Must be difficult having such little recognition and support from the system… It’s hard to “change the system” when it is bankrolling you: that’s why BLM has recently become “Buying Large Mansions”…

The trouble is that the real power today is not in the hands of politicians but in the hands of financial interests. Most news media is being bankrolled by one financial interest or another. Protest is generally an appeal to the political class to change things, but for the most part change is no longer in the hands of the political class! One often notices in recent protests that they don’t even know what they are protesting for, what change they really want, why they are even there. To me, all of these protest movements are little more than the final hysterical paroxysms of a dying body.

[BlueOak]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So, you guys think that progressives may not ever be able to win no matter how hard they fight with all of their political activism and protesting and campaign?

Every interaction changes society, even this one. So don't think anything is completely hopeless. I listed a few methods like minimalism moving us away from materialism slowly, and I would add the various websites trying to offer news as a summary of all channels to prevent division as well to that. There is a helpful website that rates media bias for example, these things are in their infancy still but they weren't there at all last decade.

A more positive way to look at it might be, that change isn't easy, and if you are a progressive your job isn't meant to be easy. You are pushing a tide or ahead of the wave as it were. At the moment the pendulum of liberal to authoritarian is still swinging to authoritarian, though Russia's authoritarian vs democratic war, and the backlash to the abortion laws in America have thankfully halted that a bit. 

For large-scale change, I would say Oeaohoo sums it up well. If you can work out how to get people to care as much about a large issue like the environment as they do personality politics, what someone is wearing, what words they used, etc. Then you've gone a long way to facilitating what you want. Politics is entirely focused on anything that doesn't cost billionaires money. Any issue can be debated that doesn't cost a cent/penny. It can be serious like racism/abortion or it can be frivolous like clothing/wordplay, because none of that matters to a billionaire's bottom line. A favorite of the system is to build politicians up and rip them down, because again none of that matters to a billionaire, and if you are engaged in that drama outside of an immediate election you are completely wasting your time.

Power is where power is, and protesting politicians is like appealing to middle management for a change, when it's in the hands of the billionaires calling the shots. Though the second you actually begin to protest billionaires or their interests, you find yourself shut down quicker than you can blink, banned off youtube/google etc. Laws are specifically in place to shield them. When I was making too many waves, I got some attention like that and plenty of people have been banned or harassed for the same. The power they wield over the population is only growing as the wealth gap does, because money is power for the most part in western societies. 

Funnily, there are many people who want to defend billionaires and defend this power gap. You have to get past that wall before you can even address the issue itself of getting people to care about something other than instant gratification.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Nonsense! No it's not dead. There are plenty of high quality political organizations you can join, you just have to find a good organization, such as:

• Wolf-PAC
• Justice Democrats
• Democratic Socialists of America
• Sunrise Movement

Your apathy is what's going to make political activism ''dead''.  The reason why these groups don't make change is simply because they're not big enough and don't influence enough people. You can join and advocate for more people to join as well, and then these groups will grow.

[BlueOak]

I want to counter my own point above to you give both sides of it:
 

Should you talk about obvious frivolous lies and give them energy, or leave them. I used to always say leave them. Leaving them doesn't waste your time/focus which could be used on something productive, but it does isolate people into their own reality bubbles more, so when you do interact with them there is more division and friction.

I suppose there has to be a middle ground where it's worth a word, then to be left alone.

[Danioover9000]

@BlueOak

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I want to counter my own point above to you give both sides of it:
 

Should you talk about obvious frivolous lies and give them energy, or leave them. I used to always say leave them. Leaving them doesn't waste your time/focus which could be used on something productive, but it does isolate people into their own reality bubbles more, so when you do interact with them there is more division and friction.

I suppose there has to be a middle ground where it's worth a word, then to be left alone.

   Which ties back nicely to the Ying-Yang concept, asymmetrical yet balanced. Sometimes leave it, sometimes word it, sometimes kill it. 

[Oeaohoo]

Here’s a funny little protest song to conclude.