IMPETUS:
"I feel sometimes when a set of beliefs or ideologies take root in a society, the opposition loses its voice, and struggles to exist, especially when it comes to politics . The party with the louder voice and deeper pockets can direct what is shared with the masses, and in doing so, is able to condition minds. You see it enough, you start believing it." The aforementioned, from a previous conversation, inspired the following:
MUSINGS:
In some cases the
opposition arises due to an ideology, only to undermine and displace it
or to exhaust itself in its efforts to do so. In other instances they
merge, and in others still, they collide - annihilating each other -
making room for new emergent standards to spring forth in their stead.
There always seems to be a struggle between "what ought to be" and "what
ought to be."
So, is what's taking roots the adversary or is what's resisting them - that is to say, the agent of change or its "opposition"? Don't both parties act out from a place of perceived necessity? How are either all that different from one another? They are equally unwavering on their terms as they are flexible. Both have been aggressor and defender towards one another. They feed off of and oppose one another. While they may have some things in common both seem in disapproval of and threatened by the other's presence. It's everyone feeling pressured from their (and one another's) life situations; situations presumed outside of their control. It's your being, my being, and their being all constantly brushing past, narrowly missing, rubbing up against, and colliding into each other. It's an ongoing exchange. Those pressures are real. We react to those pressures with varying degrees of firmness and pliability - we must. If one becomes too rigid or strictly convicted to a behavior, ideal, or principle - ignoring or unaware that it is in their human nature to adapt & explore - they will collapse under the dynamic pressure of life. If one becomes too pliant or loosely convicted - also forgetting their adaptability and inclination to explore - they will similarly collapse under pressure. We spend our lives contributing to the pressure, either naturally so or as modeled. What you've described is an example of how this behavior is made to benefit politics, which is just one, albeit a very influential, area of our lives.
So, is what's taking roots the adversary or is what's resisting them - that is to say, the agent of change or its "opposition"? Don't both parties act out from a place of perceived necessity? How are either all that different from one another? They are equally unwavering on their terms as they are flexible. Both have been aggressor and defender towards one another. They feed off of and oppose one another. While they may have some things in common both seem in disapproval of and threatened by the other's presence. It's everyone feeling pressured from their (and one another's) life situations; situations presumed outside of their control. It's your being, my being, and their being all constantly brushing past, narrowly missing, rubbing up against, and colliding into each other. It's an ongoing exchange. Those pressures are real. We react to those pressures with varying degrees of firmness and pliability - we must. If one becomes too rigid or strictly convicted to a behavior, ideal, or principle - ignoring or unaware that it is in their human nature to adapt & explore - they will collapse under the dynamic pressure of life. If one becomes too pliant or loosely convicted - also forgetting their adaptability and inclination to explore - they will similarly collapse under pressure. We spend our lives contributing to the pressure, either naturally so or as modeled. What you've described is an example of how this behavior is made to benefit politics, which is just one, albeit a very influential, area of our lives.