The Exquisite Corpse home archives submit black market comrads hot sites search
The Exquisite Corpse - A Journal of Letters and Life
Edited by Andrei Codrescu
ec chair poetick kultur anti-amthropomorphism
gallery zounds the making and unmaking of person
new economics of late capitalism
diaries and memoirs translation and her retinue
working class sweat
the corpse reads classics letters the book of revelations and epiphanies
the making and unmaking of person
The New Economics of Late Capitalism

“The Plan” or How Five Young Conservatives Rescued America
edited by Nick Bromell

Among Washington insiders, rumors have circulated for years about a secret conservative plan to crush liberal opposition and assume full control of American politics. In the late 1960s, according to legend, a handful of young conservatives calling themselves “The Famous Five” came up with the key ideas and the overall strategy of such a plan, won support for it from powerful corporate interests, and set in motion the train of events that has led to the election of Ronald Reagan, the advent of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and the triumphs of George W. Bush.
Until now, “The Plan” has been merely a rumor. In the late 1980s, young conservatives spent hours reverently speculating about it over drinks at “The Sign of the Indian King” on M Street, while across town frustrated young liberals in the think tanks around Dupont Circle darkly attributed every conservative victory to this mythic document.
     By the mid-1990s, the myth started to fade as each succeeding triumph of the conservative movement made it increasingly improbable that any group, however brilliant, could have planed the whole campaign. Eventually people referred to “The Plan” as one might refer to the Ark or to the gunman on the grassy knoll: intriguing but fantastical.
     Indeed, the very idea of such a plan probably would have evaporated from political consciousness had not the Board of Directors of the National Enterprise Initiative commissioned a distinguished American historian to write an informal history of that organization for the 35th anniversary of its founding. Two years later, and for reasons we may never fully understand, the historian and the Board fell into bitter dispute. The Board paid the historian the advance stipulated in their contractual agreement and severed all relations with him.
     Subsequently, and by means I may not divulge, a draft of the historian’s book, titled “The Plan”: How Five Young Patriots Engineered the Rescue of America, found its way into my hands, along with interview transcripts, official correspondence, and related documentary materials. The excerpts from his materials that follow put before the public for the first time undisputable proof of the existence of “The Plan” and tell the remarkable story of the conservative capture of American culture and politics. (For reasons which will become sufficiently obvious, if they are not already, the names of all personages in this account, including the name of the historian, have been changed.)
     A more complete version of “The Plan,” with my more extensive notes and annotations, will be published next year.

1. How the History Came to Be Written

This letter from Ross Wallace Forbes to Professor Henry Bloom outlines the agreement between Bloom and the National Enterprise Initiative (NEI). – Editor

12 September 2000

Dear Prof. Bloom:

I just want to thank you personally for taking on this project for NEI. I know I speak for all of us here when I say that we are truly honored to have a historian of your stature “on board.”

As you know, the history you write will be absolutely confidential; no one other than a board member will receive a copy. For this very reason, we hope you will find writing it enjoyable: an insider’s account aimed specifically for other insiders should liberate you from the more oppressive strictures of conventional historiography. We encourage you to give us a story that is lively as well as insightful, amusing as well as authoritative. Above all, we expect a celebratory history – since we are, after all, commissioning this history as part of our 35th-Anniversary celebrations.

I have instructed our archivist to put NEI’s entire collection at your disposal. I have also encouraged all senior staff, as well as the other four members of the so-called “famous five,” to make themselves available for interviews. I hope you will let me know if you encounter any difficulties in this regard.

I look forward to reading your first draft in January of next year. Meanwhile, with appreciation for your efforts and trust in your discretion, I am

Yours truly,

Ross Wallace Forbes III
Chairman of the Board

Ps. Our celebration will include a black-tie dinner at the White House, to which you are already most cordially invited. And do let me know if your son decides to apply to Princeton, my alma mater.

