Collusion, Hypocrisy and Political Corruption – Human Devolution

As the impending devolution continues, the idiocy of a contentious and condescending culture finds so many opportunities to hasten human extinction. From anti-intellectualism to corporate and political collusions, the divisive animosity rampage in diverse manifestations. By so many intricate components, various corrupt factions perpetrate insidious actions to destabilize the fabric of the democratic republic. Extreme ideological perversions demonstrate repeatedly hypocritical selfishness to degrade and disrupt mainstream society. Moreover, does anyone care?

Extraordinary problems of the planet, as in environmental exploitation and severe income inequality, find second place status to whiny and cowardly protestations of self-victimization. In an online newsletter, one author points to the regressive animosity in pointing out the “poisonous hypocrisy of politics”. Discussion alone will not suffice nor encourage any problem-solving efforts. The issues are complex, the problems are intricate, and the scope and depth of the criticality too far gone for easy remedy. As such, to observe one aspect of the devolutionary trends, politics for example, the mean-spirited instigations are rampant.[1]

Depending on the perspective by which the challenges of fakery transcend into a viable debate, the scope and sequence can be many faceted. As the term itself, hypocrisy, can invite productive or derisive analysis, the choices of issues and associated collusive behaviors involve a variety of socio-economic and political issues. Whether by focus on sleight of hand sales and promotional tactics of bloated gluttonous consumerism, or empty political rhetoric, the contrivances are intricate. By false appearance, disingenuous pretense of “goodness”, altruistic fakery, and so on, the human species seldom fails to make a mockery of itself.

With the aspect of collusion, the insistence to be deceptive is very much a human inclination. For personal gain and enrichment, at the expense of others, minus any ensuing costs to the perpetrator, people commit all many of illicit activities. Corruption in one form or another conspires in the devolution of the human species. Often, the appearance of hypocritical antics can be witnessed in elected public officials. Especially during campaign season, observations by astute inquiry makes note of the easy and simplistic deceptions that conspire for votes.

Politics is likely a good place to observe the collusive nature of hypocrisy, as well as political corruption. Politicians are particularly representative of such behaviors and particularly interesting to observe. Direct and concrete answers to serious social questions are elusive. During an election for instance, specious conjecture supported by nebulous notions smog the atmosphere with superficial commentary. Getting well-researched candid answers to critical questions, along with a listing of probable solutions are typically non-existent. Foggy ideas muck it up.

Political processes are only one aspect of intricately connected socio-economic systems. For the greater good, “we people” etc., ought to be collectively striving for a “more perfect union”. While a few endeavor for the noble causes of a prior revolution, many seem oblivious to the future consequences. In the process of human devolution, the rise and fall of cultures, or “empires”, is a gradual course of regressively intentional behaviors. By human contrivance, the collapse of societies trespasses upon the unholy ground of hypocritical behaviors.

The consistent practice and perpetration of beliefs contrary to one’s real views, philosophies, ideologies, and actual practices, fall into the abyss of hypocritical actions. Collusions, hypocrisy and corruption share close kinship with other descriptors. Such as, deception, mockery, fraud, duplicity, speciousness and fakery, contrive to evade the realities of truthfulness. As to that, a decade ago an online science journal published an article addressing the commonality of deceptive behaviors. Accordingly, everyone is a deceiver in some way, for better or for worse.[2]

In the process of arrogantly committing a variety of deceptive actions, referencing hypocrisy, humans are adept at self-deception as well. However, the downside of the competitiveness is that eventually hypocritical behaviors and associated deceptions do not last long. In most cases, eventually, someone achieves notoriety for their corruption. Exposure is a constant risk for the persistent deceivers. Like an antisocial iceberg floating in the frigid waters of societal fragmentation, the pathological inclinations lurk below the surface.

In the classical view, or rational choice perspective, deception is purposeful. Behaving in hypocritical ways serves the needs of the perpetrator. Animosity toward others by diverse illicit applications willfully schemes to enhance the perpetrator’s advantage. For the politician, it means staying in elected office in never ending permanency. Access to money, power, resources, influence and so forth enriches the prospects of personal gain. To ensure a lifetime of constant re-election, the politician will wear various disguises to mask their hidden agendas.

By malice aforethought, premeditation and intention effort, each plans the nature of his or her schemes. Plots and frauds abound. To use the often-heard profane commentary from movies, everyone has the motive, means and looks for the opportunities. Importantly, it is a matter of ideation. Belief systems, perceptions and perpetrations stem from the desire to fulfill those fantasies of thought and eventually action. The primacy of thinking, subsequently the willful execution, from assault to zoological aberrations, to the motivating factors. Behavior, and in particular, political behavior, is about the arrogance of egoistic objectives.

