 |
|
 |
September, 2019 There are several groups called liberals; but only one group properly meets the evolved definition of liberalism. When liberals were in control of Congress during the 1960s and 70s, they defined liberalism as "promoting equal opportunities." That concept of liberalism evolved, as liberal publications hashed out the concerns of liberals and aligned the purposes upon producing social justice for all in the economy and the courts. The so-called liberal groups that don't meet that requirement include the greens, because they impose fake science and technology onto society in disregard for the consequences for disadvantaged persons who pay through the nose for the frauds. Greens promote fake science and technology as a power mongering tactic, which is too fraudulent to produce social justice for anyone. Fraud Is Needed To Monger Power Liberals who promote the evolved concerns for social justice are progressives. Progressives promote the science and engineering required for making progress. That means meeting the demanding standards of increasing complexities. Greens are the opposite in imposing fake science and technology onto society at the expense of the lower classes. Power mongers hate progressives, because progress creates complexities which power mongers can't handle. All corrupters are reductionistic in getting rid of the complexities which they can't handle including government. Greens and know-nothing journalists reduced fake renewable energy to a slogan, saying renewables are "on par with coal," while the price of electricity increases by a factor of ten, when such renewables max out at 15% before becoming too disruptive to be increased further. Liberalism can be defined as solving human problems and promoting equal opportunities, which involves producing social justice. Solving problems requires progressiveness, which depends upon rationality and constructivity. Conservatives hate liberals and they degrade opponents; so they search out something to attack that they can associate with liberals. It never applies to very many liberals and does not define liberals. Conservatives do not produce criticism, which requires explanations, in attacking opponents. Conservatives are not aligned upon solving problems, because their purpose is to disconnect from the objective reality which produces truth and exposes them for the incompetent corrupters that they are. So conservatives focus upon values rather than problem solving concerns. Supposedly, word salad for values makes them superior to their enemies. Corrupters hate liberals because of the demands of rationality and constructivity which liberals create. Corruption is how those demands are shed. Conservatives try to paint liberals into various frames, particularly as greens. Green has become the projected image of liberalism, while it is the opposite. It is a bunch of incompetents mongering power by subverting environmentalism. Greens impose; liberals explain. Greens are extremely conservative in imposing fake science and technology onto society, destroying environments and resources and making the lower classes pay through the nose for the result. Not knowing what they are doing isn't liberalism. No one can miss the exorbitant expense and environmental damage. Yet greens refuse to get real, because corruption is a source of power for them. It's extremely obvious that recycling destroys environments and resources and is extremely expensive. Greens couldn't miss that fact, yet they impose recycling on the basis of some quirky assumption of a value in the destructivity. So liberalism needs to be defined. Words can be defined on the basis of what people usually mean by them. Often, a meaning is described but is not what people usually mean, so it is incorrect. There is an evolution for the meaning of terms. Liberalism might have started out having one meaning, but over time, use of the word evolved into something else. There are some unquestionable characteristics that liberals have applied to liberalism over time. In recent times, discussion by liberals always gravitate toward promotion of social justice, which is interpreted to mean solving problems for the lower classes and the needy. Liberals in Congress were describing liberalism as promotion of equal opportunities, until conservatives took over the world in 1981 and redescribed liberalism as anything negative, which caused liberals in Congress to go silent. Where liberals try to give people the rights and opportunities to live their own lives, conservatives try to impose their values and purposes onto everyone while fighting a war against the lower classes. Freedom to liberals means extending rights and opportunities to other persons, while freedom to conservatives means imposing themselves and their values onto other persons. Therefore, if conservatives say liberalism is a promotion of communism, they are contriving something that liberals do not apply to the meaning of liberalism. Of course, a few persons will connect liberalism to communism, but doing so is their own isolated concept which does not change the evolved, social meaning of liberalism. The reason why it matters is because anytime someone tries to solve problems, they have to align upon objective reality to do so. The purpose of solving problems aligns correct liberalism upon objective reality. This process is a universal correction for human activity. All corruption is a conflict with objective reality. So it is important to align upon objective reality as a method of reducing human corruption. What corrupters miss is that they can't use destructive means to produce constructive results. To solve problems requires constructive methods. That means contact with reality. Reality cannot be trashed to solve peoples' problems. Subversion Of The Process Everything constructive will be attacked or subverted by corrupters. Not only do corrupters attack liberalism trying to frame it in a