Attack on the isolation of truths:

Ideas are useful combinations of truths for advancing through decisions when understandings of the options available are projected onto a situation as analogous to information the utility of which has proved reliable enough to conform to a consistency. The idea that “speeding in your car is dangerous” combines the truths that “going fast increases the danger of making a mistake” with “humans are fallible creatures that require time to avoid a mistake” and the physics that “going fast gives humans less time to avoid making a mistake”, and supports the consistency, among others, that “laws keep people safe”. This consistency, on its own, cannot qualify as “truth”, and instead is reliant upon the presentation of its ideas.

The perpetuation of a consistency is reliant upon the survival of its ideas when an event exposes new truths. When the speeder is pulled over by the State Trooper and suffers a financial consequence, the consistency that “laws keep people safe” must ignore the reality of the singular event in and of itself for sincere entertainment. Events are isolated incidents communicated by nature to its audience through literal expressions of the contingencies its consistency allows for when confronted with new combinations of truths. These contingencies are only limited by circumstances to conform to nature’s consistency, not ideas, and not lies.

Perception allows events to be measured against dimensions reliant upon imagination to be expressed as fallacies. Thus, the truth of a fallacy can be communicated by nature through the distortion afforded by perspectives limited to dimensions which obscure the foundational information that would disallow consistent entertainment of its implications. For nature to communicate the truth that “Taking money from speeders hurts the credibility of the consistency perpetuated by the law that “laws keep people safe’”, it requires entities with a limited access to external information to believe in the authority of other entities, for those authorities to be producing misinformation, and for the entity to detect enough inconsistencies in the misinformation to conquer it’s adherence to the consistencies framing an event or series of analogous events.

Thus, any expression of the truth that inconsistency cannot sustain itself in a “natural order” of cause and effect requires that the repercussions of the fallacy lose the momentum required to perpetuate itself against the friction caused by exposure to “reality”. If a subject is unable to distinguish between “truth”, “ideas”, and “consistencies”, it will not have the tools to deal with information that disproves a consistency, equating it with an attack on “truth” itself which would damage its sense of control. The function of denial is to help the body avoid such stress, replacing the scary external ambiguities with captivating internal emotions to experience instead.

When a consistency is perceived as a discovery by an individual, from nature, it is potentially useful for the subject in determining its potentials. There are many such consistencies. However, when a consistency is projected as a reality to an individual, from a politically motivated source, it is potentially useful to limit a subject’s ability to determine its potential.

For example, when Jeb Bush publicly expressed his concern that US Military Recruiters aren’t allowed to carry firearms, the peripheral conservative media isolated the truth that "this is the law during President Obama’s administration" from others as further evidence to perpetuate the long established consistency that "the President wants Americans to be unarmed, in danger, and is trying to destroy the country". The anticipated reaction from liberals of offering that the President did not make that policy helps perpetuate the consistency that he “refuses to take responsibility” or that “liberals always blame people in the past”. Thus, Jeb Bush establishes himself as taking the responsible position that our Recruiters should be safe as opposed to the President, who hasn’t instantly made it so. However, the overt assertion that “Recruiters are unarmed”, as deducible from Jeb’s position, is sensitive information that will do the opposite of deterring our enemies from attacking them. For the political gain of appearing to be making recruiters safer, he has actually endangered them.

Lies are also useful in controlling the credibility of a consistency. When operating with sensitivity to transgressions undertaken in the past in order to avoid the consequences of their illuminations, a consistency that undermines the validity of the transgression can be established by accusing the opposition of the same offense. Then, the inevitable reaction from the opposition can be adopted by the offenders once they are accused, which will be in keeping with the consistency that "the opposition is constantly engaged in hypocrisy".

For example, the word “tyrant” constitutes the ascension to power in Government outside the process which that society has established as legitimate. President George W Bush was given power by a conservative bias in the Supreme Court, rather than through the Democratic process which, if adhered to, every recount undertaken revealed that Al Gore was the winner of the election. His behavior afterwards was consistent with the actions of the worst kind of Tyrant: One who does damage to the country for the personal gains of himself, and his friends. With Iraq, he was able to achieve the personal satisfaction of killing a man his father failed to kill while helping his personal connections the likes of Dick Cheney make billions of dollars out of nothing but the lives of the men and women of the Armed Forces. When conservatives lost control of the White House, they became vulnerable to facing the consequences that justice as defined by the new administration could invoke. Thus, President Obama was consistently accused of being a lying, damaging to the country for personal gain, illegitimate Tyrant who is threatened by an armed populace. No single truth will hurt the consistency established by conservative propaganda that the President is a Christian hating, violent radical Islamic extremist sympathizer, especially when denial of those accusations means that they have been manipulated by conservative propaganda, which is embarrassing.

