Defaming as Political Activist's Method

Common citizen has no close relationship with politicians. This is good luck because it gives him the opportunity to keep within public subjects, since when he talks about the personals of politicians, he does not take it seriously the way he does not when his imaginations create conspiracy theories. Yet, it is luring to get acquainted with the private politicians, the private of its representatives, with their back. They're his loving shit, even dear in hate.

Power in this regard becomes what is commonly called political activist. He who seeks and works for seemingly social change and invisibility returns to his sense - seeking habitat. It's in this invisibility that the big betrayal of change, overlap or any cause they want to push forward. Within the private spaces, which make up the most natural environment for him - habitat, he makes his action more natural - to be used from the habitat, the politician, again inside or in other words, returns to habitat, or even to others, slanders his native side and condemns it through his closeness with politicians.

The ordinary citizen, the animal in the habitat, feels incredible pain for animals that represent him outside that environment. And as mediamen, as long as it can, it uses activists, but it also uses the media. A private relative of a politician is more curious than any other public topic, thus making the media a corrupt, showy field. All of this has to do with the great demand that I observe his features in those who represent him in so - called public artificial environments.

Citizens are not taken seriously when talking about the personals of politicians, while activists do, the cause of their closeness. Someone can expect the opposite. So for citizens to be engaged in slandering the personals of politicians, and activists to deal with public affairs. But the opposite is true. What happened in the Vetevendosje movement testifies to that. All those different activists, who do not necessarily relate to political parties, make up another witness to this. They serve as printers who terrorize those who have dared to come out of the cave, those who have dared to behave themselves differently from the behavior done in the habitat. So there are so many slanders, so many words operating through the values of habitat [here, I believe you understand that the term in question is beyond its usual definition, in a sense, epistemic, comfort space] that serves as teeth for eating and drowning. This is a phenomenon, not an isolated act.

Sexual harassment, suspicions about secret service agents, traitors, and things like that were exposed. These were exposed to exactly by activists. Their statistics on the social Facebook network can be seen as epigraphs of numerous words that are naturally spoken in narrow private spaces, where they conduct habitat - related exchange. Defaming as an element of political activism in Kosovo has been known without becoming public. There were various public secrets that shaped what we know as a political scene. The habitat prompted the political activist to overlap his personal interest in the public, and recorded his method that should capture exactly personal rather than public. Man had to be attacked, not the values he believed in, not the disk that moved him. It had to be examined by his habitat, his game with those primitive moral values that they supposedly fought. One might say that this is hypocrisy. I'm just calling it a necessity. Something purposeless that does not originate with the very essence of certain individuals.

Kosovo is in a transitional phase, and this leads to a repurchasing of the society scheme. We're dealing with a changing production scheme where production tools are in the grip. And therefore all this concern and not resistance to the system, to the ruling class, or to the international project, but to each other as timer. This has not only caused public space to be misused, public administration, public universities, in one word every public institutionBut to misuse the public sphere of debate, criticism, and response to the situation. So misuse of activism too. This too became a designated transit shelter to catch a better place in the social scheme. And that's why there's no activism égrassroott in Kosovo, and on the other hand, numerous betrayals occur from journalists, opinionists, activists who abandoned causes for political and other parties and others. Thus, in a certain form, this form of commitment was privatized. And the consequences of this privatisation, with which the owner became social illiteracy, are widespread. And that's what social illiteracy today is what makes it a reputation for public television, the public university of the education ministry where it's written with spelling errors, even to criticism of this. This social illiteracy has described the form of engaging activists through moral standards that many of them would have to fight.

Take feminists as an example. Various women who pursue an emancipated society regarding their wife's position use the same method and prejudice. Other women are labeled and reviled often in reference to patriarchal values that they would have to fight. Returning to the habitat, where he feels comfortable, is re-determined by such valuable maneuvers. They understand, of course, that it should not be fought merely patriarchal morality, but also the traditional method through which it was distributed, slandering, but not having enough heels to do so. A soul used to comfort, I can't do anything like that.

The inability to live without habitat, discomfort, and abusive speech, in excommunication, causes political activism, like liberal values, to be swallowed up simply and used simply to take the best position in the habitat. Without great souls, who are very much born [Nietzsche] believes that only through a single nation] there can be no change. And here's what we're talking about is useless things about eating and corruption, and visa liberalisation.

How does the epistemic change take place? What should we do? It's a case put out by the Foucault, and for which political philosophy still has no answer. So let us not become angry.