September 14, 2022

Consensus is a force. A force is a corruption of reality in conflict with objective reality. Putting forces in conflict with realities is the essence of corruption.

Common reality is not the same thing as consensus in that objective realities determine common reality, while imposition of motives determine consensus through contrived reality.

Consensus is the substitute for rationality due to rationality being too demanding for incompetent corrupters. A feeling of security is one of the main reasons for promoting consensus. How could anyone go wrong in joining a consensus position? Can't be any worse off, huh?

In doing that—joining consensus as a substitute for rationality—there is a shift in standards from aligning upon objective reality properly, which is rationality, to exploitation of the purpose. The purpose for incompetent corrupters is always to be winners by prevailing.

Consensus is always falsehood, because truth makes consensus so irrelevant that it is not even recognized as consensus. In fact, consensus could be defined as agreeing upon falsehood. Otherwise, consensus is not involved in finding common reality in objective reality or truth. In other words, there is an artificial link involved in consensus; and no such link is produced when aligning upon truth through rationality. Taking a vote might be called consensus; but if it is, it is a vastly different process than relying upon consensus as a substitute for rationality.

The reason why fake science and technology prevailed is the assumption of consensus as rightness. That means persons who lack sufficient abstract knowledge turn to consensus for their version of truth. They will always be wrong doing that.

Consensus can only be the same as truth when the consensus is accidental and unnoticed, not when it is the determining factor. With subjects as mysterious and science and technology, truth has to be the determining factor. That means every question has to be tested by truth standards. Consensus is the quick fix; and there are no quick fixes for the demands of science and technology.

Consensus is so automatic with ignorance that it takes form around the motives which large numbers of persons have in common. Imagining solutions is a common motive which aligns consensus around fakery for science and technology.

It's the same problem as QAnon. The fascist know much of what they say is false; but the falsehoods get them where they want to be, which makes falsehoods truth-equivalents. Fake science and technology took form just as QAnon. The fakery allowed ignorant persons to pretend that they had quick fixes for their problems.

The truth test is irrelevant to the fascists, which is why the fascism keeps increasing. The truth test is too demanding, while the fakery is a quick fix. What is being missed is that the quick fix of fakery only works while there are exploits; and the exploits only exist until the incompetents have them destroyed.

What QAnon shows is that the truth test is not difficult to produce; but it is unacceptable to corrupters. The truth test is simply showing the surrounding realities and how they fit together. There are always more than enough critics to show how the realities fit together. But doing that creates demands upon ignorant persons, where the quick fix of fakery takes care of everything—that is, as long as there are exploits to do the fixing.

Pre-existing energy systems and transportation were the exploits to ride upon while replacing them with imagined absurdities. The absurdities hit a wall of impossibilities long ago, while the fakery becomes more and more relied upon and the exploits of real energy and transportation disintegrate.

Corrupters assume the truth test to be unreliable, when consensus gets them where they want to be. Truth creates demands for knowledge and solutions to problems, while consensus flows with the motives of corrupters which are aligned upon prevailing.

Corruption starts with the assumption that to prevailing will solve problems. But the only thing prevailing does is make corrupters winners. Being winners replaces rationality for corrupters.

Corruption could be defined as using winning instead of truth as the test for rightness. Destructivity creates winners, where difficult demands are created by aligning upon truth through rationality. The easy route is assumed to be the correct route to corrupters.

Consensus is how destructivity is rationalized. How could all those winners be wrong? How could they be right?