July 9, 2023

The two basic standards are by necessity di-polarized, each moving oppositely from the other. A one word description of each would be extractive and creative.

The extractive standard is based on the assumption that you get what you take. The creative standard is based on the assumption that what is good for self is what is good for all. "The good of all" is disgusting to the extractors, as it make extracting more difficult.

The extractors are working against the universe, which they interpret as enemies opposing them. They need a label for their enemies; and none can be appropriate, since the assumptions exist in their heads only.

During the 1950s through 80s, the label communism was used for enemies of extractors. When communism disappeared as relevant, a new label was searched for with nothing suitable being found. "Cancel culture" was tried, but it fit like a glove on the extractors, who by then were conservatives becoming fascists and moving toward Nazism.

Corrupters always speak in opposites, which means the label cancel culture was applied to them as a very fitting description; so as always, they tried to reverse the charge and apply it to their enemies. But it was like the Mafia accusing the cops of being criminals.

So "woke" is being tried as another label for the enemies of the extractors. Woke has no definitive meaning, as much as the history is investigated by opponents. What no one can miss is the alignment of woke upon the contempt for rationality of the extractors, who at this time are simply conservatives transformed into fascists.

Working against all odds, the conservative/extractors read like a book. Reagan was primarily oriented toward the promotion of the quasi-philosophy of extractors. He tried to teach what he considered to be the self-evident purpose of existence as extracting what you get and the foolishness of trying to use rationality as a methodology. He said, if you have to explain, you are already a loser. That means he assumed the purpose of existence is to be a winner and rationality is for fools.

Being a winner is how the extractors view power mongering. It takes power to impose corruption. But more basically, corrupters are obsessed with their personal problems due to their incompetence and corruptness. They are losers trying to turn reality around by being winners through corrupt means rather than being worth something. They assume, if they could prevail against others, it would solve their problems. They have to dominate to prevail, and they need power to dominate, as no one allows corrupters to dominate themselves.

For those reasons rationality becomes important in correcting the ravages of corruption. But the need to correct does not always produce much rationality, which is demanding in its requirements. So the persons on the other side of the extractors' impositions are aligned upon whatever methods they find usable in their attempts to survive the ravages of the extractors. They are always called liberals now days.

The liberals who take up the cause of "green" are basically closer to conservatives in their promotion of a destructive cause at the expense of the lower classes. But they also oppose the extractors, who are now identified as conservatives, simply because greens are victims of conservatives, generally as low class persons, while conservatives fight a war against the lower classes.

Green is supposedly a concern for the environment. But real environmentalism is not called green. The label green is only applied to absurd persons who ravage environments and resources due to their ignorance.

So there is a wide range of modes of operation for liberals; and anyone who tries to function constructively or correct the problems created by extractors is label a liberal by conservatives. When conservatives say journalists are liberals, they mean journalists are not on their side. Anyone who is not on the side of corrupters is at least accidentally creating problems for them, as corrupters are opposed to the universe.

The polarization between the two sides is getting extreme, as fascism has taken over society and is rapidly moving toward Nazism. The differences are highly visible in communication standards. Conservatives produce increasingly absurd irrationality trying to justify and promote a losing battle in turning corruption into success.

Truth has to be avoided while rationalizing corruption. That process doesn't look right. So there is an increasing trend of conservatives not caring whether they look right, as they promote absurdities which are well known to be falsehoods, such as the big lie that an election was stolen from Trump.

Liberalism went through a definitive process from 1950s to 1981, when the "Reagan revolution" put an end to functional liberalism. Before 1981, liberals were defining their purpose around social justice. Liberal politicians said their purpose was to create equal opportunities.

But in 1981, as conservatives took over the world, they scandalized liberals to such an extent that liberal politicians stopped calling themselves liberals. Gradually, throughout the 1980s, all liberal causes crumbled under the weight of the conservative revolution.

Conservatives acquired preposterous power through demagoguery. Demagoguery is the promotion of power, which looks to weak minded persons as the ability to make corruption successful. It brings incompetent corrupters to the surface and gives them a new source of power, which results in fascism. Fascism is the socialization of corruption.

Philosophically, extractors assume there is a fixed amount of everything and the only thing anyone has is what they extract from someone else. The opposite philosophy is that the only thing that exists is what someone creates. If something is needed, it needs to be created.

But extractors don't consciously draw those conclusions. They simple move in the direction that gets them where they want to be, and extractiveness does that.