from: Bloodstone43956@i-mail.irs
to: Raventrap39996@i-mail.irs
date: 7518.23046
My Dear Raventrap ~
You don’t have to thank me for providing you with a clearer understanding of The Corporation. What I wrote used to be part of the core curriculum at Tempter’s University. I’m not sure what’s been going on there recently, but it seems to me much of the old curriculum has been watered-down to make it easier for young tempters to get started in the professional world. Maybe the liberal arts are becoming a thing of the past, but I think it still pays to know a little history. It also helps to know your place in the organization. That being said, I readily admit tempters these days are much better prepared in the techniques and technology of temptation. The proof of your professional preparation is in the tasting. You were able to absorb what I had to say about technology as quickly as you absorb your clients! Still, it’s advantageous to know something of one’s background and heritage.
Speaking of heritage, I think it’s useful to consider the topic of “sustainability,” both from the standpoint of the continued existence of The Corporation, and in terms of the continuation of humanity. In this arena, we need to tread carefully, quietly, like serpents, even though we mustn’t assume that form for long, as you well know. If we convince our clients to deplete the Earth’s resources entirely, there will no longer be food for us. Yet we must promote the idea that it’s good for our clients to exploit what the Earth has to offer while they can, in the interest of “economic development,” “quality of life,” or whatever sells the idea. Our Competitor has said He wants the little creatures to be “good stewards” of all he has given them ~ what a sickening thought! We must counter this idea with a simple proposal: the resources of the Earth are meant to be used to make a profit, and those who profit by them are not to be questioned, but revered, as the creators of jobs, markets, and above all “property.”
One of their philosophers proposed that when a human mixes his labor with a natural resource, say, farmland or fruit trees, the land or the trees become his rightful property. Now, Our Competitor always tries to remind His clients everything is His property, basically because he made it. Using this shop-worn theory, humans can only “borrow” property from Our Competitor for a season, and even then He expects them to share it with one another and pass it on to succeeding generations in good condition. This is the repugnant nature of “stewardship” as Our Competitor sees it. Be that as it may, by property we mean whatever can be appropriated.
It’s only a short distance between the “labor theory” of property and Our Executive’s theory. Let your clients assume because they’ve found a way to obtain or extract a resource, it is therefore their property, and they can do whatever they wish with it, even if they hoard or squander it. What an awe-inspiring sight to see thousands of baby seals clubbed to death or herds of buffalo shot from the tops of moving trains! Only humans are ignorant enough to be deluded into throwing away resources. Animals tend to use only what they need. I earned my current position after I sold a major client on the phrase, “greed is good.” The concept is simple, but very effective: the more one can get for himself, no matter what he does with it, the better. Period. Stewardship is for losers!
We consider our clients as natural resources, to be cultivated ~ manipulated, misled, deceived, and tempted ~ and in the fullness of time, harvested. Our theory is that by mixing our labor with a valuable resource ~ a human contract ~ we will in fact be able to claim it as our rightful property. Even Our Competitor has a difficult time arguing against this theory, unless we let Him make the ridiculous assertion that a client must be able to choose freely, or any such claim is invalid. He has a devious way of reclaiming contracts we may have failed to fully convince to choose Hell. You’ve no doubt heard the harrowing tales of clients we thought were ours up until the last moment ~ they make my skin crawl!
I will now outline how to manage our natural resources.
Just as we must control the development and consumption of our clients, it’s important for us to control the way our clients develop and consume the resources of their world. The little mongrels must not be allowed to consume everything too fast or they will become extinct, and our exploitation of them will come to an end. We must assure our supply of contracts will last indefinitely, for thousands of years to come. Our Executive has commanded us to do so.
The battleground of “environmentalism” is especially fruitful for us. But, the question is, how can we strike a balance between using the battle over resources to claim contracts while not tempting our clients to consume too much? Obviously, if they reach agreement on conservation of resources this is both good and bad news for our side. The good news: our own resources may last forever. The bad news: there will be no more fighting over resources, no more lying, cheating, or stealing to get what they want and therefore we will lose access to what has become a great source of bounty for The Corporation.
Our intention is to feed the controversy over sustainability. For this purpose our ability to distort the meaning of words is invaluable. Often we can completely neutralize our clients’ ability for rational debate. Make sure any proposal for green energy or resource conservation, no matter how well-founded, is met with a charge of being a “job killer” ~ a term I coined not long ago ~ or “not fiscally viable,” or an act of “economic terrorism.” Also, make sure any suggestion to develop a resource, no matter how sensible, is met with a charge of “exploitation” or of courting environmental “disaster.”
Most of our clients know damned well nothing lasts forever, but if we can get half of them to do battle with the other half over what the next step should be, change will be drawn out over decades. In the meantime we can reap the rewards of contracts whose animosity has risen, or shall I say, descended, to such a level that they are no longer able to listen to any opinion other than their own. Then, they will be ours. Even though we might lose a little ground as their rancor delays the development of a sustainable system, many will relentlessly consume and exploit, while others will despise them for it. Self-centered antagonism on both sides may not help the Earth’s environment, but it will certainly bring many contracts to Our Executive’s environs.
Your Devoted Cousin,
Bloodstone
MurrayWorks 