When operating with sensitivity to transgressions that will be undertaken in the future in order to avoid the consequences of their illuminations, a consistency again must be established that undermines the validity of the transgression by accusing the opposition of the future offense. Again, the reactions of the opposition to the baseless accusations will be adopted and offered as further proof of the consistency that they are hypocrites.

Consider, for example, how much attention is given to the consideration that Ted Cruz was not born in the United States, and is therefore not eligible to run for office. If a conservative believes that President Obama is already guilty of this offense, as a consistency affords him “knowledge” that the birth certificates offered by the President are fakes, for he’s a liar, how can he/she be bothered by the issue in connection to a conservative? This issue of being born in the United States, so critical in establishing the current President as an illegitimate tyrant, has been abandoned in connection to Ted Cruz. Indeed, President Obama would qualify as legitimate under the Commonwealth Law excuse used to qualify Ted Cruz for running for office, to a profound silence.

Maintaining the momentum required to perpetuate the peripherally established consistencies requires constant slander and attack, especially when a President is innocent. This is where lies aren’t necessary, only the isolation of truths that, when combined, adhere to a consistency.

For example, recently, it is true that a man unlawfully killed a lion, and people are upset about it. Also, recently, a psychiatrist told a veteran who happened to be passionate about firearms to “off himself”, and the veteran later committed suicide, and people are upset about it. Conservative propaganda has since expressed outrage that “more people are upset by the killing of the lion than the suicide of the Veteran”, which to liberals seems bewilderingly inappropriate. To understand the consistency being perpetuated, one must consider that the field of psychiatry is under attack by the right wing as it threatens its ability to manipulate the minds of its demographic. If psychiatrists have credibility, then their thoughts on what does and does not constitute “torture” implicate a number of powerful conservative leaders as guilty of war crimes. The affinity experienced by the Veteran for firearms helps establish him as consistent with “conservative” values, in opposition to the psychiatrist’s aversion to firearms which helps establish him as consistent with “liberal” values regardless of the validity of the assertion that “liberals are coming to take your guns” after it has been repeated so many times. Whether or not more people are upset by the lion’s death is unknowable, but useful in perpetuating the established consistency that liberals suffer from an inferior morality and flawed priorities. Never mind that the Lion was killed, and the Veteran committed suicide, and all the responsibilities outside and in between. Never mind that these are not even remotely political events. When propaganda has established that the opposition is an enemy out to get you, anything can be made political.

In order to combat this situation, one must resist treating the opposition with disdain or insults. A more productive approach, which allows for the contingency that the opposition is acting with good intentions and in good faith, must be undertaken to demonstrate ones understanding of a situation with the humility that allows the incorporation of the opposition’s perspective that one may entertain and if not enlighten, concede to the superior validity, of it.

For example and as a demonstration: My initial reservations to the idea of raising the minimum wage worried over what effect giving more people access to wealth would have on the value of the Dollar. I arrived there by allowing myself to imagine that the billionaire class isn't so obsessed with the selfish pursuit of their own betterment to the detriment of everyone else as the mainstream "liberals" opine, but that they understood something about the workings of our economy that disallowed a broader distribution of "wealth". So, I maintained that thought for as far as I could, but while I had little difficulty in denying that anyone could be that evil, I was unable to wrap my head around why the value of money would reflect its availability, and not the abstraction of the worth of the physical productivity it represents? Something seems backwards, so maybe it is evidence of "evil".

However, simply imagining them as "evil" to account for their behavior is not useful in determining a productive understanding, as it implies a universality to morality which they are violating. Already, calling them "they" isolates me from empathizing with them, as doing so requires recognition of an "us”.

What of virtue, though? Is virtue not universal? Virtue, I think, is responsible action. Duty is a virtue because it invokes the responsibility of acting where the subject is in the unique position to do so to fulfill the needs of their society. Integrity invokes the responsibility of being honest with oneself. Honesty is responsible as it allows those around you to make accurate decisions. Etc.

Unfortunately, no one but "God" is in a position to know what action is the most responsible. We might get lucky sometimes, but the complexity of interactions is such that completely understanding the repercussions of a given course is unknowable. Instead, our mortal estimations of responsible action reflect our priorities as instilled in us in the form of ideas provided externally as we grow.

As useful as the perpetuation of ideas is in guaranteeing a culture's future existence, it is also a serious vulnerability for the subject. Again, what are "ideas" other than isolated truths which perpetuate the validity of a "consistency"? For the former example, where isolating the truth that "Our service members are prime targets of our enemies" with the truth that "During President Obama's administration recruiters are not allowed to be armed" perpetuates the "consistency" that the President wants to "harm our country" to adherents to that idea. In this case, never mind that this administration did not make that policy, consider that calling for a change that allows recruiters to be in a safer position is responsible, however doing so publicly reveals the sensitive information that, presently, our recruiters are not armed. To repeat: while this was not classified or a formal secret, it is information that was not widely known and, for our enemies, the opposite of a deterrent. So, what went wrong?