2. The Original Jest: Interview with Mark Hopkins

According to Professor Bloom, this interview about the birth of The Plan was conducted in the lobby of the Park Regency Hotel, in New York, in March 2001. Bloom notes that Mr. Mark Hopkins was 56 at the time, “a tall man with gray hair combed straight back.” A member of “The Famous Five*,” he was in town to attend several board meetings. Bloom comments: “An impressive guy with an uncanny resemblance to Gary Cooper.” - Editor

How did it all begin? With a jest - at Sophie Sidgwick’s dinner party. Her family’s house on Louisburg Square, Beacon Hill. Winter of 1969. A sixties thing, you might say.
Sophie’s parties were always grand affairs, and naughty, too. (Parents down in Palm Springs, you know.) Fires crackling cozily in the fireplaces, people laughing and drinking. Lots of bare shoulders and expensive evening dresses, the bitter smell of martinis, the music of Lester Lannon pouring smoothly from the ballroom.
But the party ended early. A Nor’easter swept in – big fat flakes flying against the windows. Everyone fled to Concord and Weston before the roads got too slick. Then there were just the five of us sitting around the fireplace, pulling the cork out of another bottle of Petrus ’47 Sophie had brought up from her father’s cellar.
We were griping once again about the radicals we had known in college. What motivated them. Where they wanted to take the country. There they were on the cover of Time magazine. Traitors to their class and country. It was nauseating.
“What we need in the next decade,” said Sophie, “is a real revolution.”
I asked her what she meant.
“I mean a revolution by us. A revolution of the rich.”
We laughed.
“Power to the plutocrats,” murmured Russ Conwell.
But we started playing with the idea. Sophie went down to the cellar and brought up another bottle of the Petrus. Lots of laughs, and one by one the major ideas came out. Wealth tolerance. Alliances. Intellectual infrastructure. It was all just a game. No one took it seriously.
But a few days later we got that first memo from Larry Eucher. On paper, in the light of day, it looked interesting. Like a plan. And remember: the five of us had money to spend.

*The Famous Five got their name from the series of mystery books by Enid Blyton, which were read to young Sophie Sidgwick by her English nanny. The five were: Ross Wallace Forbes III, Mark Hopkins, Russell Conwell, Sophia Sidgwick, and Lawrence Eucher. - Editor

3. The First Draft of the Preamble to “The Plan”

The NEI archives date this document “May 1969.” It and all other excerpts of “The Plan” are taken from early drafts in the NEI’s archives, and therefore they all deal with aspects of the plan that have already been accomplished. The final version is so secret that, despite the promise of ‘complete cooperation’ extended by Forbes, Professor Bloom was never permitted to view it. In a handwritten note that accompanied the manuscript, Professor Bloom speculates that “The Plan” is in fact continuously updated, and that the NEI is understandably reluctant to allow any outsider to glimpse its plans for the future. - Editor

The objective of this plan is to secure for America’s wealthiest families their basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – rights that have been systematically dismantled by government and increasingly disrespected since 1932.
The plan has four fundamental insights:

1. The rights of the wealthy can never be secure so long as Americans repose confidence in their government: the very idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people is intrinsically inimical to wealth tolerance. Wealth will naturally promote envy, envy will inevitably seek redress through politics, and in this country politics will necessarily take the form of a government hostile to the rights and interests of wealth accumulation.
2. The core political weakness of wealth is that over time it becomes concentrated in ever fewer hands and thus steadily shrinks its own political base. The only way to offset this weakness is to establish and control a durable alliance with a group whose demographic strength seems likely to grow or at least remain constant.
3. The creation of such an alliance must be based on the identification of deeply held American values that are perceived to be threatened by the very presence of government in American life. For it goes without saying that a lasting alliance between concentrated wealth on the one hand, and a group of more ordinary Americans on the other, cannot be forged on the basis of common interests: the essential interest of wealth accumulation is to aggregate wealth and not to disperse it, so over time the enrichment of the few will necessarily come at the expense of the many.
4. Therefore, an alliance must be built upon values that transcend pecuniary and practical interests, and specifically on values that are intrinsically resistant to the encroachments of a government “by the people.” In America, and indeed wherever there are nations, there will always be dynamic conflict between the highly abstract concept of “the people” and the much more concrete actualities of particular communities scattered across the country. This is the conflict we must do all in our power to promote. Hence, Eucher’s First Law:

