Wednesday 7 July 2021

Diagnosing official, Establishment evil

Supposing there was a Thing; and supposing that Thing had the following characteristics according to published, official Establishment data.

The Thing is supposed to solve a New and Severe Problem. 

Suppose that the official data demonstrates that:

1. The Thing is Unnecessary

The Thing is not needed, because the Problem is neither New nor Severe; but instead not-significantly-different-from many such Problems in the past; all of which resolved without any such Thing.   

2. The Thing is Ineffective

The Thing does not do what it is supposed to do: it neither prevents nor cures the Problem. (Those who had the Thing still get the Problem - as much or more than those without the Thing). 

3. The Thing is Harmful 

Much more harmful than the supposed Problem (which is not a New Severe problem, anyway).

Now suppose that the Establishment - knowing this data; having collected and approved this data; nonetheless adopt a strategy (supported by propaganda and implemented by sanctions of unprecedented scope and severity) to administer the unnecessary, ineffective and harmful Thing to Everybody in the world

The question is: Could such an Establishment reasonably be described as anything but Evil?

Note: If you personally want to consult the official sources; please go ahead and do so - but don't ask me to do it for you. If you don't trust my honesty and competence, why should you trust the sources I direct you towards? This Thing is a matter for taking personal responsibility.  


Maniac said...

Now Abidin' is talking about government officials going door-to-door with The Thing.

Needless to say, I checked to see if my state is a Castle Doctrine one.

Bruce Charlton said...

@M - What happens, what becomes real - depends mainly on our thinking and our choices concerning what we regard as true. Not for relativistic reasons, but because such is now the primary (spiritual) reality. Own own thinking is our responsibility - and therefore all individuals necessarily contribute responsibility for whatever happens.

Bruce Charlton said...

Comment from Jake:

"...It's more clear to me now that another motivation is spiritual. They want us to choose to be hurt, or choose to side with evil, or willingly do something to ourselves that we know to be materially and/or spiritually wrong.

It all adds up.

That explains why it is so far voluntary. They push the fear propaganda about making the Thing mandatory, but they don't quite do it. They want you to choose it. That seems to be more important to them than you getting the thing.

Which makes it clearer and clearer that although it is certainly not good for your body, the main thing they want to hurt is your soul.

That said, I know people personally who have been harmed by the thing."

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

You know, the Thing!

Bruce Charlton said...

@WmJas - I thought your link was going to Woody Allen's lame excuse to the Paul Simon character in Annie Hall, when he 'couldn't' attend a 'mellow' party because he and Annie needed to got to 'the thing'. 'What thing?' You know... the Thing' 'Ohh yes... the *Thing*...'.

Samuel Nock said...

Joe Biden knows about, you know, the Thing.

Anonymous said...

And, there appear to be a vast assortment of very different Things which are treated completely interchangably as 'The Thing' for Everybody, with, e.g., often no option to select one of the Things over another, or the the blasé willingness to dish out mixed Thing Helpings.

David Llewellyn Dodds

Bruce Charlton said...

@DLD - It seems like the supposedly-therapeutic content of the Thing does not really matter. Each *specific* Thing *ought* to be monitored separately - assuming one wanted to discover what it did. Obviously, if It was intended as a *real* Thing - intended to do Good - there would not be this indifference to what it actually is and does.

Bruce Charlton said...

Comment from Epimetheus - "...In order for the spiritual suicide-choice to achieve maximum intensity, the Diablo Ex Machina will passive-aggressively publish as much of the Thing's lethality as it can get away with, meanwhile mandating that everyone choose to get it anyway, ideally on a regular basis "until it takes." Maybe there's some kind of demonic utility in getting people to go halfway or three-quarters the way to choosing suicide - something to do with endangering salvation and the aborting of all mortal learning processes. Perhaps this implies that mortal experience of any kind or degree of misery is nevertheless tremendously valuable to one's future in Heaven."

Avro G said...

An apt name for this... thing. Like John Carpenter’s The Thing which constantly mutates to suite the circumstances. Or maybe like the mafia thing - La Cosa Nostra - This thing of ours

ben said...

And now the prospect of hedonism is being offered to people if they'll take this thing. Accept the evil thing so you can engage in evil hedonism. Very nice set-up for TEPTB; lure people into evil with evil itself. Doubly damned for accepting evil as a stepping-stone to the seeking of evil in the form of hedonistic vileness. Choosing (what should be obvious) evil for the purpose of being able to choose more (what should be obvious) evil. Are their instincts dulled are do they deliberately violate them (or both)?

Puts me in mind of: