Skip to content

JEROME FACHER AND PENTAGON DEMOCRACY’S IDEOLOGUES

March 19, 2013

“NEVER CAN GET TO THE ONE” (EDDIE GRANT)

Jerome Facher, the character played by Robert Duvall, has become suddenly of much personal interest to me, because if you are going to defend the vision of the United States as kind of closet fascism hidden behind liberal democracy as governance, you must clearly define, apart from its systemic mechanism of dominance as self-imposition and the instrumenalization of aggregate human economic activity, some form of conscious, methodically thought-out direction on the part of specific individuals and their decisions.

And this is a complicated task indeed, not so much because of the effort these people might go to to remain beyond the realm of public scrutiny, but because the ideology of Pentagon Democracy-in the form that I use this concept as a working hypothesis-has no real ideology at all, being this insufficiency itself the black heart of its entire structure.

How is it, then, that there could be groups of individuals of older and most wise-and intellectually sophisticated-individuals who have come to thoroughly understand the nature of the system they live and work to re-enforce in its dominance over aggregate human economic activity?

And this is indeed a most fascinating point for me as an observer, because I most firmly believe in people as moral beings-no matter how apparently distorted an individual’s personal morality may appear to others; that a sense of decency, fairness and personal rectitude with regards to one’s social medium is, even in prison-for example-a factor of the greatest psychological importance to individuals, although one is always-ALWAYS-free to tailor one’s manner and degree of adaptation to that medium.

And I make no gestures of mock sarcasm with regards to the “Ideologues” of Pentagon Democracy and any lack of moral contemplation-this is exactly what most fascinates me in my analysis of it: how individuals in positions of intellectual oversight with regards to a system of power based also on a form of supreme duplicity, position themselves psychologically and in a moral sense to continue on their particular existences.

Image originally form the 1998 film A Civic Action

Image originally form the 1998 film A Civil Action

And my first point of approach is the consideration of a most necessary existential position of removal and distance from socially standard mechanisms of moral discernment, that depends ultimately, also, on even a physical removal or distance from the company of others.

In the US banking system and based on my observations-that are hardly complete-it seems to be a necessary circumstance that the employees-even at some very high levels-must never receive formal confirmation of the certain morally awkward doubts or suspicions they may harbor themselves about the policies of the institutions they work for. And keeping people in a state of ultimate ignorance with regards to the true technical workings of the digital and electronic facets of the US banking system and its real, long term objectives, is absolutely vital-and doing exactly this is a form of courtesy to those individuals, as well as a systemic requirement, for heavy is the crown of truth as revelation on a psychological plane with regards to a fraudulent paternal figure.

Not only is it demoralizing, it will eventually bring on a most violent crisis in the individual if no genuine communication with that Father is possible; and although it is also likely that the individual could “dumb down” into a most abject “slave mode” of psychological degradation, what was originally disappointment turns, with time, into hatred, and as such, can always be easily kindled and brought back to the surface as a flame of defiance and insurrection-under the right circumstances.

Because money is not really enough, if you think about; how much prime steak and lobster can you eat on a daily basis; how many beers or bottles of French wine; how many different places can you ultimately go in different European sports cars, in a Rolls Royce or in your Lear jet; how many homes and apartments in different cities and countries around the world can you actually live in at the same time; how many different 4 thousand dollar suits can you change into in a day; how many different pairs of shoes for how many different social engagements?

This is where your fantasies of winning a 50 million dollar Power Ball State lottery prize should take you; that the desires and needs you feel you have before coming into that money will not be the ones you are eventually driven by once you posses it.

And money, of course, is one of the reasons behind the existential circumstances of removal and distance in which Pentagon Democracy ideologues live in-because they can afford to and because their primary, vital drives stray off, far form those of Consumer man as object.

But money obviously does help and I seriously believe that part of the reason for such outrageous salaries and bonuses especially in Banking, Finance and Investment is also a kind of “protection money” paid to those who rise in the ranks towards a clear-eyed understanding of the system’s true relationship of instrumentalization of consumer society.

Correct me if I’m wrong!

But at the highest level of pinnacle power as influence in Pentagon Democracy, sits the lawyer; and these individuals may have never passed the bar exam in any State within the United States, or anywhere else-although a lot of them did at the beginning of their careers, whether in law or not.

I am referring to the mindset of a lawyer, of someone who lives in structural argument as a life mode and who understands the power of reasoning as an instrument of imposition as personal and institutional will-but who, as I say, may have never formally studied law.