“From distrust of “the people” springs fear of the people’s government.”*

4. Whose Jest? Excerpt from the Interview with Charlie White

Excerpted from Bloom’s November 2000 interview with Russell Conwell in his room at the Victory Hotel in Hue, Vietnam, where he was representing the Carlyle Group in negotiations with the Vietnamese Government. Bloom’s notes read: “Unbearably hot and humid day, broken air-conditioner, fan turning slowly overhead. Russell Conwell sits sweating in his underwear in an armchair under a portrait of Ho Chi Minh. His delivery is manic, but his mind is razor-sharp.” - Editor

You’ve already talked with the others, right, so you already know about the party at Sophie’s – and the snowstorm and the Petrus and the jokes? Right, I guess you could call that the semi-official version. Isn’t it amazing how quickly young Turks become stuffed shirts?
Yeah, there was a storm, but the reason we all stayed so late was that we all had the hots for Sophie’s narrow waist and mischievous blue eyes, and we stayed up all night hoping to be the last one awake with her. Boys will be boys, and we were all boys except Lawrence, who was just twenty-seven himself, and already he took himself so seriously, already sculpting himself into the brilliant Nobel-prize winning economist, and that’s how he hoped to get her, you know, get Sophie: he was one of those very smart guys who are stupid enough to think that the pretty girl will fall for him instead of the jock with the cleft jaw and the hairy chest. I should know. I was one of those guys myself.
So I’m going to climb out on a limb and guess that no one told you about the thai sticks that brought out the deeply mellowed tannins of the Petrus, am I right? And I’m also going to guess that you’ve come away with the impression that Sophie and Lawrence were the ringleaders, the ones who really came up with the whole idea. And that Russell was just the class clown, the court jester? But I thought the whole thing began with a jest, isn’t that right? Isn’t that the semi-official version? And isn’t kind of strange that on this one occasion the court jester himself isn’t really responsible for the jest? Doesn’t that strike you as a wee bit strange?

5. Making Contact: The Origins of the Alliance

Transcript of Bloom’s June 2000 interview with Mark Hopkins. - Editor

After we read Lawrence’s memo, we met again several times to revise it and come up with some compelling language. Then we hired a part-time staffer. We realized that we needed some kind of official institutional status, so we started looking around for a group to join or a university to affiliate with. Nothing. Nada. That’s how dead the conservative movement was in 1969.
So while Wallace Forbes, who was a lawyer, started incorporating us as a 501-c3 non-profit, we decided that one of us should fly south and try to meet with some influential Christian conservatives. I was elected – I guess because I’ve always been more of a jock than an intellectual. We figured I would be less threatening than the others.
I flew down to Birmingham and talked to some people there. At that time, you have to remember, there was still no such thing as the Christian Coalition. From Texas to Georgia the south was dotted with powerfully charismatic ministers, but they had no organization at all. They hated what they saw America becoming in the 1960s, but they had no interest in politics per se. In fact, they saw politics as corrupt. They just wanted to be left alone to do their own work.
I made my way back and forth across the Bible Belt, and eventually through some contacts in George Wallace’s organization I met the right guy. A minister with vision. In Lynchburg, Virginia, of all places.
I’ll never forget the night we met. He had invited me to his home for dinner, and when I got there the whole house smelled of roasting ham and apple pie. Before sitting down to supper we gathered in the living room for prayer. His words were simple and heartfelt.
After supper, we retired to his study and went to work. More clearly than I, he saw that the Democrats were destroying themselves. He saw that the times were ripe for a conservative renewal. And he got our idea of an alliance instantly. I didn’t go into the whole issue of wealth tolerance with him, but I did say that a significant number of very wealthy Americans were disturbed about the direction our great country was headed in. Our numbers were small, but our resources were great. We needed to join with people whose resources were small, but whose numbers were great.
He pulled a bottle of Old Weller out of his desk drawer and poured me a glass - in those days he didn’t touch liquor himself – and we got right down to brass tacks.. On a piece of paper he wrote a short list and shoved it across the desk for me. These were his issues:

