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, such as 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 are too far gone for an easy remedy. As such, to observe one aspect of the devolutionary trends, politics, for example, the mean-spirited instigations are rampant.
Depending on the perspective by which the challenges of fakery transcend into a viable debate, the scope and sequence can be many facets. 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 a focus on sleight of hand sales and promotional tactics of bloated gluttonous consumerism, or empty political rhetoric, the contrivances are intricate. By false appearance, the 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 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 make note of the easy and simplistic deceptions that conspire for votes.
Related: Meta Program of Culture…
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, a specious conjecture supported by nebulous notions smogs 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 socioeconomic systems. For the greater good, “we people” etc., ought to be collectively striving for a “more perfect union”. While a few endeavors 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, spaciousness, and fakery, contrive to evade the realities of truthfulness. 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.
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 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 persistent deceivers. Like an antisocial iceberg floating in the frigid waters of societal fragmentation, 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 with 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 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, and 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 scientific validation? Typically, reliance on rumor, gossip, and opinion does 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 fosters 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 of 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.
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. The degrading and insulting spew 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 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 is served by these ridiculous diatribes that collude in the hypocrisy of self-gratification.
Accordingly, as the purposes and intentions of “dumbing down” serve 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 of irrelevancy.
By way of similarity and close connection, much amusement comes from the world of academia. Particularly ever-present is the associated field of “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 the 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 educational achievement is not a high priority. In the real world which 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 members of Congress, for example, have law backgrounds and have 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.
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 into 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, the 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 about 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 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 for the sheer 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 demonstrate 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 ensuring control over others.
One assessment of the current political scene is to forget problem-solving to ensure human social self-interests. Yes, of course, profane the discourse by pretentious finger-pointing of who failed to do what. Blame everyone and everything. Dispute, debate, and otherwise engage in commentary, benign and counterproductive, but also make certain nothing is ever accomplished. That seems to be the modern response to critical issues facing humankind. However, do not stop there; ensure a heavy penalty on the taxpayer. Cling to power because there is money to spend courtesy of the American taxpayer. Collusion, hypocrisy, and corruption are consistent.
Their collusions from arrogant schemes of the “psycho-medico-pharmaceutical” industry provoke an array of simplistic wishful dreaming. Designed cleverly, politicians and pundits pontificate about the babblings of misinformation. Gross and dishonest exaggerations complicate the process of cooperative compromise to ensure “we the people” succeed through effective problem-solving. to assert power, control, and dominance over others, the con artistry is pervasive. Intimidation comes along for the ride as a convenient byproduct of fanciful notions. Mythic templates, from one extreme to the other, usually invoke easy excuses.
In much of the discussion about a “human devolution”, or eventual societal collapse, some investigators speak about stages of regression that take place over time. Transitions involve many factors and could take decades or centuries. Within the mix of the downturn, the complexity is multifaceted. Yet, politicians play a key role in leading public policy toward corrective actions by virtue of exceptional leadership, tough decisions, and intense focus on fixing problems. Combined with the political know-how to ensure cooperative efforts among diverse participants, focusing on critical issues requires many to put aside petty differences and dislikes.
A few years ago, in a NASA study in 2014, researchers pointed out two significant factors regarding social collapse. These included straining resources beyond sustainability and increased economic stratification of class structures. Working classes absorb the strain, while upper classes remain insulated at disproportionate levels. However, what mechanism provides the appropriate necessity of checks and balances? One part is the executive and legislative branches necessary to safeguard a reasonable sense of justice for “we the people”, in terms of “promoting the general welfare” and “ensuring domestic tranquility”. So, rather than spewing nonsensical campaign rhetoric, name-calling, and refusing productive and cooperative actions, the dysfunctional collusions, hypocrisy, and corruption hasten the eventual demise of democracy.
The freedom of speech and alternative media face challenges from powerful entities. Real News Cast relies on reader support to flourish and endure. Your contribution matters greatly. Every dollar aids in maintaining the site's vitality and assists the author, including covering medical expenses. https://gogetfunding.com/realnewscast/