particular view of communism which has something to do with totalitarian dictatorships (which is not an essential element of communism), they also try to subvert liberalism by producing some mockery such as "green" and calling it liberalism. Green is not liberalism, because it destroys environments and energy systems forcing the lower classes to pay through the nose for energy. Not the slightest attempt is made to correct for the injustices. But more basically, the difference between doing anything and subverting the process is more than easy to define. There are obvious things that produce constructivity and obvious things that produce destructivity. The most obvious thing that destroys anything is to have incompetent, know-nothing power mongers do the deciding. That's what characterizes green. Greens decide for the rest of us what science and technology should consist of while they have never studied an iota of science or engineering. Those of us who have are supposedly "anti-science" for disagreeing with the greens. A lot of scientists have been scandalized out of science for disagreeing with the greens. Journalists will not allow criticism of the green version of science and technology pretending to protect the standards of journalism from corruption. And yet, that standard of green and journalism is called liberal and progressive. It's not how liberal and progressive works. Liberal and progressive means applying real standards to get real results, not the subversion of human rationality for power mongering motives. Totalitarian Dictatorships Rationality as the application of objective reality to solve social problems is viewed as liberalism as indicated by the fact that journalists are called liberals by conservatives when applying rationality to objective reality, which is obviously a liberal thing to do. Rationality does what liberals are trying to do in creating social justice. Stripping rationality out of social solutions produces totalitarian dictatorships by preventing people from solving their problems and putting all control in the hands of someone who arbitrates their lives. There is a complete absence of social structures including a government of laws with totalitarian dictatorships, since social structures require rationality aligned upon objective reality. What this means is the totalitarian dictatorship that was associated with communism was not a product of liberalism, it was an overlay which was the opposite of the liberal purpose that socialism attempted to produce. Socialists left themselves vulnerable to a dictatorship which wasn't an inherent part of liberal socialism. This oddity seems to be what conservatives have in mind when they ridicule liberals in an incoherent manner. Conservatives seem to be assuming that if liberals keep striving for social justice they will produce a totalitarian dictatorship as the communists had. That isn't what liberalism leads to; it's what socialists were vulnerable to in not creating strong social structures. In other words, liberalism in the U.S. includes strong social structures and does not lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. Liberals promote strong social structures in the U.S. by demanding openness and accountability in government and the courts. By contrast, the attempt by conservatives to diminish the effectiveness of government is what leads to totalitarian dictatorships. The New Normal When conservatives took over the world in 1981, they created a "new normal." The new normal was a disconnect from objective reality including government laws. Reagan called it "morning in America." Conservatives assume that disconnection from reality is a higher standard—assuming that objective reality is garbage in the way of their concept of progress. Progress to them is uninhibited impositions being arbitrated by themselves. Corrupters consider themselves to be the center of the universe, and if they could impose and arbitrate freely, it would solve everyone's problems. That's why aligning upon objective reality is an extremely important social standard.
Before 1981, liberals were describing their purpose as creating equal opportunities. Then liberals went silent, at least in Washington, in 1981, as conservatives took over politics and redescribed liberalism in terms of corruption. The conservative purpose was to undue "eighty years of liberalism gone awry." Liberalism is still pushed to the side of the politics controlled by conservatives. An example of the conflict was "affirmative action." It meant extra effort was to be applied in correcting imbalances, such as increasing the number of minorities at universities. The outcry by conservatives shows the nature of the conflict. Someone with better grades does not get accepted where there is affirmative action. The pretense that the story begins after injustices shape the result is standard conservative misrepresentation, as if correcting were not relevant to the purpose, and as if there were nothing to be corrected after conservatives determine results. Of course, conservatives would want to define their standard in positive terms, but they tend not to define. Instead, they promote, which is not the same thing. They speak in opposites trying to conceal a war that they fight against enemies and portray it as the solution to something, such as opposition to "tax and spend," while they pour tax dollars down the drain to keep them from benefiting the lower classes. The federal debt was $800 billion dollars when Reagan took office (and put an end to liberalism going awry) saying he wasn't going to saddle his grandchildren with that much dept. Conservatives then increased it by a factor of ten to $8 trillion. So when conservatives accuse liberals of "tax and spend" they are speaking in opposites trying to project their scheme onto liberals. The endless tax give-aways by conservatives don't lower taxes, they add interest on the debt created by the tax give-aways.
