Don’t Be Fooled by the Political Game: The Illusion of Freedom in America

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 8 months ago to Philosophy
41 comments | Share | Flag

For the last several weeks, I've gone through disappointment, disgust, disillusionment in what I've been seeing posted and member comments in GG. Many members have taken to posting so much that is irrelevant to Objectivism from 'Headline Aggregation', 'Pop Culture', and 'Conservative Political News Items', to intentionally anti-Objectivism topics. The results have been a transformation of the Gulch into a general, current affairs discussion site with fewer and fewer Objectivist topics and discussions and the few Objectivist commentary that actually get posted or generated either get ignored or hi-jacked back to the general, current affairs, political, and belief topics. There's been more and more support expressed for those that claim to admire the writings of AR and/or some of the ideas of Objectivism, but state that their beliefs on some issue or the other take precedence over the rational and logically reasoned thoughts of Objectivism, even to the point of reversing the Objectivist progress seen from some members prior, and now re-asserting the primacy of their beliefs.

Personally, I came to Galt's Gulch, attracted by finding a virtual Gulch populated by those that had begun to recognize the similarities to the dystopian world of AS, with escape to the literary Galt's Gulch, of the world we currently live in and offered that virtual Gulch for those of us that can't readily go Gulch in reality, but can discuss the concepts and virtual escape to a Galt's Gulch. Now today, I find myself more and more embroiled in the controversies and divisiveness of popular and political culture of the actual world, with relatively little Objectivist thought discussed or generated. The reason for the literary Gulch in AS was to provide seclusion and rest from the absurdity of the world as it collapsed and to provide an escape from the 'sanction of the victim' for producers that the world relied on to hasten the collapse. It was not to allow those with dissimilar viewpoints and belief systems to have a captive audience to spread their antithetical propaganda, arguments, and divisiveness to.

For myself, it's past time to begin calling out those members that are so non-Objectivist as to be involved in posting and commenting to cause dissension and express antithetical viewpoints to Objectivism without the willingness to discuss from the standpoint of principles and premises, how or why those viewpoints are more right than those of Objectivism, or those that just throw headline and pop culture posts for the purpose of accumulating points over content and value. There are issues in our society that are of interest to Objectivist and should be discussed, but GG is not Twitter.
------------------------------
Here is an excerpt from an article that exposes the conflict between the fact driven thinkers and those that prefer to live in a world of belief and hope.

From the Article: "It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.

Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).

As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).

Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion." (emphasis added)


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see no problem of sharing anyone's articles, politician or otherwise, if we are seeking the philosophies underlying or hidden within, or the effects on the practice of our philosophy.
    However, if it's to express support or participate in the cult of personality of politics, I see no value. And as long as we're simply posting headlines with no poster comments, I see even less value.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Now that's an interesting thought. Let's see:

    Politics (from wikipedia): Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people. More narrowly, it refers to_ achieving and exercising positions of governance_ — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. Furthermore, politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community (a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between communities.
    --------------
    While Philosophy (from wikipedia): Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language.[1][2][3] The Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophia) was probably coined by Pythagoras[4] and literally means "love of wisdom" or "friend of wisdom."[5][6][7][8][9] Philosophy has been divided into many sub-fields. It has been divided chronologically (e.g., ancient and modern); by topic (the major topics being epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics); and by style (e.g., analytic philosophy).

    As a method, philosophy is often distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its questioning, critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument
    -----------------------------------------
    So while I can agree that 'politics' is a fact of life and that_ influencing other people_ is in and of itself a neutral concept, the fact is that it's practice inevitably brings forth the more narrow 'achieving and exercising positions of governance' which inevitably leads to 'organized control over a human community', and as we see on a daily basis and in the history of our species, it then inevitably results in corruption, by it's very nature. It can be no other in it's human practice and result.

    On the other hand, I see philosophy in it's ideal and literal 'love of wisdom' or 'friend of wisdom'. But in the more general study of fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language as a human in this current environment, we see our society and governance actively attacking our studies and exercises of our philosophy. And as practitioners of a particular philosophy, Objectivism, we understand that the actual existence and practice of politics is antithetical to the essential principles of our chosen philosophy of life.

    In that I agree that the study of disease in order to understand and gain knowledge of how to protect and heal humanity in the face of that disease is of value to human existence, then it follows that gaining knowledge of politics, if that purpose is to gain knowledge of how to protect and heal humanity of that disease is also of value--the approach in the Gulch at this time is not of that nature in any way. It is instead, actual participation in and the practice of politics.

    That is antithetical to philosophy itself, and particularly to Objectivism. If we can somehow manage to convince members of that reality, and study the facts of the politics we witness without ourselves getting lured into the practice or support of politics, our involvement can then be seen as philosophical.

    Support of one side or the other, or one issue or the other, or any of the personalities involved *is not philosophy. It's continued enslavement*.

    edit: add emphasis
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hi K,

    I was mainly referring to some of the posts on religion, abortion, even some on politics. I agree that these issues are important. I've actually enjoyed and learned from many of them. But when clearly neither side is going to budge, the back and forth gets tiresome, increasingly animated, and then nasty. That's when I go looking to see if nsnelson has posted a new chapter from AS.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm actually in several fulfilling closed groups in FB with great objectivist discussions. The problem is-FB posts are fleeting and hard to find after the discussion occurs. there is no good way to archive the conversations.
    What kinds of posts in particular annoy you? It's not like we can say the issue of abortion is unimportant. [added sentence for clarity]
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 8 months ago
    Hi Zen,

    I understand your frustration with some of the commenters on the Gulch. My approach is different, however. Rather than "calling them out" which I've seen escalate into a never ending battle of posts, I just ignore them. I go looking for the topics that represent the reason I came to the Gulch, but am not on Facebook - well-reasoned discussion, minus the name-calling and empty, inflammatory rhetoric.

    For instance, one thing I have particularly enjoyed is the chapter by chapter discussion of AS put together by nsnelson. Those posts don't get nearly the traffic as some others, but I don't think I've seen any name-calling in any of them! :-) VG
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I guess I'm more tolerant of the political discussions. Like them in fact. and I'm as guilty or more than anyone on the site for posting political articles. I like people to be informed. It was only 25 years ago that we had Reagan and I think the 70s were worse, economically speaking. After all, we had interest rates of over 20% and had just come off of Nixon's price freezing. I don't agree that all candidates bow to the elite and until I feel my precinct is rigged, I will keep voting.
    OTOH, I think I'm pretty balanced in my posts and include as much philosophy as this crew is willing to absorb. This is an introductory site to Objectivism, and a unique forum for aggregating current events. Many like that. But vote away! If I lose a bunch of points for sharing a Rand Paul article, I can assure you, I'll stop sharing Paul articles :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would like to see a discussion of politics as philosophy, just not a rehash of what certain candidates said.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 8 months ago
    You touched a nerve, Zen. I have no interest in discussing politicians in the Gulch; what they say has no relationship to reality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 8 months ago
    And that's exactly why I will never vote again. To vote, knowing what I now know would be to give the sanction of the victim.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 8 months ago
    I have to agree with you, Zen, and it's why I haven't been commenting much lately. The Gulch should be a relief from the world in the sense that here we breathe the clean air of Objectivist thought and morality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 8 months ago
    Your post is a breath of fresh air, Zen...the first part. ;)

    I also thought this was a site where those interested in learning more about Objectivism could find interesting discussion from that perspective. Lately, that has been a small percentage of the content. I hope that changes.

    I can respect those with different views when they are here to learn or respect the stated purpose of the site—because spreading rational ideas may be the best way to resuscitate the value our votes once had.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo