Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 3

And it has been said as well that, in paraphrased terms, the only thing that can trap one is one’s agreement on reality. Whether this is true or not is not that important; what counts is its usefulness, and that is better seen through its contrary: one is not going to tackle something unless one deems it possible and, even more so, one is not going to challenge the reality of something if one takes that reality for granted. Taking something for granted puts it out of one’s visual range, and we know this front is under permanent attack.

And that is exactly the enviable position acquired by the “Pensée Unique in Economics”: everybody agrees it does exist; everybody agrees it is true; everybody agrees that’s just the way it is; whether they like it or not. So much they agree it is real that they even forgot that what they so unanimously take for granted now was not always this way.

By the way, who’s “everybody”? Are the High Priests of the “economic Word” the only shepherd wolves taking care of the flock of sheep? Time to remind what was Wil Coyote studying so intently, when we disturbed him before to discuss what I called the mission of betrayal. What are the opinion leaders of the flock? Our modern (and one−way, from them to us) village square and window on the world are the media, and these are stuffed with, well, you name it; the categories are wasted: economists, academics and all sorts of “…ologists”, politicians, union leaders and all sorts of activists, intellectuals, specialists and all sorts of leaders, artists, showbiz people and all sorts of etc., etc.

Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics