Survive the News

We're Breaking the Censorship

Antonio: Truth and Fraud: Which one is real?

4 min read

Antonio: Truth and Fraud: Which one is real?

Consider that truth and fraud are counter parts and or counter points. This in an
objective mind would be an abstract. Is the abstract applicable to the 4 causes?
Which one in the abstract sense fails the 4 causes in the light of reason? In this context I ask: how can the three branches of power in; and by the impeaching of a former or current president be impeached for conduct outside of high crimes and real evidence?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First truth: Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.[1] In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefspropositions, and declarative sentences.[2]

Truth is usually held to be the opposite of falsehood. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in various contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most of the scienceslawjournalism, and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself.[2] Most commonly, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is called the correspondence theory of truth.

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars, philosophers, and theologians.[2][3] There are many different questions about the nature of truth which are still the subject of contemporary debates, such as: How do we define truth? Is it even possible to give an informative definition of truth? What things are truthbearers and are therefore capable of being true or false? Are truth and falsehood bivalent, or are there other truth values? What are the criteria of truth that allow us to identify it and to distinguish it from falsehood? What role does truth play in constituting knowledge? And is truth always absolute, or can it be relative to one’s perspective?

Second Fraud: In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Fraud can violate civil law or criminal law, or it may cause no loss of money, property, or legal right but still be an element of another civil or criminal wrong. The purpose of fraud may be monetary gain or other benefits, for example by obtaining a passport, travel document, or driver’s license, or mortgage fraud, where the perpetrator may attempt to qualify for a mortgage by way of false statements.

Captain Amigos Corner,
My Conceptual Proposal:

A conceptual framework for the validity of unity in our purposeful behavior of truth and fraud. It is not understandable without reason until it can be learned. Fraud and truth as a recognition of unity such as purposeful behavior in the individual is not a reason-based logic.
Take for example a unit which we will call a whole body. Then divide into three segments. If we were to place the concept of truth and fraud to pass in each segment to form agreement as to recognition of a difference between each concept so that we could say by the time it passed to the last body of examination it would know which was truth and which was fraud, it would fail. It would fail because in each segment of examination the parts within the segments do not have the same criteria for objective identification of distinction.
This is caused primarily by the difference between the parts. And objectivity or standard is not applied on an equal basis or the sameness. Therefore, the last segment of the body would fail truth and pass fraud as recognizing its objective task which would be to distinguish between the two concepts. Therefore, without rules of integrity a system does not operate to be as it was designed. It operates to be as a part or as a system of and in itself without rules that keep it as it is without an external referee to distinguish the rules of integrity that are working in process by keeping the system functional in its task of finding and the recognition of truth as opposed to fraud.

This examination should be of truth and fraud as they pertain in reconciling with the evidence that can be said to be real by the rules of procedure, integrity and conduct by parts within the segments. For this you would need a referee by the rules and three judges to ponder and instruct the jury. If fraud is instituted for evidence, then that is a treason of the court and the rule of law.

Apart from that, currently, this fails in totality because it is a learned behavior in the system that suppresses this kind of knowledge and encourages the lack of vision and clarity and that objectivity is not a desired regulating mechanism in the operation. That last part of the sentence already is describing in a sense fraud or ignorance.
Truth is an object of reality it is not a part of a system in an individual. It is to be found and not to be represented in an or as an imagination. It is to be seen as real.

My contribution
At, 2/18/2021 7:57:14 AM
The rules of procedure.

1.Truth may not remain in a private entity
2. It must be released in the real as a unity.
3. Fore truth is not a privacy.
4. Fore in the real: truth is unity.
5. In unity we are bound.
6. Power is unity, Division is corruption by fraud.
I ask you how can there by truth in that division?


By Antonio C. Villa Jr.
Captain Amigo From the Barrios
@ 2/18/2021 8:42:18 AM