Government Decisions and Social Deception 

Some may see a resemblance between social deception and social engineering. Social engineering is often viewed as a criminal activity due to the means it employs. It is important to clarify this term because, in our view, social engineering is not the same as social deception as we understand it. 

From our perspective, social deception is linked to an organized activity that exists within an established system designed to shape public opinion. By utilizing common mechanisms such as political language that diverts attention from fundamental issues—such as relationships between individuals, access to opportunities, or material benefits—social deception is consolidated. 

Governments may promise reforms or economic changes, but these political appearances often distort what is already established, which is the essence of deception, while populations remain increasingly vulnerable to their tricks. Through allied media and ongoing social circumstances, these governments create a perception of success or progress even as disparities grow. 

One might think that deception is necessary as a tool for a specific purpose, but when that tool ceases to be a means and becomes a constant form of collective fraud, such activity should be regarded as a social deceit. In other words, when deception transforms into something established and sanctioned, it undermines collective well-being. 

Governments have always employed various strategies to obscure or minimize existing inequalities. These contradictions—apparent in terms of access to resources, opportunities, and power—are often camouflaged by policies and rhetoric designed to portray an image of normalcy or progress. However, in many cases, official narratives hide a far more troubling reality.

Authoritarian regimes typically showcase this form of governance, but let’s not be mistaken; social deception is an established mode of governance for all regimes since it is a practical way to cover up social inequalities. For instance, many view the workday and minimum wage as normal, but considering profit margins and individual benefits, it constitutes social deception that allows for inequitable compensation between owners and employees. When such acceptance becomes legislated, it is enshrined by authority, transforming into social deception, where a few have access to the economic benefits of productive activity. If we were to attain awareness and authorities had a fairer role in what is "appropriate," it might entail the establishment of participation percentages rather than "predetermined rates" related to economic benefits. As long as social deceit is framed within what is permissible, it distorts reality, reflecting a harsher life and inadequate development among individuals. Accepting personal ambition as normal is morally questionable and signals collective indifference. 

This also manifests in the manipulation of statistics and data. Figures regarding poverty, unemployment, or access to basic services can be presented selectively. By painting an optimistic picture, governments aim to maintain order and avoid dissent, while perpetuating a system in which they continue to concentrate resources. 

While individual deception may be punishable, collective deception takes on a character of impunity, a lack of authority, institutions, or a qualified system. If clear competencies in authoritative functions were established, such deliberate acts would be more limited and would lose their normalcy. "Democracy" ceases to be democratic when it serves some while purportedly backed by the vote of the majority. In this way, issues like property could be somewhat mitigated by the principle of equity, seeking something fairer and less exclusive. The struggle for rights always has these social dimensions. 

The use of repressive dramas is another form of concealment. Televised social protests or alleged movements fighting for equity can sometimes be manipulations of information under the pretense of opposing the regime. Instead of addressing justice demands, governments engage in social change narratives that silence those calling for genuine change. This combination of manipulative and disinformative media and repression allows governments to maintain a facade of dominance and power while the population experiences helplessness. Be the change, not the opposition, for they have already created their own opposition. Politicians are a socially established caste, and awareness of this is crucial. 

This concept of "social deceit" becomes more interesting when viewed through the lens of social deficiency. This perspective could serve as a practical means to promote equity and balance, but remains deficient compared to the clear impetus of focusing on things in a straightforward and defined manner. The truth harms no one, except when one is part of the deceit. 

What clarifies the presence of a true leader is the transparency of approaches. Only fiction can provide the space to explore what we understand as social deficiency and become social lethargy. For instance, when the concept of "deceit" is developed by a villain at the expense of their governed subjects, it reveals the shortcomings of a governance system. The subsequent scene of liberation, arising from the unacceptability of large-scale lies, underscores social necessity. However, in real life, the world can be observed to be more complex than imagination may suggest, but that does not imply that the world is perpetually foolish, as some might wish. Yet one thing remains clear: political leadership should not be the pinnacle of social guidance, nor the legislative power. An organic level that is more impartial and corrective becomes necessary because any immune system is inherently complex. If some continue to believe that governments are not, by nature, invasive of human dignity while constantly deceiving, let us tell them: they transgress as well.