Skip to content


June 14, 2013


Both of you have made clear as tandem in different recent congressional hearings that the security of a country is conditional to the economic security-or strength-of that country; “and you know this”-were Hagle’s final words, at one point, to a member of the US House of representatives in this regards.

And to the sound of what appears to be a military mantra of sorts –Deter. Defend. Defeat-you appear before civil bodies of government to petition fewer cuts, or ultimately, more funding, always under a dark-but subtle-all-enveloping thunderhead of threat, fear and dread with regards to future attack and troop readiness.

And before you sit, for the most part, a most docile group of individuals who appear to make a great effort not to come across as critical-not even constructively critical-to what appear to be your ultimate designs with regard, in my opinion, to the whole of United States policy-both domestic and foreign, economic and military, as well as ultimately, in social sense, too.

You are well aware now-or will be when you find yourselves forced to respond to this text-of my vision of US political and social history since the 1950s-and you know that I side with the camp that could be described as including the likes of Eisenhower, JFK, Senator and vice president Lyndon Johnson-not the president-, Senator Fulbright, C Wright Mills and George Thayer, for example.

And I know you understand that this clearly makes me your adversary in this sense and at the present time.

And it is the quality I perceive of docility and of effectively being hamstrung in the members of the US Congress as both of you sit before them that only reinforces my current, sorry but painstakingly elaborated vision of political governance in the US as Pentagon Democracy.

But I wish to hold you to your words with regards to the relationship between military might and economics.

And I would ask you to contemplate the current structure of the US economy and take note particularly of the empirical fact that the concentration of media companies that has taken place since the early 80s; and of the fact that many of these corporations are tied to- or and even owned in some cases by-the same corporations that use them as advertizing platforms-and that because of this, there has taken place a gradual morphing of mainstream media from news into a form of vital, political entertainment;

And that this circumstance has been one of the means by which the so-called cultural war has been able to evolve now into the base and core of political exchange as the American democratic process itself.

It is also a fact, regarding the current state of the US social-economic system, that the concentration, power and influence of corporations has never been greater.

I also consider it a fact that the voice of a genuine, societal-ly concerned liberalism-although not entirely squelched-has effectively lost any real power of imposition to the overwhelming brawn and power of corporations.

It would be entirely objective, then, to analyze the relationship between the specifics of the US economy currently-and the political-social structure attached to it-with the US military and its state of operational readiness you purport to defend and advocate for.

1) Because one consequence of the current economic structure is an almost permanent state of cultural deadlock that has ended up stalling-almost permanently as well-the political process itself, do you feel that this might leave you, in a certain sense, in an unfair position of superiority with regards to the civilian body of governance you are publicly understood as soliciting funds from?

2) Has your understanding of this-and its understanding by others who work with you-ever lead you to actually count on this circumstance as part of a possible leverage in your favor with regards to your planning strategies for the assignation of funds?

3)  Could this not be understood as actually an objective on your part that would need to be fostered and even finely developed in its usefulness with regards to your departmental interests?

4) And if this were true, would you see any serious difficulties in establishing the necessary connections with the corporate world to further, in the sense I have described here, your position of superiority over the US Congress itself through an unofficial but brazen influence over the mainstream media?

5)  Would it also then be viable, through your eventual connections with corporations, to put the Whites House itself, as now a figurehead executive power, in the same position of subordination that you maintain over the US Congress?

6)   And finally, has it ever bothered you, that because of the current configuration of the US economy-and of the social-political structure that depends on it-that there is, now, no real voice as counterbalance in terms of a philosophical and ideological spirit of opposition in the form of a politically effective American liberalism that sees beyond the logic of cost effectiveness, efficiency and the other traps that are hidden in the etherealness of this insolvent phantom we are all, as US citizens, victims of?

Please consider your honest and straightforward answer to these questions as an act of service to your country-or what is left of it.

I thank you.


Harold Seth Knight

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