1. A righteous Christian nation.
2. Racial purity.
3. Women in their rightful place.
4. No Jews.

Hard-hitting, to be sure, but I saw some things we could work together on.
I took the pencil and wrote my own list next to his:

1. A righteous Christian nation: Prayer in public schools.
2. Racial purity: Our tax dollars should support separate Christian schools.
3. Women in their rightful place: Fight against birth control and abortion.
4. No Jews: The time isn’t right yet.

We argued for a while about my response to his fourth issue, but eventually I led him into the light. When he asked me what we wanted in return, it was my turn to write on the pad of paper. I wrote the five words we had decided on back in Boston:

Get government off our backs!

“That’s the message?” he asked.
“That’s the message.”
“And now we organize?”
“Now we organize. From the grassroots up to the White House. Just like the other side.”
He seized my hand. “Amen, brother. Halleluiah.”
I wrote out a check for fifty thousand dollars – big money in those days – and put it in his hand. I had absolute faith in him. I could see he was a man of his word and a man of vision. And I was right. Of course, that was before he got into all that trouble with the prostitutes and stuff.

6. The Plan (19 September 1970)

Bloom’s collection of materials includes two identical versions of this earliest-known draft of “The Plan.” One (NEI Archives Document SS 091970:001) is attributed to Sophie Sidgwick. The other is a copy of a telegram sent to Sidgwick’s Louisburg Square address from the Hotel La Farge in Kyoto and signed by Russell Conwell. - Editor

Dear Ones: Now that we know who our “allies” are, it’s time to draft a plan. I submit the following for your consideration. Hugs and kisses!

Phase One: Foundation

1. Create a political and cultural alliance between free-market advocates of wealth tolerance and conservative Christian advocates of a moral America. The common enemy is government, which is as threatening to the rights of wealth creators as it is hostile to the beliefs of Christian Americans.

2. Create the National Enterprise Initiative as the instrument through which we launch a sustained intellectual attack on government. NEI will award grants to promising young scholars whose published work will be crucial to Phase Two. They will target the following critical issues:

- the case against government (e.g., analysis of the failure of federal programs such as the war on poverty.)
- the case for white racial superiority (e.g., analysis of IQ test scores, arguments for European cultural and scientific superiority, etc.)
- the case for religion in the public sphere (e.g. new interpretations of the Founding Fathers’ views, studies demonstrating educational excellence of Christian schools, systematic intellectual critique of the separation of church and state.
- the case for the invisible hand of the free market to take the place of government and perform all government roles more efficiently and less expensively.

3. Create a coalition of conservative Christian congregations that will advocate strenuously against government intrusion in their lives and government hostility to their beliefs. They will target the following critical “wedge” issues:

- the case against unfair governmental policies that give preferential treatment to “minorities” – for example, affirmative action.
- the case against immoral expansion of women’s “rights” – for example, so-called abortion rights.
- the case against government protections of free speech that promotes permissiveness and immorality – for example, pornography.

7. The Doctrine of “The Clean Little War”

Several historians have attributed NEI’s doctrine of “the clean little war” to Francis Fukuyama. The truth, how ever, is that Mark Hopkins came up with the idea shortly after reading Sidgwick’s memo.
Hopkins and his family were vacationing in Santa Lucia.
“One morning I woke up early and went for a long walk along the beach. Everything was so calm, so serene – it got me to thinking about peace. When I got back to our bungalow, I just sat down and wrote the damn thing.” - Editor

Dear Sophie:

Brilliant memo – but I foresee a slight problem – that we might become victims of our own success. Once our allies on the Christian Right have achieved their goals, what’s to stop them from noticing that we have a lot more money and then turning on us?
Somehow, we must find a way to predictably distract Americans from the increasing consolidation of wealth. I propose what I have somewhat vainly called “The Doctrine of the Clean Little War.” (See below.)