Across the broad spectrum of mainstream culture, the devolving processes embrace a variety of self-promoting postures. Academia is rich with pretentious claims of special knowledge. To hide in the safe mediocrity of academic bastion, protected by multilayers of security countermeasures, “pseudoscientific” perversions can influence public policy. As one element of critical observation, how many politicians on the national scene have an exceptionality of real-world experience? Did they make their “bones” in the hard work of everyday life, down at the street level of contentious social interaction? Were they ever in command of anything?

A fascinating quest into the political spectrum is to address background issues of prior experience. Upon every occasion of alleged expertise, an assessment of qualifications is necessary. For each appeal to authority, someone’s opinion, questions should fire up the imagination. Is the source of supporting claim qualified to offer a viewpoint on the issues at hand? If so, how extensive is the corroborating evidence? What is the scientific validation? Typically, reliance rumor, gossip and opinion do not substantially provide compelling evidentiary sufficiency.

Speculation as to cause and effect should be met with severe analysis as opposed to acceptance simply because someone said so. This should be a real certainty of inquiry especially applied to the pseudoscience fields such as criminology, psychology and sociology. Within that framework, anecdotal references are not grounds for reliable acceptance. Again, opinion is not evidence, as one’s bias influences subsequent conclusions, and foster egregious fallacies of inference. Politicians in general are very good at spewing an array of psychobabble that says and solves nothing. An online publication in 2017 raised the point in asking the question, are public officials “stupid or evil”? Probably a mixture of both. As a group, the opinion article suggests that politicians in Washington, D.C., have a serious inclination toward avoiding common sense, and forgetting basic logic. Likewise, facts and reason are usually avoided.[3]

As the devolution of the human species unfolds, and civilization is on the verge of collapse, the political framework appears dominated by an anti-intellectual scheme. Degrading and insulting spews of “psychobabble” animate the election cycles with idiotic rhetoric. Purposely, an observer, struggling to maintain some semblance of objectivity might conclude an intentional dumbing down of candidates for public office. In the end, stupidity does not enhance the future possibilities for human civilization. Specifically, stupidity refers to contrived irresponsibility to avoid moral or ethical accountability for individual actions. Idiocracy rises to invite catastrophe.

Instead of insisting upon a well-defined platform of prosocial goals and objectives, a listener hears the blather of superficial child-like simplicity. Wallowing in the selfish promotion of individual vanity and conceited self-validation, politicians on the national scene spout empty nonsensical and condescending regurgitation of infantile gibberish. Failing to answer direct questions in clear, concise and concrete terms, the average politico chatters about idiotic speculations. Along with distracting physical antics, they mutter irrelevant gossip.

Seemingly, a stage play of tragic and comedic exaggerations, avoiding concrete intellectual discourse, the incompetence to does little to promote the advancement of the human species. By such foolish appeals to inferential fallacies, erroneous hastily drawn conclusions mislead, misguide and misdirect social discourse. For such mediocre foolishness, the probability of hastening societal collapse encroaches in a closer time-frame. Neither the republic nor the greater good are served by these ridiculous diatribes that collude in hypocrisy of self-gratification.

Accordingly, as the purposes and intentions of “dumbing down” serves commercial and political interests, societal connections appear increasingly less informed. Political ignorance is extraordinary. In one internet journal, the case is made for the growing decay of intellectual achievement. Rather than focus on implications and specifications for policy formulation, attacks and counterattacks muddy the electoral landscape with broad sweeps irrelevancy.[4]

By way of similarity and close connection, much amusement comes from the world of academia. Particularly ever-present is the associated field of the “social studies”. Within this grouping are the torturous purveyors of pseudoscience, criminology, psychology and sociology. Postulating one theoretical construct after another, a diverse range of “schools of thought” promulgates an assortment of philosophies. From that, beliefs are influenced.

Not only the gullibility of believability, but also the underlying divisive aspects of devolving to the most simplistic explanation of just about everything. From the “social studies” realms of non-science, the conjecture of opinion, and often a simple majority vote at a convention, theoretical speciousness leaps to hasty generalizations. Eventually, given the power of influence, by complicity of social media and news outlets, politicians quickly fall for the seductions. Something that is said often enough by a pretentiously “reliable source”, before you know it most people accept the claim as dependable. Often, such things are merely someone’s opinion.

Rather than conduct skeptical and critical analysis by individual initiative many relegate significant thinking processes to other people. Cultish affinity for “guru” adulation expands exponentially in a culture where education achievement is not a high priority. In the real world that spans a spectrum of all kinds of behaviors, many rely on the simplistic notion that fits their private field of reference. In spite of the facts, regardless of the evidence, people are going to believe the mythology of their own conjecture. Politicians are no different.

In one bi-weekly news magazine, the question is posed in speculating whether contemporary politicians or “stupid” or “evil”. In view of that perspective, as a metaphorical invitation to discussion, the writer ponders the motivational factors behind less than ethical behaviors. As pointed out, elected member of Congress, for example, have law backgrounds and taken an oath of office, wonderment ponders the foolish things done while in office. Not only that, additional concern points to the stupidity asserted in political commentary and social discourse.[5]

As suggested in the article, the answer to the dilemma of “statesman” versus “politician” resides in the notion that public officials pander to supporters. Pandering is an apt description for those in elected office. From a traditional standpoint, it refers to pimping or being a pimp. Of course, pimps, pandering and prostitution are closely connected. One who lives off the labor and earnings of another might be a close parallel to the illicit nature of modern politics.