Conservatives assume that the social justice issue is for fools, because it is not practical to bleed for losers. If you support losers, you get more losers, conservatives assume. That assumption shows that conservatives only see power mongering as relevant. Constructivity based on objective reality is invisible to them. They also miss the consequences of mongering power, as incompetents destroy everything they influence, after using up the exploits which their predecessors created. How could they do otherwise with no concepts of what constructivity consists of? The number one factor that made America great in the image that Trump saw growing up during the fifties was an economy that included the largest number of persons. Restricting the economy to fewer and fewer persons results in a less and less competent and productive economy. Conservatives don't know that—being cut off from objective realities by their ignorance. Steve Jobs would have been a loser by conservative criteria. He only had a few months of college. Could someone else have designed the smart phone? The reason why engineers don't make large leaps of progress is because they have to work on assigned tasks. No one can design highly unusual technology working on assigned tasks, which includes the "Femto Capacitance Meter" which I designed and Steve Jobs used for touch screens. How much of that type of work do power mongers do? All constructivity including a relationship to objective reality through truth and knowledge is viewed as corruption by conservatives, because power mongers lose when interacting realities cause truth to evolve forward. Power mongers losing is the test of evil to conservatives. The Conservative Attack Upon Liberalism Conservatives can never explain, because rationality is their enemy. So they imply and tangentially attack. Regardless of how they go about it, they are attacking constructivity based on rationality as the enemy they see in liberalism. If not, what is the clarification? There is none. Anything other than fascism is attacked by conservatives as liberal corruption. Are conservatives for any form of constructivity under any circumstances? Claiming to solve everyone's problems is not the same thing. Constructivity is a form of complex action. There is no such thing as constructive activity in conservative claims. The recent/ Conservatives endlessly harp against "central planning." There is no such thing as planning that is not central. The implication is that central means communism. Trying to link communism to planning is beyond stupid. It shows that conservatives cannot tolerate any form of planning. Certainly, planners tend to get a lot wrong. That doesn't mean fascism is the answer. Nor does it mean planning can be abandoned. Wrongs require more rationality, not less. Conservatives always go into freedom in their attack upon planning. They want freedom from planning. Why then don't they stop driving automobiles and call it freedom. No automobile can exist without planning. But they want to abandon the social and political planning that takes away their dominating control over our lives. If not, tell us about it instead of imposing gut feeling as fact. What is an organized social order without planning? As a matter of fact, conservatives are opposed to an organized social order. What they want to replace orderly existence with is whims with endless contradictions, as self-worshipping, autocratic, totalitarian dictators such as Trump demonstrate. Conservatives claim they see corruption in everything liberals do. So they use examples to prove something. Examples never prove anything. Examples can be found for every type of destructivity imaginable. But even worse, interpreting examples is injecting fraud into a subject in conflict with obvious evidence and clearly stated corrections. If examples prove something, it should be possible to write encyclopedias explaining the evidence. No explanations go with the fraud. About every three words of Trumps include so much fraud that he can never explain the contradictions. No ability to explain proves the fraud. A complex society runs on explanations. Trump's pretense that he is above explanations shows that he is a fraud. The point is, the target conservatives are aiming at is constructivity. They cannot tolerate rationality applied to the solution to society's problems, because rationality leaves them behind due to their stupidity. Conservatives are condemning liberals (the ones who apply correct liberalism to achieving social justice) for doing everything right and trying to use misrepresentations as the excuse. Since conservatives cannot attack constructivity in a conspicuous way, they try to reframe constructivity as an evil, but the frauds in doing so are not inconspicuous. What then is the alternative to constructivity that conservatives are striving for? It's making sin pay. They expect to solve their problems through destructivity rather than constructivity. It takes a lot of stupidity to go down that path, but conservatives are that stupid. Corruption has a wide variety of false assumptions with it, which means corrupters do not all have the same realities in their heads. But a common reason why corrupters oppose constructivity, as conservatives do, is because they assume that social justice builds up the loser and puts losers in control of our lives. All forms of constructivity do that. They increase social justice by making life more livable for victims of injustice. So creating less injustice through constructivity is assumed to be the ruination of man to corrupters such as conservatives. The net effect of what conservatives are saying is that there is no such thing as perfection in constructivity, and therefore, the answer is destructivity to a point of totalitarian fascism. Supposedly, more of a problem is the answer. Their argument over who is responsible is not a relevant argument, because the question is methodology, not persons. Imperfections are improved through rational constructivity, not destroying rationality applied to constructivity and the persons who promote it. (Conservatives hate liberals.)
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
