Contemporary politics

This article provides language to clarify what we’re all thinking, that politics is a fantasy land.

Confusion

Of all things that mark today’s politics, and information platforms in general, one thing is pervades it all, confusion. Confusion comes from lies, so the level of confusion depends on the amount of lies in the information system. Only, more confusion is added when groups blame these lies on others groups. So, the true metric for a broken, confused system is the level of blame, and the best detector of lies is also, blame. Valid accusations can along with false accusations, so accusation is the most obvious dividing line between these. When the truth is to be known, it’s the fruition, or cause-effect fidelity, of these accusations that reduce our increase suspicion.

Suspicion

That said, the worst part of the confusion today is that the liars are good at lowering this suspicion level by, again, adding confusion to the fact checking process. This is the lowest low we’ve reached, and that a society in general reaches, when it’s lies have to be covered up to maintain a level of stability. But this stability balances on the head of a pin where the bridge of fidelity has collapsed, rather than standing on a set of agreed upon, common points of truth. Here, the truth is just the scaffolding that’s left after the bridge has collapsed. It still appears within the lies that broke truth down only because it can be seen clearly through the missing facts by virtue of replacement.

Replacement

Replacement is that which substitutes itself for truth. This is always correlated with blame. In fact, these very often are one in the same. No truth, just plausible blame to replace it. When a group or society’s stability rests solely on blame, the replacement lie causes a false bridge, a narrative to be built, but in a different direction than truth. This, inevitably, leads to the gorge below, rather than the other side, which could be termed as unity of thought. With no support, it exists much as a termite tunnel, with no support underneath, only a structure of lies holding each of the other lies together. This can break at any point when the truth is made clear. The only problem with this analogy is that it’s imaginary, so people can imagine that it’s not happening to perpetuate their lies in their own thinking. That is where the most obvious marker for a collapsing society can be found, in the distance between those clinging to the truth, and those clinging to lies.

Separation

So, it’s this seperation of thought that measures the distance a group has traveled from truth. You don’t even need to know what the truth is to see the distance between separated parties. One simply sees the other guys' seperation through replacement. Replacement is the true source of confusion, while blame is the fruition of it. And cause-effect fidelity is the only way to gauge whether the split can be repaired. When one group, finally, begins to lie about the values of these effects, rather than simply their fidelity, there is no way back except that the holders of truth break off the liars' structure and rebuild the bridge. If enough people have bought the lie, though, they can restructure the future of the whole to only lead to the chasm below.

Fidelity

Enough of analogies. The whole picture here is one of fidelity, the opposite of confusion. This is the same reason marriages fail. Blame becomes the structure for one party to create stability for itself rather than the whole. The only answer is fidelity. Confusion, failure to reconcile with truth, leads to failure of the whole. In marriage, this results in the cause-effect of seperation. In a society, it leads to destruction of the whole. Where are we at today? It can be seen in the seperation between desired outcomes of disparate groups, but only by discovery of their replacements, found in their level of blame. Remember, blame is different from valid accusations, but can only be seen in outcomes. But one thing remains glaringly obvious, before outcomes can come to fruition. (By then, it’s too late.) Though suspicion is raised by undesirable outcomes, liars redefine these as desirable through false accusations, specifically those that raise false suspicion. Fact checking becomes a replacement, in the form of unsupported propaganda against a group. No society has maintained stability after this happens, and one group has to eventually capitulate. This is the end of the society because the liars never capitulate after being so entrenched in their own imagination that they desire destructive outcomes. We can see the blame, infidelity, and even destruction level right now, in our society. It doesn’t have to be obvious that one group is clinging to the truth, just that a large number of it’s people stand in a greater opposition to the others than simple disagreement can explain. This disparity is measurable using the metric of desired outcomes (especially if one of these is the destruction of a specific group). If it’s not entirely obvious to you at this point that we have groups targeting other groups for destruction, you may be in the group that has fled reality for the protection of their own imagination. There is no way back for you except fidelity to non-destructive outcomes, and that means reconciliation for all groups, not the destruction of any one group.

Reality check

And here’s where you can check your own imagination. First, if a group you support replaced unity with accusation, where dudes it’s fidelity (successfully predicted, non-destructive outcomes) rest? This is hard to judge if you’ve redefined your blame of other groups as valid, (or told yourself you don’t blame anyone) rather than the more stable approach of self accusation.

Recusal

Recusal is the practice of individualized thought rather than group thought. Your evaluation of truth is then based on what is wrong with your own approach to outcomes, totally separate from any group or thought of an “enemy” as the source of your outcomes. This is the dividing line of a society that has been confused by false accusations, because in it, accusations are not brought against people, or even thought, but purely against outcomes that don’t benefit all in the society. If this is not your first choice as a desired outcome, you may be trapped in your own imagination, thinking some groups deserve your accusation rather than your consideration. This is the state of censorship that a society reaches when it has chosen group outcome over unity of purpose. It’s obvious ours has reached this level of accusation rather than recusal. In fact, recusal is now simply targeted, redefined as useless, and replaced with the quest for power over other groups. (Google the Shapiro-Kasparian debate, and follow the accusations level at then, not by then.) Unless the way back is found, through truly non-destructive societal goal setting, benefitting all disparate interests as a whole, then it is destructive outcomes that have replaced unity of thought with the course into the chasm of infidelity.

Most of is share an initial instinct to respond by taking add a defense what appears here as support for ones positions, and to apply what was more negative to our opponents, when in fact the point of the article would be to do the exact opposite. Can we begin to check whether our friends are doing things that seem counterproductive to common beneficial outcomes, and most importantly/most telling, whether our opposition is doing anything positive? These are the sources of reconstruction, with intent to reclaim unity of purpose, that may potentially build a bridge back to comprehensive, cooperative thought and action. All other interests are simply building a construction of fantasy, and will lead to destruction.

To support my writing, and my outreach to searching hearts, subscribe: https://jusayin-topix.medium.com/