Remember being before someone like this recently?

Sound vaguely reminiscent?

Lewis F. Powell’s head is already mounted on the wall of my office-so to speak; but there are no season’s that apply to my hunting activities. And I’ve got my license and permits in order-you clearly see that-and I am armed with my intellectual 12 gauge shotgun.

And my taste is for waterfowl, just as they approach a pond or body of water and in the exact moment they spread their wings to land, fatally committing themselves to an anatomic position they can’t quickly get out off.

That is when the shot is taken.

What is it, after all, that bothers people so much about lawyers, as the jokes of probably all cultures reflect?

Structure is power and the understanding of the structure of logic-in this case-is what makes a lawyer a lawyer; and anybody who understands that can think, if need be, like a lawyer, too.

But lawyers stand alone and at a distance form writers, philosophers and most serious scientists, in that they consider human reality only in its malleability as structure itself, being of secondary consideration the empirical nature of that reality.

This is not to say that lawyers deal in deception; I do not believe that or purport to even insinuate it.

They deal in “truth” in regards the logical structure of a narrative as imposition-they deal, I am essentially saying, in the power of narrative as power itself.

And “truth”-as all the above mentioned professions will ultimately admit-is as objective as human perception and understanding can be, which is to say, not completely.

Because people-human beings-are subjective, by nature.

Can’t be a person without subjectivity, yes?

What lawyers don’t necessarily have to deal in is moral truth, although they obviously cannot turn their backs on it, completely. And moral truth is anchored in the slippery and unstable mud of human subjectivity, as well.

But moral truth-the soul of a man and his subjectivity-is not really part of argumentative structure; argumentative structure can be built around any thing.

And I can assert that Hilter’s “Final Solution”, for example, was structurally sound in its understanding of Darwinism as a model of the evolution of non-cognizant, biological species through time and the conceptual stress Darwin gives to the massive death of those individuals not affected by a specific mutation, and how the motor of natural selection in Darwin’s vision is death itself.

Scientifically, it is conceptually coherent-logical-to apply this to human populations if you are in fact in the vantage position of some form of dominance or “management”, based on whatever principals, although the fact that you would be dealing with cognizant biological beings puts you outside altogether of Darwin’s conceptual framework.

And this is a most serious point, the implications of which have yet to be understood, even today.

But in regards to Hitler’s Nazi party, the details and a true understanding of what was actually going on –to my understanding-had to be, to a great degree, hidden and withheld from the German civilian population and never officially confirmed with all the weight of Nazi offialdom itself-quite obviously!

Such is the moral configuration of man!

And such is the framework in which moral argument is also erected and woven, its foundation and limits being the intellectual sentiment of society, and not just the law.

But the law is supposed to proceed, originally, from cultural morality-from that collective, intellectual sentiment of a geographically defined human society.

But the law also necessarily removes itself out form under that stratum of collective, intellectual sentiment.

And collective, intellectual sentiment becomes only a reference and a limit, but not a medium itself, for lawyers and the corporations they ultimately coordinate in regards to each another and to the government, are more comfortable in a legal framework in its practical and instrumental function-and because of its separation form that collective, intellectual sentiment itself.

The law is structure as a mechanism of human will to imposition that-fortunately-acts as substitute for the violence of destruction as imposition in people.

But its disconnect form human moral truth is also one of its shortcomings.

And so is its disconnect from human psychology, in favor of social morality as a mechanism of re-enforcement of that very social morality.

But justice, of course, is a lot more complicated than just morality.

And to be a judge I say you ought to be first a psychologist-and not acquire a better understanding of cognizant biological organisms only after 20 years on the bench!

And to be a lawyer-it goes without saying-you should be subjected to a process, in your younger years, of acquiring the ability truly marvel in fascination at the human beings you come to know as characters in serious literature.

And as you wonder at the eminence of the individual in the form of literary characters (I do not mean Harry Potter) and their psychology, you acquire a sense of values that are necessarily anchored also in the individual, just as the writer (I do not mean J.K. Rowling) has lead you to see, grasp and assimilate.

And the literary intentions of all great writers are, really, a will of love in the form of human betterment of the reader, of mankind and the human condition.

And after that you can come and see me, as a lawyer, in a court of law.

Can you imagine how positive that would ultimately be for society if your interests were not so much just your own and those of your client, economic sector or de facto power structure you serve?

But you got to have a morally grounded, vital IDEOLOGY, first!

Give me a call when you are getting close.

Ta-ta.

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s