While pandering to a certain population base, regardless of noble concessions to ethical precepts, associated behaviors devolve to things like promises, threats, fraud, deception, etc. Related to the enticements of pandering, politicians appeal to what might excite or otherwise stimulate their followers. In so doing, they are likely to say anything even if it sounds stupid, illogical and completely unattainable. No one cares, as egregious fallacies of inference that perpetrate unsubstantiated generalizations express the collusion of hypocrisy.

Pondering the political landscape, questions arise among a small fraction of concerned citizens regarding qualifications for public office in particular. For instance, as suggested earlier, public office comes to the forefront of more than a few group discussions. What qualifications or expectations does one expect of someone who will attain a position of political authority? Not only are there legal implications in terms of legislative power, but also applications of influencing public policy and decision-making. From a public service standpoint, at least some members of the public will inquire at to a politician’s background history.

What does their resume’ say about a candidate? Background, education, work history, real-life experiences, knowledge base, intellectual capacity, philosophy and ideology, and so forth? Do they have an action plan that details exactly what they plan to do? Or, do they simply babble and blather about superficially simplistic nonsense? Did they come up through the “ranks of life”, or is there an assumption of “inheritance” and entitlement to “public service”? Some might even be arrogant enough to say, “It’s my turn” now. Seriously? Is that a reference to a “political dynasty”, or “political aristocracy”, whereby the offspring automatically inherit public office?

Did they ever take risks face to face in life-death provocations? Have they served their country or community as in the military or first responder capacity? From their experiences, have they grown wise in productive ways, as opposed to spewing condescending nebulous rhetoric that has no real purpose other than to criticize others? What does their manner of speech say about them? What do they fundamentally stand for? Could they be simply wolves in sheep’s clothing waiting the sheer the flock? More than likely, the future office holder probably has spent most of his or her efforts running for or holding some kind of public office, absent real-life experiences.

Disturbing is what appears to be a trend toward self-promotion without the real substance of character to back up one’s presence. Egoistic assumptions of which the self-focus demonstrates an arrogance toward ignorance. Politicians and pundits relish in such divisive reflections of Hollywood celebrities. In one article from 2014, the researcher claims that American culture demonstrates an increasing and scary trend toward “anti-intellectual elitism”. With a frequent dismissal of scientific methodology, artistic creativity and intellectual discourse, the mainstream prefers entertainment, self-promotion and purposeful credulity. In other words, shallow, selfish and mean-spirited, with a predilection toward specious conjecture. Cynically, the motivations involve the gain of power, access to resources, and ensure control over others.[6]

One assessment of the current political scene is to forget problem solving to ensure

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Collusion, Hypocrisy and Political Corruption – Human Devolution

Online Dialogues, Comments, Reputation and Challenges With Political Correctness

Not long ago I was reading the blog of a very influential online article editor and executive of one of the top online article directory websites. The gal had indicated that everyone should be careful what they say online, and I suppose no better words were ever spoken. Whenever you say online will be used against you in the court of public opinion sometime in the future, you can be sure of that, and don’t expect any of that information to go away, it has been recorded somewhere. True enough, so let’s talk shall we?

She did bring forth a very good quote, something your grandparents probably told you; “if you don’t have something nice to say, then don’t say anything at all.” And I’m sure we have both had parents and grandparents explain exactly what these words of wisdom meant, and why they made good sense. They are akin to the Golden Rule aren’t they? Yes they are, and they apply in real life, and online as well I suppose.

Okay but, on a contrarian point of view, I’d also say a good part of our society is so overcome with political correctness that everyone is walking around with blinders on and they are making very poor decisions because of it – not just our politicians, but the general population when making personal decisions. Thus, I’d say, yes, be as nice as acceptable, but make people think and test societies’ boundaries, push the limits and help people out of their brain-rot spell.

Be nice as best you can, but don’t lie about the realities, and if you say the truth, others will respect you for not being a push-over as well, those who disagree, fine, but tell them to follow their own “nice-ness” rules and not act like a hypocrite when attacking you for saying the truth.

Now then, people say things online that they wouldn’t in public. So there are those issues. Personally, I am not afraid to call it how I see it, I fear those who hide their true feelings and then all of a sudden you see their true side, those people are scary, I’d say beware of them actually.

To my readers, I’d now like to ask you if you have any thoughts – if so, then let’s take this philosophical discussion to a higher level while keeping it civil of course. You may shoot me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss this further, because it is something that every online author must come to terms with, along with anyone that does any b

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Online Dialogues, Comments, Reputation and Challenges With Political Correctness