The Doctrine of the Clean Little War

War can be calamitous, but peace is catastrophic. War can destroy nations, but peace ineluctably saps them of their vigor. War can call upon a people to make great sacrifices, including the temporary sacrifice of their right to wealth; but a sustained peace offers dangerous respite to the poor and middle classes who, looking about them and reflecting upon what they see, start to feel sharp pangs of wealth envy and begin clamoring against so-called “wealth inequality.” No one wishes for war, yet sustained peace is by far the greater threat to wealth tolerance.
But if conflict is preferable to peace, how does one promote war without risking national catastrophe? How does one harvest the benefits of war without incurring the political costs of war? Above all, how does one ensure that the patriotic fervor and national unity generated by war do not give rise to heated calls for greater sacrifices of personal wealth?
The answer I propose is a doctrine of the little war. Every administration favorable to wealth tolerance must seek out opportunities to wage low-risk and low-cost wars against small targets of opportunity. These wars should be commenced no later than the second year of each new administration and must be concluded by the end of the third so as to allow the victorious, wealth-tolerant president the full glory of his military triumph in the upcoming elections.
     Given this tight timetable, a specific research mission for the NEI must be to compile a list of available targets, along with plausible justifications for war against them. These can be made available to each incoming administration. In compiling this list, we must give priority to wars that would strengthen NEI’s own strategic objectives – that is, to wars that that are congruent with the cultural war our allies are fighting here on American soil.

7. The First List of Opportunity Targets

Attributed by the NEI archivist to Sophie Sidgwick, this list is handwritten on the back of a copy of Hopkins’s memo. NEI Archives Document SSundated0179). - Editor

1. Any Central American nation. Full congruence with NEI strategic alliances. War here could be portrayed as anti-Communist (Che, Fidel) and as “front line” in war against drugs and illegal aliens (all of them Catholics!)
2. Any small, resource-poor African nation (e.g., Somalia, Ethiopia, Liberia, Camaroon, etc.). Congruences: front line in war against epidemic diseases associated with licentious behavior – not to mention useful resonances between African “savagery” and inner-city cultural pathologies.
3. Any Arab nation except Saudia Arabia and Kuwait (too many resources) and Egypt (too many people). Arabs are perceived as virulently anti-Christian, so any war in this region is essentially a religious war and is therefore fully congruent with our overall strategic objectives. Moreover, since Arabs are also perceived as anti-Jewish, war in this region undercuts liberal coalitions hostile to wealth tolerance.

8. Phase Two: Consolidation

This document appears to be a continuation of “Phase One” (above) and is treated accordingly by the NEI Archives. However, see Prof. Bloom’s doubts about “Phase Three” (below). - Editor

1. The case against government through the politicization of conservative Christians should make possible the election of a president whose campaign is based on hostility toward government.
2. That president will begin to appoint justices and judges who can draw on the work of NEI scholars to interpret American law as hostile to government and favorable to Christian beliefs.
3. Using new economic theory and data generated by NEI scholars, the president will dramatically cut taxes, thereby eliminating many government programs.
4. The erosion of the tax base, coupled with NEI scholars’ expose of the intellectual prejudices and financial inefficiencies of public schools and universities, will inaugurate the dismantling of public education.
5. The crumbling of public higher education will lead to soaring costs for private higher education which will pressure the liberal professoriate to espouse wealth tolerance instead of radical ‘60s ideologies.
6. The writing of new textbooks with favorable views of wealth tolerance will restore truth to American history.

9. The Privatization of the Pentagon

Ross Wallace Forbes’s memo of August 7, 1998, NEI Archives Document RWF 070898: 009.

