May 19, 2021

Conservatives do not make valid arguments. They would lose if they did, because there is no justification in their position of making themselves arbitrary dictators over other peoples' lives.

Conservatives make "asymmetrical" arguments. They can only win arguments by making it impossible for opponents to win.

Instead of developing realities, conservatives invalidate the other side. Opponents are supposed to be unworthy of representing a subject, while conservatives are the rightful representatives of realities due to their superior values and purposes.

Conservatives do that by contriving concepts of worthiness. Their superior worthiness is supposed to be the test of who is right and who is wrong. Conservatives are so worthy that their purposes cannot be questioned, and their opponents are so unworthy that they cannot be allowed to prevail.

Conservatives always win the worthiness argument, because there is not a reality element to it. It is a power mongering tactic, not a reality development tactic.

As a power mongering tactic, worthiness aggregates the support of like-minded corrupters around the purpose. The power of numbers prevailing is the only political tactic that puts conservatives in power.

Worthiness is promoted through sloganeering and attacking. Values are promoted to indicate worthiness, such as family values, law and order, lowering taxes, deficit reduction, etc. Those purposes are supposed to create a greater worthiness, while the slogans are used to reverse the truth of the corruption.

At the same time, opponents are stripped of worthiness through accusations, such as tax-and-spend and cancel culture. Conservatives spend and then tax. After squandering money on tax give-aways to corporations, increased taxes have to pay for it. The attempts to eliminate all opposition cancel everyone but themselves.

Conservatives contrive worthiness to counter the truth of their corruptness. The fake worthiness is exaggerated as a force opposing truth.

But the subjectivity of worthiness is not a valid method of argument. Human existence is supposed to be based upon the objective realities that solve problems. Worthiness is not supposed to be relevant to discussions. Worthiness is supposed to show up in the results, not in the claims imposed through argument.

The communication process is supposed to be a method of handling realities, but conservatives do not communicate that way. They do not allow realities to be developed, because truth exposes their corruptness.

What are words without realities? Corrupters use words as weapons, such as accusations and lies, in their war against ordered existence. It's not a valid process. Conservatives corrupt the process of promoting their corruptions.

The present turmoil being created by Trump followers, who claim Trump got elected, lie about the election results and demand voter suppression as the solution, shows that the conflict is not about the realities. What is the underlying force, when realities are so irrelevant that lying becomes a virtue? It's a personalization of relevance.

The personalization of relevance says, we must prevail, because we are more worthy. No realities can change that fact. The subjectivity of being worthy is more important than the objective realities which define existence. Subjectivity replaces objective reality.

Corruption is a conflict with reality. What replaces reality? Subjectivity is the alternative. The person is supposedly above the realities. Only then does lying become a virtue. Lying negates the realities, so the persons can prevail.

This standard always does underly corruption, but it usually so concealed that it is not recognized. It shows up in the framing of conflicts in terms of "us vs them." When "us" must prevail over "them," realities are being shoved aside in attempting to prevail subjectively as more worthy persons.

The subjectivity of worthiness prevailing over objective reality is always at the basis of corruption. It seems unusual when it comes to the surface and demands lawlessness in government, but it is always there defining the nature of corruption.

Why then do corrupters consider themselves more worthy than rational and constructive persons? There is a line of pseudo-logic that does that. First corrupters assume they are being dealt with unfairly by rational persons who constantly oppose what they do. Corruption and criminality are supposed to be opposed. Such standards disrupt and destroy constructive and ordered existence. But what if the corruption is assumed to be virtue? Then the rational and constructive world is opposed to virtue.

With that logic, corrupters assume their opponents are corrupt for attacking the virtuousness of the corrupters. And abracadabra, corrupters become more worthy than rational and constructive persons and the realities which contradict the assumptions of corrupters.