19437Re: Gonzo Journalism and the ZeitGeist
- Sep 3, 2005Stunning to have arise, a little late, out of the materialistic
hopper, the ideas of that which is INVISIBLE and the value of the
UNSEEN, INVISIBLE, SPIRIT. Here in economic terms that almost break
the ice into the initial in depth and detailed outlines of part of
the THREEFOLD SOCIAL ORDER, here comes, the consideration of the
Spirit, the unseen aspect of the Economic world.
The logic of materialism is mostly dumb grunt, grade A pure, whole
Ahrimanic manure. And we can trace the stench of this manure into
the very souls who like sh--, have floated up to the top of the
toilet bowl, the Monkey Palace, where the chief chimp himself,
dances as a puppet to the Ahrimanic organ grinder who plays the tune
in Dick Cheney's soul.
"And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because
it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is
a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in
general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether
cities are broken or not.
Now let us consider John Q. himself. In the former supposition, that
of the city being broken, he spends $25 billion, and has neither
more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a city.
In the second, where we suppose the city not to have been broken, he
would have spent $25 billion on an S&P 500 index fund, and would
have had at the same time the enjoyment of a better retirement and
of a city.
Now, as John Q. is society, we must come to the conclusion, that,
taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and
its labours, it has lost the value of the city.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the
value of things which are uselessly destroyed"; and we must assent
to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end
To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour;
or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
What will you say, Monsieur Chan what will you say, disciples of
good J. M. Keynes, who has calculated with so much precision how
much trade would gain by the drowning of New Orleans, from the
number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their
spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to
begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen,
and placing it alongside of that which is seen.
The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons
only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted
to his attention. One of them, John Q., represents the consumer,
reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two.
Another under the title of the construction worker, shows us the
producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident.
The third is the capital goods maker (or some other tradesman),
whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause.
It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who,
personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the
problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a
profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us
that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which
is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore,
if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are
adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of
this vulgar saying What would become of the construction workers,
if nobody ever broke cities?"
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>