We know more certainly today than we did thirty years ago that faith in the unrestricted play of the free market is the surest guarantor of global wealth tolerance. The re-design of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, along with the passage of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization virtually assure the triumph of free-market principles throughout the world. We should congratulate ourselves on these achievements, which had their origins, as I recall, in Lawrence’s memo of 4/12/85, Charlie’s somewhat intoxicated speech at Lutece on New Year’s 1991, and Walter’s 1992 speech at the Hoover Institute, “Global Harmony: Wealth Tolerance and Free World Trade.”
     But why stop here? If privatization of government is our means of effectively ending government, why stop with such successes as we have had – the privatization of the postal service and the privatization of public education?
     I propose nothing less than the complete privatization of the Defense Department, which should eventually become a private corporation. McDonnell-Douglass would be good candidates for assuming this role, but the five if us might want to get in on the ground floor with a completely new entity. Our contacts in the financial markets could easily leverage the capital we would need for successful start-up. We might call the company “Defending America, Inc.” or something of that sort. This firm would be awarded a long-term contract to manage all United States defense planning, procurement, and operations. Halliburton is already ideally positioned to take on this role, so “Defending America” might have to merge with it. (I have taken the liberty of sounding Cheney out on these matters, and while he remains annoyingly sphinx-like, I get the impression that he is favorably disposed.)
     Let me know what you think. I have a meeting with my friends at Goldman-Sachs next week.

10. Placating the Alliance

Lawrence Eucher became a professor of Economics at the University of Chicago in 1972 and won the Nobel Prize in 1984. He was the first Director of Research at NEI (from 1977 to 1995), and more than any other member of the Famous Five he was responsible for mapping their intellectual strategy. This internal memo sent to the other four members of the Five is dated 27 February 1994 and is catalogued in the NEI archives as Document LE 022794:003. - Editor

Now that we have successfully legitimated Christian schools, weakened the public education system, taken on Hollywood immorality, discredited the intellectual capabilities of Black Americans, and rolled back so called abortion “rights,” our allies have begun to press us on the last remaining issue in our informal contract: “the Jewish question.”
To complicate matters, many Jews in America are no longer card-carrying      New Dealers and civil rights advocates. Indeed, by taking a hardline position on issues pertaining to Israel, we have made great strides in freeing some important Jewish Americans from the grip of liberal wealth intolerance. Moreover, some crucial elements in our intellectual architecture have been contributed by Jewish intellectuals.
     Daniel Deronda, one our most promising research Fellows, has been working on this thorny problem for some time, and I am pleased to report that he has found a solution – which we should immediately share with the leadership of our allies. Immersing himself in the more obscure aspects of evangelical belief, he has discovered hitherto overlooked verses in Revelations that call for the “destruction of Israel” as a condition of the second coming of Christ. He has proposed that we urge the evangelical ministry to put this prophecy smack in the middle of evangelical theology – indeed, to make it the very foundation of their dogma.
     Why? Because that way we can all play both sides of the fence. We can maintain and even strengthen our support for Israeli hardliners and at the same time justify this policy to our allies by explaining that without the state of Israel in existence, there can be no divine destruction of Israel; and that without such destruction, there can be no Second Coming.
In short, by a deft twist of hermeneutics, “pro-Israel” can appear to our allies as “anti-Jewish.” Pretty damn clever, n’est-ce pas? If you all agree, I would like to nominate Dan for our Silver Medal.

11. The Privatization of the IRS

Sophie Sedwick’s e-mail of August 13, 2000. NEI Archives Document SS071398:077. – Editor

Thanks to Rumsfeld’s reforms (based on NEI research and advocacy), our privatization of the Pentagon has made considerable progress. Now we might consider a further step: the privatization of the IRS through the establishment of a for-profit tax-collection entity called “The Great American Harvest, Inc.”
     There is ample precedent for such a change: as you know, throughout most of European history, tax collection has been placed firmly in private hands. The Great American Harvest would be governed by highly remunerated executives directors who would naturally take to heart the cause of wealth tolerance. (Think of Grasso and the Big Board.) Privatization would also allow powerfully regressive tax policies to be backed up by more effective compliance enforcement.
     Our privatization of Medicare is the basic model here. Start small by enacting legislation that allows Great American Harvest to get a foot in the door. Then slowly, through a process of cost efficiencies such as so-called “cherry-picking,” render public-sector tax collection obsolete.

