Skip to content


March 9, 2013

And at the heart of power, throughout the history of human collective government, is insecurity on the part of the holders of power.

And the interest of power is always-constantly as modus operandi as essence-the prolonging in time of its position-always de facto-of dominance.

For even as a result of certain mechanisms of social legitimization, the nature of even conferred power, once it is conferred, is in itself situational, structural and most authoritarian.

This is why, from an originally Hobsonian standpoint, it must held in check, through external or internal opposition.

And the interests, then, on the part of the true wielders of power, behind the peddling of seductive proposals as struggle narratives to end poverty, for instance; behind the institutional imposition on the populace of fear and menace, both external and internal; and behind the façade of apparent existential order and complacency as “progress” and the advancement into the future of humanity, there is ultimately only a self-serving endeavor of survival.

And social evolution, from this standpoint, is accidental-a mere bi-product of  strategies of contention and the reinforcement of positions of dominance.

Or it is the result of one form or another of crisis, of the disturbance of systemic order, both physically, in the world, and most importantly in the minds of people.

And in this sense it can be argued that real social evolution, because it is never understood as an objective on the part of power-unless it is of tactical value in reinforcing power itself-is something that befalls society as naturally as a storm or a particularly hot and sweltering summer.

And in Democracy, this situation is compounded by the circumstance of its understanding by all of us as founded on free the will of men and women as citizens, for even if there exists a technical capacity to direct human societies to pre-established states and ultimate conditions as planned and exhaustively thought-out objectives in regards to the evolution of society itself, people as societies cannot be imposed upon, but rather must continue on in their freedom to pursue their wants and desires out of a personal understanding of their own needs.

And this is exactly the power base of Pentagon Democracy today: that people are not truly free to understand their own needs, but rather those needs are to a great degree imposed on them by a cultural system and the social institutions of society that is instrumentalized itself by the de facto powers of industrial production and consumer society.

And that is essentially because power as Pentagon Democracy has no real objectives with regards to society other than its own permanence in power itself.

And social order and security as world stability constitutes, ultimately, a necessary context for the conducting of commerce-and this context must be protected and guaranteed at all costs.

And the basic understanding of this by people-and the margin of “realpolitik license” people generally concede, because of this, to government in regards to the highest matters of state-coupled with the illusion of personal and democratic freewill, keeps the world turning as it has been since WWII.

And different forms of global dichotomies as opposition have come and gone, always to be substituted, in our Hobsonian viciousness, by others, for psychologically-not just politically-always must we be contained in our most simian nature of imposition.

Just as human anthropological culture has always done; just as human anthropological culture, after agriculture, came into being to do, for life in collective, sedentary and complex human groups is impossible without it.

And because in a natural context there is no way, it seems, to overcome the simian in man through imposition itself-because imposition means resistance, which ultimately leads to violence and the organized human endeavor of killing other human beings as war-a delicate balance of duplicity has been reached.

And the freedom of the individual is publicly celebrated and revered as a beacon of democratic order, human rights and human progress itself, while the necessary shadow forces as guardians of order must necessarily subject that individual to maintain social order as, in a certain sense, illusion also.

But today, because of technology, that necessary control over individuals to preserve stability and order knows no bounds in itself, that because of the power afforded by technical progress “protection”, “security” and “containment”, become tyranny and, eventually, the destruction of individuality-because social order will always be guaranteed, have no doubt about that.

But the degradation of the individual in this sense is not because of technology itself, for Pentagon Democracy is not intrinsically evil in its intentions: Pentagon Democracy is not ideologically fascist in its own awareness, although it most certainly is in practice.

For the individuals that make up the Pentagon Democracy structure of power as a cerebral entity of oversight and ultimate decision-and this does exist-do actually believe in the values of Democracy and human rights; and they do give supreme importance, in a conceptual or philosophical sense, to the individual.

But in their profoundly conservative vision of human nature, they also distrust the individual as category, especially in his (or her) emotions and passions-and most importantly, they are wary of these emotions and primary passions in themselves as individuals.

And they have no bounds, ultimately, in the use they make of technology in immobilizing the individual in the name of order and stability, except that of its rationalization according to the imperatives of publicly understood democracy.

And today it is demanded of you, in the United States that you be an individual in a systemic, economic sense by having a job, and by your contributing as a systemically productive employee or agent of commerce-and, once you have been paid, as a consumer, of course.

And you are free primarily to make purchases as a life of personal option before only two-or perhaps three-competing products or financial services, between Coke and Pepsi, between Bank of America and Mellon.

And you are free to thrive within in this systemic context as long as you to continue to live under the spell and illusion of self-awareness as individuality.

And under that spell, you can strive and plan and hold a far off ideal of yourself as a hardworking, self-sufficient, responsible and-eventually-affluent person with the self-earned (but God-given) right to enjoy material comfort.

But it is most sternly prohibited, in a real and practical sense, being a vitally free, intellectually critical individual.

And you can read and you can even write, but if you want to keep your job or have, as an individual, the vital designs of being economically successful and integrated in the market, you better watch what you say and how you say it.

And the system itself is permanently above serious critical analysis.

Because it is today a systemic question, really, whether you will get and keep that job at Princeton or whether your book will be published-or re-edited, or whether that script will eventually be made into a film.

And you as an always “sound”, responsible individual-that has never to been to prison (or even arrested), is not on a sexual offenders list and that has only one or two speeding tickets (and no serious traffic violations)-must fit in to that system.

(And it doesn’t look good if you have received psychiatric treatment, either.)

And that’s when we can start talking about a salary figure.

But not before.

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: