June 30, 2023

The logic of corrupters is jumping off the pages, not only as extremism but also as non sequiturs. There could hypothetically be examples of the wrongs that conservatives are harping on; but there is no excuse for non sequiturs. Non sequiturs are claims that don't fit the argument.

Corrupters need to produce non sequiturs in their arguments, because proper relationships expose the truth which condemns them. In trying to argue around condemning truth, they end up with non sequiturs.

One of the primary examples is the claim that Congress must correct the Department of Justice in investigating criminality by the enemies of conservatives. Congress is not in the business of investigating crimes. It is a misapplication of designated authority for them to do so. It takes a whole different process to investigate crimes than Congress is designed to do. Not knowing that is astounding corruption of governmental processes.

Congress investigates social problems for the purpose of writing laws. The Department of Justice investigates crimes. The two processes are on different planets. Congressional investigations are largely open to the public and highly generalized. Criminal investigations must be kept under wraps, until conclusions can be drawn.

Similarly, the claims of conservatives are totally disconnected from laws, as if laws didn't exist. Conservatives in Congress are trying to impeach Biden in retaliation for the impeachments of Trump. Retaliation is not a valid basis for impeachment. There were very serious laws broken by Trump in his attempt to maintain totalitarian control over government by defying campaign laws designed to protect democracy from such results. Conservatives saw no such laws and assume impeachment is nothing but a political weapon.

The arguments of conservatives are similarly disconnected from concerns and related logic. In other words, conservatives don't argue the same issues that everyone else is arguing. They take opposing positions based upon irrelevancies. Conservatives on the Supreme Court decided that voting laws no longer need to be watched to prevent such abuses as gerrymandering or the numerous other methods of preventing the lower classes from voting, as if racism is so trivial that the recent versions of Jim Crow laws designed to prevent the lower classes from voting were irrelevant. But now they are telling universities how they must determine who to accept—but only in regard to race, since everything about university purposes is beyond the analysis of the courts—as if the make-up of universities were more relevant to law than preserving democracy.

The logic is made up of strings of non sequiturs in basing race upon the purpose of universities, while there are no relationships between race and the purposes of universities. The affirmative action law was not about the purpose of universities, which no philosophers can define, but about social inequities being corrected in the result. Everyone benefits from a more pluralized society than the white racists have been producing; and some enforcement of laws where opportunities are created attempted to partially correct the problem.

So trying to argue racism in terms of the purposes of universities creates a bunch of non sequiturs. The arguments don't follow the realities. The arguments are supposed to be about social results, not how knowledge is taught.

But the reason why knowledge was implied is because conservatives have forever been complaining about misfits replacing them in university admissions due to affirmative action. Their complaint was inappropriate and should never have prevailed without a lot more realistic evaluation of the frauds involved. No one could be misfits more than conservatives; but conservatives base their worth on fraud.

Those arguments have been made in the past but they were ignored when throwing out affirmative action. The primary argument that has been occurring at the social level is that grades are not a proper representation of qualifications for many reasons. The primary reason that was mentioned in the past is that oppression of minorities robs them of equal education which does not properly represent qualifications. This argument goes way beyond poor schools, as some universities are abandoning grades, at least in looking at acceptance, for all applicants, not just minority races.

My criticisms go much farther in showing mathematical proof that the achievers are often totally incompetent criminals mongering power through fraud. Grades in education are how they get there. Their grades are a fraud. The frauds learn word salad and then align education on memorization of word salad instead of the abstract evaluation that knowledge consists of.

What conservatives are showing is that they don't have a clue what laws are, why they exist or how to follow them. All they do is promote their motives as supposedly the only purpose in existence.

The recent reversal of laws by the Supreme Court was not based on a re-interpretation of laws but a defiance of the standard of laws being relevant. The change in social and governmental standards is worse than the racism of the Supreme Court justices; it is the institutionalization of defiance of laws, logic and rationality as a major element of the fascism that took over the social order. It is the undoing of five thousand years of evolution of social standards which require a government of laws to protect against corruption and human decadence—a reversal of human existence to a degree of primitiveness devoid of any protections from human degradation.