Stark contradictions between official policy and official explanations for policy - our task is to notice, acknowledge, and learn-from them

Way too much time and energy is spent exhaustively enumerating the myriad contradictions between official policies in theory and in practice.

But most of this effort is misplaced, or even counter-productive. It is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel to point out that the official reasons for doing things is contradicted by what officials actually are doing - but the point is to draw the correct inference from this.


When it comes to the birdemic it has become almost a hobby for people to point-out the many ways in which official actions contradict the professed goal of controlling the virus by increasing the rate of disease transmission.

Yet people repeatedly, persistently, systematically draw the conclusion that the reason is that officials are incompetent, stupid, crazy - maybe corrupt. People assume that officialdom is well-motivated, but messes-up the implementation.

People assume that pointing-out the contradictions in what-actually-is-happening, will lead to a coherent set of actions directed at birdemic control.


Almost never do people conclude that the reason for contradiction is because offical practice is not driven by the official theory.

Almost never do people even entertain the possibility that the outcome is intended, and the official explanation is dishonest.

Almost never do they assume that officials are wickedly-motivated, and what happens is (broadly) what They want to happen.


Yet, if we are able (at least hypothetically) to assume that the actual implemented practice is the outcome of being motivated to achieve that outcome - then, contradictions largely disappear!

Suddenly we observe that these supposed contradictions are not contradictions. They only appeared to be contradictions when we had made a wrong inference about what was motivating policy.

When the correct assumption is applied, we see a broadly-coherent set of policies, diving a broadly-coherent set of outcomes.


My point is that most people do not learn from experience. They never learn from experience - no matter how often it is repeated.

And the reason they do not learn from experience is (nearly always) because they interpret experience in light of their prior assumptions; which assumptions are seldom acknowledged, and even less often analysed or challenged.


What we see in the world now is a set of outcomes which are coherent on the basis of a motivation to achieve maximum power by means of increased population monitoring and increased regulation of specific behaviours. What we observe (from personal experience, via our own perceptions - as well as in the media) is a world rapidly moving towards omni-surveillance and micro-control.

This is very simply understandable, and non-contradictory, if we assume that power, monitoring and regulation are the primary motivation.

However, these changes are shot-full of contradictions if we assume that they are motivated by a desire to minimise deaths from the birdemic.

This isn't rocket surgery... It is about as clear and simple as anything of such a large scale ever can be.

So, can people learn from experience, or not?


Our primary spiritual task at present (as always, but more obviously now) is to learn from the experiences of mortal life. Can we see the obvious - or are we content to have the obvious explained-away by a mass of contradictory theories and policies relating to the birdemic.

God has made it easy for us! Which carries the implication that if people fail to see the obvious, and remain enmeshed in falsehoods; then they have chosen to live by lies instead of truth. And lies are sins (the devil being a liar and the father of lies).

And this choice of untruthfulness carries a 'karma' (in a Christian sense of the word) - that is, actively choosing sin entails consequences. And these consequences are not avoidable, since we have inflicted them upon our-selves - consciously, actively, freely (knowing the contradictions, but ignoring their obvious implications).


Spiritual warfare is endemic in this mortal life; but now it has reached the climax of a decisive battle; with the world transformed more rapidly, more completely, and at a larger scale than ever before in the history of Man.

Which side have you chosen?

Do you want to change your mind?