Prof E K Blankenship 

It has become apparent in the years since the "End of History"1, that altogether too much jubilation on the part of Actualisers has left a gaping hole in the conceptual superstructure of present day discourse. An utterly unreasoned dynamic has rolled forward, juggernaut-like, displacing all sensible understanding, and leaving the actualising community totally unprepared for the reaction of assorted "misfits", and "flat-earthers", to borrow some of the rather limp insults hurled, lady-like, in the direction of the stone-throwers.

That this situation has long been anticipated, by this author among others2, merely underlines the quality of "sleepwalking" on the part of the majority of Actualisers. Up until now, little has been done to "redirect the flow". This need not remain the case. Indeed, if the maintenance of the current system of surplus-acquisition is to remain robust, change must happen now.


Terrifying images of colourfully coiffured "anarchists" hurling stones and abuse at the constabulary; stock markets plummeting; GM crops trials destroyed by protesters; eco-terrorists burning down luxury housing developments - all enough to make an Actualiser despair. And clearly many are. Instead of determining exactly what conceptual structures are needed to "nip this in the bud", Actualisers are quaffing bottles of wines from the 1940's at thousands of pounds a go3 (that they are willing to expend such sums on wines made in an era of dramatic upheaval may be of interest to those inclined towards literary pursuits, but should not concern us here). Many are obviously contented with the warm glow of the continued dominance of market politics, whether "left" (e.g, Blairite, Euro-"socialist", etc) or "right" (e.g., GW Bush Jr, Berlusconni, etc); that this is like an alcoholic taking comfort in a "hair of the dog" should be obvious to all but the most self-deluding.

The rise of a new "spectre" across the world - from Seattle to Gothenburg - is presented as some sort of "answer" to "globalisation". This fantasy would be an amusing after-dinner taking-point, were it not for the bizarre and wholly negative conceptual structures that it may be planting in the minds of less thought-capable Enablers. The return of not only egalitarianism, with all its self-destructive tendencies towards the dead-end of "personal liberation", but reciprocity, could put back the progress of market economics decades. This intolerable prospect must be obliterated.

And indeed, despite the noisy, dazzling spectacle taking place before us, the solution to this dilemma is not only within our grasp, but would be highly effective, in terms of both cost and delivery.

As the saying goes, "resistance is fertile" - but those currently chanting this may be surprised to learn what eventually grows from the soil they are tending.


It should come as no surprise to those living in "democratic" societies that the relatively free flow of information has created difficulties for those engaged in Actualisation. Attempts to bypass the public discourse are met with, if not outrage, at least derision. While the American model of almost total corporate media control has much to recommend it, the nature of its open society makes this a path fraught with difficulties. For all those who see conspiracy as a matter of UFOs, there are an alarming number who are well versed in the important matters of the day - witness the death of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)4. This rather drab sounding means of enhancing Actualisation was brought down by the activities of some of the same people currently being derided as "anarchists", through such unremarkable means as disseminating information via the internet and protest. This outrageous situation is set to repeat itself, time and time again, if serious action is not taken.

The most obvious means would of course be to suspend democracy and turn society into a form of prison, where Enablers gain privileges as Actualisers see fit. Though this might be an excellent end to work towards, it is unlikely to provoke anything but eventual rebellion if put in place at too early a stage.

For the present period, state terrorism might appear as the best option. In its most current manifestations (e.g., Columbia, Israel vis a vis Palestine) its use can be most effective. However, it has a tendency to make its users notorious, and in this era of "human rights courts", this could be a potentially "sticky situation".

The questions then must be asked: How to gain the benefits of state terrorism, while eliminating the potential negatives? Further, can it be made more effective? The answer, tantalisingly, is right under our noses.


The point is made today, ad naseum, that corporations have more power than nations. That this is a slight exaggeration is true5, unless we consider those nations in the non-productive world, whose GNP are nothing compared to the wealth of our most profitable corporations.

And yet even if it is not entirely correct to say corporations run the world, it is hardly far off the mark. And most importantly, it is the public perception that governments are powerless against corporations.

If we take as a given the effectiveness of public relations and advertising, the path forwards is laid open to us. Through the effective use of corporate propaganda, and well co-ordinated global campaigns, the message we are striving to make can be "driven home".

Consider the following:

Corporation A runs a teaser campaign. First we see a tropical beach. For weeks, photos of an idyllic beach can be seen on the sides of buses, on billboards, etc throughout the productive world. Short television adverts showing the beach, with busy natives building a boat, are run on all the major networks. This teaser campaign then steps up a gear. The island is named, vital statistics are given - the number of inhabitants, location, history, etc. (NB: this would be a remote island) Finally after a few more stages, the message goes out: REMOVE ALL TARIFF CONTROLS OR ISLAND X GETS IT. This will more than likely be taken as humorous. After the message is repeated, the island is vaporised, and Corporation A says next time it will be you.

The ensuing outrage will be global, protests will ensue and governments will unite in decrying this act of murder. Criminal charges will be brought, and through an effective use of disinformation, blame will fall on a particular Actualiser in Corporation A. This Actualiser will be handed over to whatever criminal court is relevant.

Then, Corporation B runs a similar campaign, this time dosing the water supply of a major metropolitan area with hallucinogens. Again, outrage, etc will follow.

However, anyone familiar with the history of "talk tv" will know that outrage has a short shelf life. As these campaigns continue, establishing corporate terror for the first time, this phenomenon will become increasingly accepted as a way of life.

While many on the side of Actualisation will carp and decry the loss of morals, etc, this debate should be seen as more of an effective diversion than anything else. Even those Actualisers who find this situation unacceptable will not shy away from the ensuing benefits.

In the end, the demand on the part of a harassed and demoralised public will be to give in to whatever corporations demand. And at that point, the most important gain can be made: the privatisation of the public.

1 Fukuyama, F. The End of History? National Interest, No. 16, p3, 1989

2 Blankenship, EK. Determinations Relating to the Current Economic Fluctuations, discussionForum 1998

3 Adams, R. "Don't worry mate, it's on expenses",  10/7/01, London Guardian

MAI - The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, OECD Policy Brief No. 2 - 1997

5  Pilger, J. "The state is more powerful than ever" 09/07/0,

Prof Blankenship is the Director of discussionForum, an Independent Institute for the Enablement of Conceptual Structures.

© EK Blankenship 2001