Why do most people fail to recognize the underlying evil motivations fueling the draconian measures that have been imposed upon them during the birdemic?
Many possible explanations exist, but in my mind they all find root in the metaphysical. That is, modern man is largely incapable of recognizing true evil because he has acquired an extremely flawed and limited conception of the fundamental nature of reality. His conception of the relationships between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality have become blurred and confused. Through the conscious and willing rejection of God and Divine Creation, modern people have essentially lost the plot of reality and have become very much like the captives in Plato's cave allegory - mesmerized into believing the outlines of projected shadows mark the limits of all known reality.
By rejecting God, modern people have also rejected belief in supernatural evil, which is entirely understandable - for it makes no sense to believe in the existence of the devil if belief in God is refuted. Thus, for modern people evil becomes a purely material phenomenon that can only be explained by material factors such as nature, chemistry, psychology, sociology and the like.
At first glance, this range of criteria appears fairly wide-ranging, but it is actually quite restrictive, which might help explain why modern people harbor such narrow and incomplete definitions of evil. Dr. Bruce Charlton has written much about these narrow definitions of evil and argues that moderns ironically appear to recognize Luciferic evil (driven by lower emotions like rage, lust, envy, greed and characterized by murder and violence), but are utterly blind to Ahrimanic evil (cold, calculating, faceless, bureaucratic malevolence characterized by committees, management structures, micro-managing and micro-surveillance).
I fully agree with Dr. Charlton's assessment. If the lockdown has proven anything, it has proven this - most contemporary people truly are blind to cold machinations of bureaucratic evil.
But how did this come to be?
Perhaps a partial explanation can be found in Hanlon's Razor - a philosophical aphorism that posits the following: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." In other words, any interpretation of malevolence might actually be nothing more than a misinterpretation of stupidity and incompetence.
Applying Hanlon's Razor to the unprecedented measures authorities around the world imposed upon their respective populations in response to the birdemic results in the following line of thinking: "Sure, it looks like it might have been done with malevolent intentions, but it is more likely just a case of ignorant and misguided politicians, experts, and policymakers scrambling to make hard decisions based on incomplete and inaccurate data and projection models."
Now, Hanlon's Razor can be a useful tool in discerning mere incompetence - to do the opposite, to assume malice to be the root of all actions and decisions is to veer into the dark realm of paranoia - but the swiftness with which modern people embrace Hanlon's Razor to explain away obvious cases of malicious intent and action leads back to the limited comprehension modern people have of the fundamental nature of reality.
That the line separating good from evil runs through the heart of every man was one of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's most famous observations. Modern people appear enamored by this idea, but for all the wrong reasons. Misinterpreting the wisdom inherent in Solzhenitsyn's insight, contemporary people simply accept the impossibility of pure good and evil. Yes, some people are more good than others; and others are more 'evil'; but no individual person is truly good or evil. Basically, humans are nothing more than fleshy, animated yin-yang symbols; and even the most 'evil' human possesses some attributes of good (racists, bigots, phobes, and the like excepted).
No person is wholly good or evil. That's a fact. A truth. But if it's not anchored in the proper context, this truth can easily be misapplied. Put another way, modern people view Solzhenitsyn's observation as a 'get out of jail free card' - as a means through which to explain away the presence of human evil. Lacking all religious tools to judge, weigh, and assess the presence of human evil, modern people merely shrug and say "I have it in me to do it, too."
Yet once again, the actual definitions of evil here are likely extremely narrow and limited to the Luciferic conceptions of evil mentioned above. Moderns basically equate Luciferic evil in humanity with stupidity and incompetence, where the greatest blunder is not the actual committal of immorality or crime, but the stupidity and incompetence that allowed one to be caught in the act.
But what about Ahrimanic evil?
Modern people often employ Hanlon's Razor when criticizing or lambasting their elected political officials. Malice is rarely addressed, at least through officially-sanctioned channels, and nearly all seemingly malevolent actions and decisions are peremptorily written off as stupidity or incompetence.
But there is more to it than that. Much more. Meandering speculations about Hanlon's Razor aside, I sense modern people do not recognize Ahrimanic evil as evil for the simple reason that most sincerely view bureaucracy as a force for good. Modern people know bureaucracies - organizations, committees, political bodies, corporate boards, etc. - are crammed with flawed, fleshy yin yangs who are often tempted to commit 'bad deeds', but they do not believe that this makes the forms of bureaucracy evil in of themselves (for example, think of those who steadfastly defend abstractions like democracy).
The only notion of heaven most modern Westerners are willing to consider is a temporal one. Contemporary bureaucratic structures, policies, and frameworks are the only means through which this temporal heaven can be established. What does this temporal heaven, this worldly utopia comprise? A greener planet. Universal basic income. Increased international cooperation leading to eventual one-world governance. And so forth. Any threat to this vision of material heaven must be dealt with swiftly and severely, and it must be dealt with swiftly and severely exclusively through bureaucratic means.
Modern people do not recognize Ahrimanic evil as evil because they wholeheartedly believe that Ahriman is a force for good. The rejection of God and Divine Creation leaves no other option. Heaven on earth will not build itself. Such a goal requires an intricate network of plans, committees, management, data, laws, rules, regulations and everything else Ahriman comprises. And any perception of malice in this great project will be attributed to stupidity and incompetence. After all, how could those who strive to build heaven on earth possibly possess 'real' malice or be 'really' evil?
Well, if one rejects all belief in supernatural evil, then those who strive to help build heaven on earth can't really be malicious at all. At worst, they are stupid. Or incompetent. Or both.
But evil? To most modern people, the very notion is incomprehensible.
Note added: Creating heaven on earth also entails guaranteeing certain 'inalienable' human rights, most of which are blatant moral inversions that are in direct opposition to the Divine. Ahriman serves to endorse, legislate, and enforce these inversions, the bulk of which modern people no longer even recognize as such. Modern people also genuinely believe bureaucratic structures sincerely care about the well-being of all individual people. Merely mentioning that this is not the case strikes most modern people as anathema.