Someone prioritized the potential for personal political gain over the reality of the security of our personnel. That was a conservative maneuver, as were the others, but one wouldn't have to look very hard to find analogous actions as done by liberals in this political climate.

I don't think it's a stretch to assert that success, as defined by our culture, means that you have made a lot of money. A person could be said to be acting totally responsibly in providing as much money to their family as possible, indeed they probably feel a duty to do so.

What happens, then, to the people that don't prioritize the attainment of vast amounts of money? Who don't measure success by how much money they make, but by some other means? For me, money has been a useful tool for exchanging my work as, for example, a child-care provider for the contributions of other people, and success meant that I cultivated the strengths of my children while gently making them aware of their vulnerabilities. Ethics are useful to me in this case, as they allowed me to demonstrate behavior that is responsible for my toddlers to engage in for achieving my measure of success. I only require money so that I may drive my car, or rent my apartment, or eat. However, when wages aren't adjusted through the course of inflation, doing so becomes increasingly difficult.

What use is ethics to corporations? How would, for example, being honest about the damage their endeavors inflict help them "succeed"? Indeed, the only "business" class I ever took was in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and the professor told us on the first day, after "wowing" us with her "power hobbies" like "yachting", that "Regarding business Ethics: forget it. We will waste no time on ethical considerations, as doing so will not prepare you for the reality of business". After class, I took her aside and explained that I could not participate in the promotion of those sentiments, and I saw the shame in her face when she "understood".

The conservative response I anticipated, and experienced in the past, to this is that poor people just want more money, without entertaining the contingency that poor people just want ENOUGH money. In doing so, they are projecting the interests of the billionaire class onto the poor, with accusations of selfish motivations that are possibly all they understand, with hypocritical connotations for good measure. Somehow, they are threatened by the prospect of allowing more people access to wealth. Again, if I afford them the benefit of the doubt, I can entertain the possibility that they are protecting our economy.

Unfortunately, the position being offered by the billionaire class, through their mediums, reveals that I have isolated myself away from precision. The argument against raising the minimum wage, it turns out, is that doing so will result in job loss so that the financial upper class may continue to enjoy the wealth they do today. This is a threat which isn’t designed to predict the actual outcome of a redistribution of wealth, but rather to frighten the populace by holding their ability to achieve enough wealth to provide for their families hostage.

What truth, or fallacy, could nature be proving in this environment? The truth, or fallacy, that a populace does not tolerate injustice? The truth, or fallacy, that the billionaire class is resorting to threats because it is threatened? The truth, or fallacy, that the value of money is dependent on what it represents? The truth, or fallacy, that the value of money is dependent on its availability? The truth, or fallacy, that 50 million dollars donated by 25 million Americans is more valuable than 100 million dollars donated by 5? The truth, or fallacy, that a divided America is easily exploited?

Beware of any isolation of truths, and if confronted by new information, have the courage to entertain its accuracy, lest denial get the better of your ability to make informed decisions. Be generous in your findings, and intolerant of the manipulation of others. Patiently demonstrating the virtues at work in your convictions will be more useful in helping disprove misinformation that our country may heal, if such is your desire. Have you entertained the benefit of the doubt for your opposition? Why/not, where did it take you, and how far could you take it?

Update: As "Copyright101" asserts, these thoughts are regrettably one-sided. This comes of my being more sensitive to conservative propaganda, but I do not believe it is an inclination unique to one political party. Indeed, since writing this, I noticed that the "Black Lives Matter" movement also began criticizing our culture's reaction to "Cecil the lion" as though it is relevant to our culture's "racial" intricacies.

I require help in demonstrating democratic propaganda's isolation of truths. Here's what it looks like when I consider conservative actions:

So, if you are/were a "tyrant", as in attained power via means outside of our society's process (perhaps the Supreme Court "gave" you the presidency), relentlessly call the "next guy" a "Tyrant" (your audience probably doesn't reall...y know what that word means).

Or, if your negligence/misfortune results in an attack on American Citizens, regard an analogous event, however trivial in scope to your own circumstances, as an opportunity to call the "next guy" negligent (disregard the misfortune).

Or if the media hurts your ability to maintain the narritive that your administration will accept, make your own media that will criticize everything that the "next guy" does.

Or perhaps you want to run for president, but unfortunately were not born in this country. Simply accuse the "current guy" of not being born in this country, and use your dismissal of the evidence he provides to dismiss scrutiny of the issue in connection to yourself as beneath your dignity.

Or, if you are feeling uncomfortable over the potential for the people whom you have been manipulating finding out because they are armed and passionate, accuse the other party of wanting to disarm them.

Or, if your actions have led to the loss of respect of the international community, make sure to tell your demographic that the "next guy" is doing so, then take actions to hinder his ability to credibly negotiate.

I regret that there is an impression that I do not regard our current democratic leadership as beholden to financial interests rather than government.

Medium Update: Thank you for the plethora of data, I am less blind to the DNC’s own isolations.