Skip to content


March 8, 2013


We are now before the need of a most responsible exercise of intellectual contemplation in regards to the limitations and pitfalls of Democracy itself-and I should not be alone in this exercise.

For it is the essence of Democracy to assert, in the final analysis, that people as individuals and in groups-and even as whole societies-always know and understand what is in their true best interest-given that it is the expression of popular will through the right to vote which ultimately determines the polices of governance.

But we also know that this has never been true in the history of contemporary political theory.

And the greatest and gravest of decisions that irremediably must be taken at certain times and in certain circumstances, have always been outside of the realm of publicly understood governance.

And society, as a sensitive and easily alarmed social mass, must be shielded from the gravest of issues the true contemplation of which would quickly disturb individuals and disrupt society itself in the form of collective fear, insecurity and panic-and, finally, violence.

And there have always existed-always, and in every cultural system of democratic government-auxiliary, extrajudicial forces as agents of the systemic, overall well being of society; and because of the de facto, publicly unscrutinized nature of this power, the popular understanding of Democracy is clearly hobbled and distorted-and it would be irresponsible -preposterous- to purport to examine and understand contemporary, historical Democracy with out recognizing this fact.

And in specific historical cultural contexts, there have always been Free Mason’s, Opus Dei’s, Bilderbergs and Davos, as well as the military and its civilian manifestation as security and intelligence agencies.

And in the contemporary world these groups as guardians have always been directly and profoundly tied to universities and research-for the supervision and oversight of society implies the power to place one’s self in such a position, and that power has always been the result of technology and its control.

And science and the technology that it produces, needs financing.

And the technology that is ultimately produced also produces money-vast amounts of money.

And I now draw on a concept from law that, in different judicial traditions, is always present, for it is based on the deepest moral sentiment in all human beings –since at least agriculture and the establishment of human culture on Earth as we know it.

And in the judicial assessment of human reality it is crucial to establish positions of dominance and advantage on the part of a judicially competent individuals and entities with regards to and over other human beings.

And determining who, in some way, benefited illicitly and knowingly from some form of superiority or advantage, with regards to actions taken towards another human being, is the key factor in grading guilt in a penal sense.

The Powell Memorandum enters into a most precarious form of moral hazard in that it explicitly proposes resorting to an overwhelming de facto advantage of economic power with regards to other human sectors of society, while at the same time purporting to seek the overall benefit and long term well being of American society itself.

And in so doing the writer assigns himself and the social groups he represents-Powell sat simultaneously on the board of directors of 11 companies at one time(1)-a de facto position of extrajudicial dominance that, as a dichotomy with the rest of society, and especially with regards to liberalism, reduces these other social sectors to the category or position of “underdog”,  the de facto weaker party.

And this is most hazardous, indeed.

Because the union between business and banks, universities and the military can only be understood as disturbingly self-serving if the there is no restraint in the form of opposition by civilian, democratic government.

And scientific research and the production of technology only reinforces this de facto, shadow position of dominance the likes of which Powell, in his memorandum, was contemplating.

And there is little (although there is some) psychological temperance and restraint in Powell’s reasoning and words.

And this compounds even more the sinister nature of the hazard here in question, for in Powell’s clearly understood position of superiority, he has no regard for broader societal interests, beyond his own perceived needs and interest and those of the social groups he represented.

But the fact is that he should have, for how could he seriously assume that liberal, intellectually articulate-and even Marxist-professors in the US and their students would ever be in favor of living in shanty towns, huts or UN Refugee camps?

Who, in the end, rejects a solid minimum of material comfort and a most positive existential complacency in this sense?

And it is in conjunction with the answer to that question that perniciousness of the Powell Memorandum can be truly observed: people as comfort seeking, biological mechanisms of cognizance, ultimately understand and value of material comfort, and they will go to great lengths to obtain and live in it.

No matter where their intellectual, political and ideological endeavors may take them in life.

But it is also their vulnerability as comfort seeking, biological mechanisms.

And the Powell Memorandum establishes a politically spectrum-wide theory or foundation for the instrumentalization of consumer society itself as American political governance from a position of de facto, extra democratic superiority.

And Lewis Powell, as the intelligence officer that he had been in World War II, clearly understood that the difficulty resides, really, in people’s cognizance as an object of intervention, for through the individual’s need for material comfort, society was already in the their hands, in the hands of Corporate America.

And because nobody says no to money, to one degree or another, it is through the cultural superiority of money itself that opens the door to the most devastating reduction in the critical capacity of individuals as cultural observers and actors.

And although there are other cultural, psychological and historical factors at play here, there is a broad spirit of rejection of critical thought and dissent by social and political institutions in the United States, and critically tamed innovation and creativity, mostly in a technical sense, are the only icons of personal prowess and talent.

And although Critical Thought and higher functions of critical reasoning are talked about with regards to school curriculum in the US, these abilities, at their highest degrees of questioning, are most devastatingly muzzled in society itself.

Just as Eisenhower foretold in 1961.

For in what way could Coke, for example and as a symbol of Corporate America, benefit from more intellectually critical social modes of being?

Coke really can’t so there would not be any urgent imperative to foster it, although in principal Coke still might, mostly in a social image effort.

But there is also a subtly insinuated danger in intellectually critical human vitality as life mode: that you might skip the Pepsi/Coke challenge as dichotomy altogether.

And this, in a systemic sense, is a most serious threat to the cultural dominance of the social sphere as part of what today I refer to as Pentagon Democracy by corporations and “I Phone” life.

The threat that you might loose appeal for shopping malls and being the object of strategies of psychological persuasion that is the true bill of rights and constitution of “I Phone life” under the Democratic rule of the Pentagon.

Because the officers of Pentagon Democracy-it’s bankers and “captains of industry” seek only their interests and needs, which they understand as those of society itself-and these needs and imperatives are presented as such.

And under the boot of aggregate economics as diachronic dominance over bank-deposited funds, one of those needs, now, is that you live life the way you do.

And it is not convenient, in this sense-and just the way Powell presented it in his text-that you actually understand this.

1. From:

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: