Truth and Marketability

in #money6 years ago (edited)

phad-pichetbovornkul-269226.jpg

During my relatively short time on this planet I've come to realize truth is a never ending search, this should be obvious to anyone who engages in a life of ideas; but a challenging realization is that truth, down to its the root fibers, is not the most marketable thing in existence and more importantly, one should not expect a mass appeal toward it. You could say this is condition of naiveness or on the opposite end a typical cynical outlook. I would accept this judgment, though for the sake of common sense, look around, how many things which seem rather obvious even to a child, are neglected for the sake of some agenda?

This issue becomes quite apparent when you dive into something your curiosity has pulled you into and you notice that the deeper you go, the more true sources are harder to be found eventually becoming obscure to the point you start questioning how viable something is. It almost seems like this is done on purpose as it's often the case that there are people who benefit from keeping the truth mysterious; so they essentially pull you in half way, enough to satisfy your cravings, yet keep a veil of reality masked and unrevealed in order prevent further questioning. Conspiracy theorists call this "controlled opposition", though I just think these people are too aware of human psychology that they stop half-way as the masses start to become uncomfortable and suspect with the raw truth. If they continued to go the deep end, they would realize much of their audience would disappear costing profits and overall marketability.

As a child, my curiosity drove me to survey the subject of political organization a bit further than what I was conditioned to know from my time in indoctrination camps, so one day I picked up a book by the "godfather" of politics—Machiavelli's, The Prince. Here we have a writer who lays the raw truth of statecraft in straightforward plain speech; it has nothing to do with individual autonomy and freedom, instead it's all about what a prince must do in order to maintain power and keep his constituents in control. I remember not thinking much of it at the time, something akin to a how-to manual for politicians and I had better things to occupy myself then. Reading this book being so young and inexperienced left a mark that became evident only when I took this subject seriously later on.

It would became obvious to me that the game of politics and statecraft was a facade, something tasteless and for people who have nothing better to do with their lives, the whole thing was crooked down to its core. To my surprise I found out that freedom-oriented political theorists, teachers, moralists, and journalists ignore this truth and never get to the bottom of how and why the State is the enemy of society. Freedom isn't the most marketable thing, at least in its true sense, utilitarians and those looking to make a buck are better off stopping half-way before driving people away with the realness. I'm sure other subjects are the same, as a rule of thumb, if a niche is very popularized you can bet truth is being masked to get returns from a broader target audience, just take a look at health and diet.

img src

Sort:  

what I was conditioned to know from my time in indoctrination camps

I'm a rather new follower, so I haven't read much of your previous writings. Can you elaborate on these indoctrination camps?

Thanks for reading!

Indoctrination camps are public or government-run schools, sort of a rhetorical saying. Check out these posts where I go into more depth about this:

The Educational Caste System
How Training Became Disguised as Education
Why Not Self-Education?

From your texts it is easy to see you are an american. Your whole view towards state seems to be just view about two-party system.

Not sure what you mean? My definition of the State comes from Max Weber and Franz Oppenheimer, two Germans; and they referred to the State as the group that has a territorial monopoly on violence. I didn't mention anything about a two party system? I believe all political parties are inherently corrupt.

Why I said that is because I find that your view towards state comes from applying your readings to your real life experiance from USA. Problem is that people in USA have lived very isolated for a long time, and I believe that you are a victim of this isolation too. It is maybe few years ago that I saw in the news that americans have started to buy foreign books (thriller, fantasy, etc...).

"and they referred to the State as the group that has a territorial monopoly on violence." Is territorial monopoly of violence in it self bad? I would't personally call state as "group", but I can't make up a clear definition at this moment, as I have been tired and little frustrated lately.

Why I said that is because I find that your view towards state comes from applying your readings to your real life experiance from USA. Problem is that people in USA have lived very isolated for a long time, and I believe that you are a victim of this isolation too. It is maybe few years ago that I saw in the news that americans have started to buy foreign books (thriller, fantasy, etc...).

Well the USA started out as supposedly the smallest State and became the new Rome. I've experienced how much a strong State sucks out the marrow of society and people in the US have become the most brainwashed people on earth. So my experience has been beneficial in that regard.

Also, I've traveled to several countries in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and lived in Brazil for years. I don't have the narrow minded view you associate with most Americans, which I know is true for many of them. Though I've observed this just isn't Americans, some of the more developed Europeans and Asians I've met are pretty clueless about the other parts of the world and still use archaic cold-war terminology(Third world, the West, etc).

"and they referred to the State as the group that has a territorial monopoly on violence." Is territorial monopoly of violence in it self bad? I would't personally call state as "group", but I can't make up a clear definition at this moment, as I have been tired and little frustrated lately.

Of course, why should anybody or group have the power over others?

Others are just ideas/idea in your head. When you get a good idea, why should it have power over you? Why should your brains, a group of brain cells, have power over your arms? I see it "naturalI" (not wild nature natural) that more intelligent has power over others in similiar way as your brains have power over your body. I do agree that there is no "absolute power" in object and giving an object absolute power is "heresy", as it is denying "infinite process".

Upvoted ☝ Have a great day!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.27
TRX 0.11
JST 0.031
BTC 67341.94
ETH 3779.34
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.69