12. The Great American Harvest – Ross Wallace Forbes’s Reply.

Fantastic idea, Sophie! You’re so damnably clever. Here’s my little footnote to your brilliant proposal:
Great American Harvest’s tax system could be reformed following the model of “pollution credits” established in 1985.

- Wealthy individuals would be permitted to “buy” their annual tax burden with a “voucher” consisting of the “free labor” of the unemployed.
- These unemployed would be maintained in special camps established by American Penal Systems, Inc.
- Persons or entities failing to meet their annual tax payment would be consigned to serve in these camps for specified periods of time – depending on the level of their indebtedness.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts. We can kick them around over lunch some time soon. Cheers all,

-- Wally

13. Privatization of the Electoral System

Russell Conwell’s e-mail of August 14, 1998. Sent privately to Bloom by White on October 12, 2002. - Editor

I have to say (again!) that I’m a little tired of you guys taking my ideas and claiming them as your own. Wally –you and I talked about privatizing the Pentagon last fall. You plied me with daiquiris and let me babble on, but I saw you taking notes in the little notebook of yours. And Sophie, you little whore, you sucked the idea of a private IRS out of me last New Year’s – remember?
     But I’m not the kind of guy who holds grudges. And to show it, let me to toss to you – as veritable pearls before swine – the idea that we simply privatize the entire electoral system. The Supreme Court has already affirmed that “money” is “speech.” Speech is an expression of intentions and desires. So is a vote. Therefore votes are a kind of speech, and therefore money can be the embodiment of a vote.
     Radical as it might seem, this plan simply takes he current system of financing election campaigns and makes it more efficient. Instead of contributing to a candidate’s campaign and then voting, people would perform both operations simultaneously. The campaign contribution would actually be the vote. The larger the contribution, the greater the vote.
But “contribution” is the wrong word. Each vote would actually be a payment -- an investment in the common stock of an entity to be called “Free America, Inc.,” which would become the holding company encompassing both “Defending America, Inc.” and “The American Harvest, Inc.”
     I have a meeting at Morgan Bank next week to discuss precisely this matter – an IPO for “Free America.” If you all want to get in on this ground floor, I’d be happy to send you the exact time and place of the meeting.

Poisoned kisses,


14. Phase Three: Domination

Like “Phase One” and “Phase Two” this document is dated May 1969 by the NEI Archives. Nonetheless, certain inconsistencies prompted Professor Bloom to speculate that the document is actually of later date – “perhaps as late as October 2001” – so we treat it here as the most recent phase of NEI’s plan. A penciled marginal notation in Sidgwick’s handwriting reads: “This should do the trick – for our grandchildren’s grandchildren.” - Editor

1. Election of Republican majorities in the House and Senate, combined with control of the Supreme Court and the appellate courts, will make possible:

a. unlimited contributions to election campaigns, thus permanently ensuring American wealth tolerance
b. constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion
c. constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage
d. constitutional amendment prohibiting all forms of wealth intolerance
e. destruction of liberal intellectual establishment through (a) control of all media outlets by advocates of wealth tolerance and (b) elimination of public education at all levels
f. establishment of nationwide, for-profit Christian education system
g. privatization of all branches of government
h. constitutional amendment allowing inheritance of U.S. Senate seats

Editor’s Note: Of course, I have contacted the NEI and asked them to verify or deny the authenticity of Bloom’s account. Robert Flack, their official spokesperson, denies that the organization ever commissioned a self-history or had any association of any kind with Professor Bloom. Readers seeking more information about NEI are directed to its website:




home archives submit black market comrads hot sites search ec chair peotick kultur anti-amthropomorphism
new economics of late capitalism gallery zounds the making and unmaking of person
diaries and memoirs translation and her retinue
the book of revelations and epiphanies working class sweat
the making and unmaking of person the corpse reads classics letters

©1999-2004 Exquisite Corpse.
Site design by Compulsive Creations.