July 27, 2022

The conservative cause took form during the late 1950s and early 60s, as incompetent corrupters saw an exploitable value in the word "conservative" and some motion in that direction. The word conservative struck them as meaning rip off, so they could pretend there was some virtue in ripping off the lower classes for the fake purpose of conserving something.

That's because destructivity is always rationalized as a fix for something. Conserving is the claimed fix for economic destructivity.

Incompetent corrupters are trying to get everyone else below their own feet; and they need someone to dominate to make themselves winners. So they start with the most vulnerable persons to dominate, and their obnoxiousness is focussed on a war against the lower classes.

Conservatives transitioned from cheap words to fascism, as their fake purposes resulted in a breakdown of the social order. Dismantling ordered existence always was the motive behind the fakery of conservatives.

When Reagan said government is the problem, he assumed absence of government would be an improvement, as if replacing government with chaos would solve problems. Getting the government off their backs was a primary concern of Reaganites. Throwing out laws as so-called deregulation was the starting point of that process.

The assumption of conservatives is that the absence of social structures, ordered existence and rationality is the answer to everything. When it doesn't work, they blame the liberals. They shoved the lower classes out of the economy and then said the resulting crime was created by liberals.

Dominating the streets with military force was how Trump wanted to fix the problem. That's because he intended to nullify the election which he was sure to lose (15% behind by most polls) by declaring martial law and using the resulting chaos as a pretext for staying in power—a process used many times by totalitarian dictators.

The conservative cause began in an invisible way and then became visible with Reaganism in 1981. Before Reagan, liberals were in complete control of government and the word conservative was barely spoken. Nixon did not even call himself a conservative. He got elected in 1968 by claiming to end the Vietnam War, which he increased after getting elected. Reagan campaigned as a liberal in 1980. He said he did more for education in California than anyone and was going to do more of that in Washington.

It was only in 1981, after Reagan got elected, that conservatives came out of the woodwork and openly promoted the conservative cause. From the beginning, the purpose was to change values to produce a "new normal" by getting rid of 80 years of liberalism gone awry. Apparently, the 80 years was referring to getting rid of numerous banking laws that were written in response to the "Robber Barons" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

So-called deregulation was the central focus of Reaganism. Deregulation meant throwing out the laws designed to prevent corruption in banking, environmentalism, utilities and transportation. It took 20 years to get rid of those laws.

Without those laws, government became nonfunctional for its original purpose of making large-scale social activities work properly. Rational persons need laws and social structures for defining and stabilizing procedures for solving problems. And that is what conservatives could not tolerate. They needed chaos and criminality to get their way.

Freedom was a central theme of conservatives during Reagan years and still is. What conservatives mean by freedom is no laws or social structures getting in their way. Chaos is what that state would usually be called. Chaos is what conservatives mean by freedom.

The reason is that the conservative cause is where corrupters go to escape from the impositions of laws and demands of social structures. Corrupters view ordered existence as oppressive in creating requirements which expose them as the incompetent corrupters that they are. They need to lie about their worth and methods to be the dominating persons that they want to be.

During the Reagan years, conservatives were more timid than now, since there was still a lot of residual liberalism being imposed upon them. They have since shed such impositions and are now vastly more obnoxious in their attempts to overthrow traditional government and institutions.

The most extreme conservatives now terrorize because they can. It's what they were always trying to do but were not succeeding, that is, until Trump gave them the green light and protection that they needed.

Trump attempted to maximize street violence as a method of breaking down the social order while of course speaking in opposite terms. He wanted the military to take over the streets, but the military refused to do so. And of course there was very little violence as a result. Trump implored the federal and local authorities on the streets to dominate. Dominate what? Peaceful protests to turn them into a social problem that would never end. That's what domination is. It's the basis of all corruption.

Corrupters assume that, if they can prevail against others, it will solve their problems. To prevail against other persons is to dominate. To succeed is to be a winner, which is Trump's preoccupation.

Domination is the use of force to degrade. Force is defined as a conflict with realities. Dominating winners are trying to replace the realities which define life and solve problems with overwhelming force which makes them winners instead of the incompetent losers that they are.

Conservatives blame liberals or Democrats for their increasing problems. Liberals or Democrats no longer have the tools to work with that they need in solving problems through laws and social structures. They can't solve the problems of incompetent corrupters through the chaos and terrorism that corrupters demand as the solution to their problems.
 
Incoherence As A Tactic

Conservatives use incoherent communication as a tactic in degrading opponents and getting their way. Incoherence is approximately the opposite of rationality. Rationality is making relationships between realities; incoherence is disconnecting statements from related realities.

The mechanism is systematic. First a truism is stated to show the infallibility and noble purpose. The problem is, the statement has nothing to do with the subject matter. With no clarification, several additional irrelevant statements will be made, each getting more accusatory without explanations.

The systematic incoherence is a list of justifications and grievances with no relationship to the purpose. Opponents are always being attacked as the purpose of corrupters; so the irrelevancies carry the implication that opponents are on the wrong side of those issues, while absence of explanations leaves nothing but implications.

Corrupters do not make relationships between realities. Relationships between realities are abstract. It takes developed awareness of a lot of complex realities to determine what the relationships are.

At the origin of corruption there is a lack of knowledge of realities sufficient for purposes. Without that knowledge, abstractions including relationships between realities cannot be evaluated. In other words, corruption is taking up purposes without adequate knowledge to produce the required rationality and related abstract evaluations.

So instead of trying to pretend otherwise and failing, conservatives promote incoherence as a tool for prevailing. They need incoherence to prevent rationality from exposing them as the corrupters that they are.

Disconnected realities are used to imply something which is absurd, which includes accusations against opponents. No one can prove anything about the statements, when there is no meaning without connections between realities. It's then the context and purpose which leave no other conclusion than the implications which are not stated.

The only reason for mentioning such nonsense is because it characterizes the conservative ticket to success. They railroad the social order and get elected doing that.

An example is the claim before every election that conservatives reduce crime and liberals promote crime. Based on what? Nothing but the claim. Conservatives promote crime by destroying the lower classes. Liberals have a long history of increasing spending on police forces, while conservatives oppose the increase and often undo the result later. That means the claim of conservatives is the opposite of the truth. Extreme disconnect from reality is needed to promote the opposite of the truth.