October 4, 2021

It doesn't take brain one to promote a cause. Doing something rational and constructive is not promoting a cause. Even if there is a purpose, rationality is not a cause.

The problem with causes is that they don't allow people to decide for themselves. In fact, the purpose of a cause is to do someone else's deciding for them. Otherwise, it would be rationality instead of a cause.

All fakeries and frauds are promoted as causes. Fake science and technology would not exist if they weren't forced onto society as causes. When the carbon dioxide cause began, everyone knew there wasn't good evidence for the concern. But the promoters of the cause said, we can't wait for better evidence; it's better to err on the side of caution and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Along with the cause of removing carbon dioxide from the air, no criticism was allowed. After twenty years of constantly increased harping, a lot of persons never knew of any other state than carbon dioxide threatening the existence of planet Earth. The result was a fake consensus. Consensus was then used as the source of truth.

Of course journalists were the deciders for everyone else, since they were the primary controllers of reality for society. The concept of carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere existed in the background of science for 150 years, while real scientists kept the errors in their place. But during the 1970s, deterioration of science and social standards allowed the erroneous assumptions to be promoted and imposed without criticism.

Now days, journalists are seldom doing anything but promoting causes. They twist logic with no regard for contradictions. They will state a wide variety of concepts, often as quotes, and then state a conclusion in conflict with half of what they just said.

They also embellish the concepts as they state them. They pick up vagaries and generalizations and then state them as absolute certainties, sometimes with made up numbers.

In doing that, the promoters of causes operate by the principle that they have truth on their side, so embellishing and exaggerating is doing a good thing in advancing the cause.

Along with that lack of standards of rationality is assumingness. The degree of assumingness in the area of science is stunning. The first bit of erroneous science ignorant persons pick up, they assume they have the science all figured out; and nothing stands in their way of promoting it beyond that point.

There is no possibility of getting science right at the standards journalists are now operating. But know-nothings assume there is no such thing as incorrect science; there is just science and lawless opponents.

That method of operating is how corruption works at all levels. It is assuming that right flows out from self being aligned upon one's own motives. Correctness is assumed to be that which promotes one's own motives. Truth is irrelevant, if it conflicts with one's motives. Over time, what truth should be transforms into what truth is, as corrupters convince themselves that their lies and errors are truth.

Science does that to persons with low standards due to the complexity and obscurity of science. It does that most extremely to incompetent scientists. They surround themselves with rationalized fakery so intensely that they are the most convinced that errors are facts.

Relativity is a mockery of every element of scientific concepts; but it is imposed so dogmatically that incompetent physicists assume it is the highest standard of science.

The Sociology Of Causes

Corruption starts as a power mongering tool. At some point, a sociology for corruption changes from a power mongering tool to a set of assumptions.

A fake greenhouse effect is now days promoted as a set of assumptions by persons who have no concept of its origins as a power mongering corruption. At this point, the concern is a combination of all possible motives.

The conservatives who oppose the global warming concept are aligned upon a cause with no basis in scientific reality. Conservative scientists say the science behind greenhouse gases is flawless perfection, but global warming is not being caused by carbon dioxide because of the effects of clouds. The science couldn't be a bigger fraud.

The questionability of the science was so obvious twenty years ago that everyone questioned the science. No one does now days. Nothing has change in the science since the late 1990s; only the social assumptions have changed.

The basic principle shaping social realities appears to reduce to the assumption that all those persons couldn't be wrong, which means the test of time determines the truth. No fact or proof is relevant in that result.

One reason why the test of time immunizes fraud from evidence is that rational persons get shoved out of the process over time. How that occurred with global warming has been thoroughly documented. Real scientists lost grants, the ability to publish and sometimes their jobs for trying to produce real science.

The result looks exactly the same for QAnon, white nationalism, anti-science medicine and endless frauds coming off social media. It says persons who do not understand a subject look to like-minded persons for reality and no evidence is relevant to the conclusions. In other words, persons who do not understand the complexities of a subject do not trust evidence no matter how irrefutable.

