 |
| http://provisionslibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oppression1.jpg |
This article should not be read by soft liberals, first time voters and mothers. It is for intellectual uses only. The author is thus not responsible for any oppressive urges or symptoms. Enjoy!We love for our leaders to be eloquent and smooth talkers. We would even be more enthusiastic about them if they were handsome, aesthetically pleasing that is. And boy, we love that back-of-the-head knowledge that they are "bad boys". In fact people rarely disagree about the decadent moral systems prominent in political classes: Yet, we seem to mostly accept political corruption and we don't wanna sacrifice such a relationship just for that.
That semantic field resembles that used when speaking about a potential boyfriend : fact of tha matter is: We vote for our rulers using the same standards we use judging a date.
But let me get this straight: Shoe-making is the craft of forming materials so that they obey the structure and satisfy the function shoes. A handsome, sexy and smooth talking failed shoemaker still makes bad shoes: If one where to consider that these qualities are in any aspect a compensation for bad shoes: they must not really know what they want. The shoes or the shoemaker!
So what about the craft of policy making. Fundamentally policy making is the craft of using, manipulating and oppressing individuals so that they comply with a desired social structure and accomplish a perceived advantageous social function in it.
Politicians therefore, aren't meant to be "loved"! For that is rather the craft of the lover not the ruler. Their sheer existence in society is only justified by the need for some oppression in order for order (at least some kind of order) to be preserved. Stigma hits us hard on this one. Oppression isn't a fashionable word anymore and we cannot help but to "euphemise" it calling it the rule of law among other absurdities.
Let us consider it closer then: your mom didn't let you eat mud (at least mine prevented toxic levels of mud consumption). That is an oppression that we cherish (yes now you have to go thank your moma for not letting you eat mud). In fact the word "oppression" denotes an ever present limitation factor in any perceivable natural system. Oppression viewed as such is a necessity or at least inevitable. Moral qualifiers such as good and bad should not be attached to a necessity, thus oppression exists regardless, and it is neither bad nor good. If it were inevitable, the logical outcome does not stray away much. For one aught to apprehend and manage the inevitable rather than negate its existence.
Nevertheless, the methods for the appliance of oppression are various. Some are better than others. If the task of voters is identifying the best politician. In other words voters have to choose the person most capable of using oppression efficiently. that is to use the least of it for the greatest organizational yields. But why would anybody want to be a politician then? why would a sane person want to exercise the craft of oppression and compete in it rather than bake cakes or become a stripper?
Well, there is a thirst, a drive to oppress, that is different in scale between individuals. Just like hunger is common between all humans but in different degrees. As well as discrepancies in hunger-management capabilities yielding radically different results . Some individuals cannot reign on that desire for oppressing the other: Tyranny results of that. Others are utmost wisest at the craft of oppression. Consequently, they are hailed as just rulers and memorable leaders.
We, the voters, have to be conscience of these fundamental human drives. We have to remind ourselves and our officials that they aren't leading us because of compassion and love. There is many advantages for them as they are providing for their oppressive natures its needs in power.
Let us then become bare-bone realistic and demand that our politicians say in when campaigning:
"I have the greatest thirst for exerting power on you. I can oppress you well, better than any other candidate oppressor. Vote for me!"
Some would rather eat mud than see their nationalistic, embellished and over-romanticized political structures reduced to what they are and should be. I will be like the mom though: preventing you from indulging in disadvantageous mud consumption and oppressing you to eat the beneficial broccoli.
If a local minor campaign poster makes you think of such things. You should really get more sleep.
Love and dedication,
LeBounce
6 comments:
LeBounce!!!
That took a lot of bullshit just to say that politicians are just trying to get the consent to oppress the citizens through their speech tactics.
I rather wanted to explore the 'bullshit' on our part as ruled.
For any oppressed is in part a contributor to the preservation of that relationship with the oppressor...
Don't you think we aught to also consider how we (mass consumers of politics, aka voters) push the system towards more and more disguise?
The disguise comes from a bunch of liars that know if they get up in front of your "consumers of politics", and say hey, "I'm not for any of the changes that you all wish to see, but am going to screw you all over." Now does that say that people voicing what they would like to see change in whatever situation forces the politicians to lie to get the votes. I don't feel that we as voters are causing politicians disguises. They are naturally persuasive and coniving people.
To think that politicians have developed as such completely on their own is irrational. Voters are keen of believing lies and do not like the sight of reality. When the propensity to demand lies is so high, then a supply of political corruption has to satisfy that demand.
That does not mean that their lies are justified. Far from that, I condemn it like any other lie.
On the other hand, focusing on the suppliers of lies (politicians) and ignoring the demand (from voters) is not effective. What I am saying is: When people would stop listening to life-is-cool political discourse, when they demand that the sad truths of their societies be exposed to them: that is when things would start happening.
As for your first comment I can see that I wasn't suppose to read this article after all.. However, now that I have read it I of course have an opinion that I would like to share about it.
You talk about the qualities that we as voters look for in a politician and how we, if I understood you right, tent to look for the wrong qualities in our leaders. You explain the beneficial part of oppression with the example of a mother 'oppressing' her child from eating mud. I would argue that this is more an act of nurture, leading the child in a direction beneficial for the child at a point where the child cannot understand the consequences of eating mud, nor the long term benefits of eating broccoli. I however do agree that being 'forced' to or deprived from doing things as citizens is not necessarily bad, although most voters have a hard time recognizing this. The truth of the matter is that most citizens, like the child, do not have the knowledge to understand what is best for them, but they all have an idea of what they think is good for them. Half understanding is much more dangerous than no understanding, and although democracy is praised as the most civilized way of governance I would argue that it takes a lot more than honestly and transparency to improve our choice of leaders. Social utopia is a complex topic and it's no wonder that we still haven't figured it out.. Maybe Plato was right?
Post a Comment