Ever Notice How Government Agencies Designed For One Thing Wind Up Doing The Opposite?
How is it that a government “watch-dog-type” agency winds up doing the direct opposite of it’s originally intended job?
Trump's environment agency seems to be at war with the environment, say ex-officials
Donald Trump's environment agency "actually seems to have a war on the environment", has been "utterly untenable", and…
How could this be one might ask? How does this sort of thing happen? Wasn’t the EPA’s originally intended purpose to protect the environment? Here we seem to have yet another example of paradoxical and contradictory human living. It seems to be everywhere doesn’t it? Everywhere we look, we see officials and government agencies saying one thing, but doing the opposite. Is this not crazy? Is it just me that sees this??
Perhaps the thing “to do” if anything in regards to situations such as this is to just “examine” what’s actually going on as opposed to quickly jumping to a conclusive answer of some sort? Perhaps if we took the approach of a doctor examining their patient we might actually discover what the source of the problem is as a doctor would? We might actually come to a diagnosis.
So where to start looking? One might say. Well, how bout at the source? The EPA started with an idea didn’t it? Didn’t someone, or a group of someone’s have to come up with the idea of “protecting the environment?” Therefore, might the source of the problem be with thought itself? Let’s see if we can examine this together, and together see if this is indeed the source of the problem.
If we can both remain open to this possibility, then we might have a chance of seeing this together and progressing.
So someone, somewhere, at some point, created the thought “do protect the environment.” From what we know about the nature of thought and conceptuality, whenever we create an assertion it must also simultaneously create the opposite assertion, as according to the law of opposites, each can only exist in relation to the other. Therefore as soon as the thought “do protect the environment is created”, so too is its negative, or inverse form as “do not protect the environment”, again as the statement “do protect the environment” can only exist opposed to, or in opposition to it’s negative.
If we look further at the thought/assertion “do protect the environment”, we may observe that there is a hidden part to this as well as every thought/assertion statement as this is part of the nature of thought itself. That is, when we use this statement, what’s really being said is “do protect the environment…, …as opposed to not protecting it.” So this is the encapsulation and embodiment of the entire/whole notion of “protecting the environment.” However, this is one of the major mistakes, or misunderstandings we presently have in the use of thought. We fail to see, or acknowledge “the entire” notion, but instead only fixate on either the positive, or negative aspect of it. So consequently when we use thought to “create” our reality in ways such as this, we don’t see that we’re also creating the thing we’re trying to avoid. Therefore, because the thought/notion/government agency “do protect the environment” exists, the opposite notion must also exist, and as long as one exists, both exist.
This phenomenon then has the effect of making the agency or organization appear “broken” and in need of “fixing” and/or “reform”, and then we’re again off to the races using more thought to “fix” a problem that thought originally created, and therefore seemingly forever moving in a downward spiral.
Issa: EPA 'truly a broken agency'
Rep. Darrell Issa Darrell Edward Issa Chamber-backed Democrats embrace endorsements in final stretch Ex-RNC, Trump…
Issa: EPA 'Truly a Broken Agency' with 'Intolerable' Staff Woes
WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday investigated accusations of assault, online pornography viewing, and other…
Who Will Protect Against the Protectors?
An "oops, we did it again" is hardly enough. When a cow passes gas, the Environmental Protection Agency declares war…
So, either, slowly, or quickly, the only change that can take place inside a thought assertion is for it to change from moving in one direction to the opposite direction. This is what’s guaranteed to happen as the nature of thought and conceptuality is that it can only ever move in either of these two opposing directions as it is a limited and closed system by its very nature.
Furthermore, the more one might look they might then see that the force behind this movement is always either desire or fear. We can see that it is the desire for money and profit that causes humans to exploit and destroy the environment in the first place. We can see that in response to this activity, the fear of loosing, or destroying the environment is generated which may also be viewed as the desire to keep, preserve, maintain, or otherwise not destroy the environment. So here again we have humans engaging in contradictory behavior. The whole notion of “environmental protection” is itself spawned and created by desire in the very first place.
If one then looks still further they should soon also see that desire and fear are themselves ultimately created by the misuse and misunderstanding of thought through the creation and identification with the thought, idea, or notion of “I”. This is why true and lasting change will never be born from desire — because that desire is a result of thought, and any creation of thought will always create it’s opposite. And the wheel of pain, suffering, and sorrow will continue to roll on towards greater, and greater collective misery and destruction.
Is any of this true?
Please look to see if you can see what is being point to here for yourself. Observe like a scientist, impartially. If you’re partial to something other than what it is you’re observing while you’re observing, then you’re probably not really observing, and if you’re not observing then you have no chance of “seeing” and then really changing.