It is a truism that the standard of communication will correspond with the validity of motives, because it is through communication, first and foremost, that motives are expressed.

In other words, it is impossible to promote corruption through proper standards of communication. This claim is sort of circular logic. What is proper? It is constructive. What is constructive? It promotes truth. Who says truth should be promoted?

There are implicitly purposes to communication. To imply one thing and do another is deception. Why not deceive? Deception often occurs so blatantly as to imply it is valid. But then call the result fraud instead of virtue. Corrupters cannot accept the truth about their corruptness, while they promote corruption as if it were valid.

The implicit purpose of criticism is to establish truth. Corrupters pretend that there is a truth in their arguments. The fraud in their words is not inconspicuous. They think they can impose corruption through fraud. The only real question is why does anyone allow such frauds to influence their lives.

Too many people do not have enough awareness of what proper standards of communication are and the reasons why corrupters defy them. Communication standards are defied because corruption gets exposed through proper standards of communication.

One of the most basic requirements of proper communication is to include enough explanations and specifics with claims to allow the truth to be determined. Omitting explanations is the easiest way to railroad a subject. It immunizes claims from counter-realities.

Without explanations about all that is left to communication is subjectivity. It is striking in corrupt communication how arrogantly subjectivity is forced onto others as if people had no choice but to accept someone's else's motives and values. Corruption always includes the self-centeredness and self-importance of assuming that everyone must conform to one's own wishes.

More basic than communication is the ability of people to coexist by using objective reality as a medium of social interaction which gives each person the freedom to be different while working toward common interests. Since objectivity is essential for constructive social interactions, it needs to be included in communication.

This means communication is supposed to be objective rather than subjective, unless relations are so personal that subjectivity is agreed upon. Sex does not have to be objective, but running the world does.

The need for objectivity defines the difference between proper communication and corrupt communication. Objectivity is a demanding standard. To achieve it, communication must do certain things. A person must connect his words to objective reality and separate them from subjective arbitraries. Words then represent an element of objective reality.

The standard of communication is not about being right or wrong. Accuracy evolves as truth through open and accountable communication. The standard is in the process rather than the conclusion. Only if communication starts with correct standards as a preocess can the task of determining accuracy proceed.

Criticism is a process which allows truth to be determined. It requires representing objective realities through explanations. Once a representation exists, evidence can be used to determine its accuracy.

Corrupt persons prevent communication from promoting truth. The most common method is to make accusations without explanations. How do you correct an accusation without specifics? Since it cannot be done, it is assumed to be a sure win by corrupters. But it is cowardice. It's no different than shooting someone in the back to make sure they cannot protect themselves. Degenerates assume there is something clever about cowardice. They also want people to relate to them as normal and respectable, but there is nothing normal and respectable about cowardice.

An example of corrupt communication is the demand that critics produce a positive tone. Isn't it negativism to accuse someone of not being positive enough? The contradiction is called hypocrisy. Demanding a positive tone is total subjectivity. Criticism never is a positive tone to corrupters. Whether they like the tone is not relevant. Only the evidence is relevant.

Accuracy is not irrelevant, and it can be thought of as a standard. But it is secondary to the more basic standards of communication, and it is more of a personal standard. Often, a good guess is better than a lot of fake authority, because truth will evolve to the highest level possible, once the claims are made.

There are false standards with everything, and accuracy is often a false standard of communication in that it replaces more important concerns, such as authoritarianism and the one-way communication that invariably goes with authoritarianism. Supposedly, authorities are more accurate, since they have inside information.

It is important to notice that a major element of all false standards is to start with the assumption that everyone has the best of intentions, and there is no such thing as a motive problem. Corrupters always try to frame their position in such terms. But the promoters of justice including the framers of the US Constitution were highly concerned about the tendency of corruption to overtake a society, and their primary focus was to protect against it.

When it is recognized that there are motives to corrupt, standards are needed to protect against corruption. This means that the special knowledge which authorities supposedly have cannot replace the standards required for constructive communication.

Everywhere in society authorities are allowed to spew fake knowledge without the accountability necessary to correct errors and establish truth. To a large extent, one-way communication does this. Modern media easily promotes one-way communication, unless critics are allowed a voice.

Conceited experts tell themselves that they have superior knowledge, and nothing more needs to be said on a subject. They don't know how pathetic they really are. But they sure go to a lot of trouble to prevent critics from correcting their errors.