The reason why that result is a corruption rather than a normalcy is because people have a responsibility for everything they promote including their words. If they do not understand something, they have a responsibility to either find out or not promote or say what is wrong or corrupt.

But instead of meeting that responsibility, corruption gets promoted. That problem keeps getting worse as social complexities increase. In part, it's because people get overwhelmed. And in part, it's because rational persons get shoved more thoroughly out of the social order as power mongers take over everything.

Fake technology is more obvious than fake science, as people see and use technology. But the whole concepts of renewable energy and electric vehicles are preposterous. A large group of persons who should know better assume those frauds will solve social problems.

It's extremely obvious that renewables and electric vehicles are too ineffective and limited. But the assumption is that engineers must have that figured out. The real ones had it figured out decades ago; but they were shoved aside.

It shows that when unaware persons see something wrong, they don't trust their own judgement, when sources say otherwise. Learning to find out when something doesn't look right is not an easy habit to acquire. Most persons don't know where to look. But if they learned to look all the time, they would know where to look.

That's why Christ said to look and listen to acquiring understanding and judge for yourselves what is right. He was saying people would be overwhelmed by frauds, if they didn't acquire the necessary information to find out for themselves.

The Conflict With Objective Reality

There are no conflicts over the nature of objective reality. Questions over the nature of objective reality are resolved so easily that they are not noticed.

All conflicts are disconnected from objective reality. Either both sides are disconnected from objective reality or one side is disconnected and the other side is aligning upon objective reality.

In other words, it is the conflict with objective reality that creates disputes, not disagreement over the make-up of objective reality. Such conflicts are not resolvable through rationality. In fact, the conflict with objective reality is also an opposition to rationality, which makes rationality appear futile in immediate terms.

So then what? If rationality becomes irrelevant, what next? What we are seeing in social disintegration is what occurs when conflicts with objective reality exist. Why then criticize? Because truth can increase whether anyone wants it to or not. Truth is the only force corrupters cannot defeat.

Truth increases through all interactions of realities. In doing so, not many problems are solved very rapidly. But everything that exists is based on objective reality. It was five thousand years of evolution of truth that made a modern, complex society possible. So increasing truth is still relevant, even when the results are not visible.

Persons who are trying to promote a position in conflict with objective reality are not aware of the difference. They slide into a conflict with objective reality as a convenience without realizing the significance. It's of the nature of all corruption that a lack of awareness is required. Awareness ends all corruption.

The mindlessness makes corrupters very dogmatic. They assume opposition to their concerns are unjustifiable or detrimental to their interests, and they aren't going to allow it. That reaction is not of part of rationality including real criticism. It's only a property of corruption with its dependence upon unawareness.

A dogmatic position imposed with a lot of force is dependent upon a lack of awareness of the conflict with objective reality. Anyone who is not in conflict with objective reality relies upon objective reality, which requires rationality instead of force being imposed.

What this means is that the fake science and technology being imposed upon society has become so dogmatic that the question of what objective reality is is no longer relevant to the concerns. Prevailing has become the only concern. The more truth that gets in the way, the more dogmatic the impositions.

Twenty years ago, there was an attempt to discuss issues on global warming and renewable energy. Those days are long gone. No issues are mentioned now days. Claims are imposed rather than discussed. In fact, persons who know nothing of science impose ridiculous claims about science assuming they could not possibly be wrong, because the issues have been settled.

It was only about five years ago that scientists were saying the drought in California is not caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is nothing in the realm of science that would allow carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to produce such a drought. The California drought is no different than the dirty thirties, where high pressure air masses park over an area, while carbon dioxide has no ability to cause a high pressure air mass to park someplace.

But the science was bulldozed over so thoroughly that nonscientists now rattle off a list of unquestionable claims of what carbon dioxide is doing including all weather problems. Why would they know a thing about the science, when they have never studied an iota of science? Or if they assume they have the science all figured out, why aren't they telling us what the science is instead of rattling off a list of absurdities?