I don't agree with the first part of this. Jeremiah Wright is being used by the Ford Foundation, as Webster Tarpley points out - to keep people divided when the TIME COMES for more depopulation !!
I do agree with the second part. But I don't think the coup came with 9/11 - I think it came with the computer chips being programmed to STEAL the election. The plan was already in place prior to 2000. The essay is totally on the mark.
Edward Encho is always INTERESTING.
V
Hillary Clinton's win in the WVa primary was not, it seems, a surprise.
But the report of her win was accompanied by press garbage which went
beyond the statement that the results showed her getting 67 percent of the
vote while Obama took 26 percent of the vote. I've not yet found whether
this was an "open primary" - which means I don't know how many of the
voters were republicans , in the sense that I don't know how many of the
67% who voted for Clinton yesterday would vote for McCain in the
presidential election
My sense of press-generated garbage comes from reports like this:
"(Obama) had difficulty attracting white working-class
voters who have flocked to Clinton's side in the past few months.
" Exit polls showed Obama, who would be the first black president,
won support from less than one-quarter of white voters without a
college degree. < http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4850922>
As I look into the "blue-collar" issue I learn that Int. Herald Tribune
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/12/america/politicus.php> reports
that if McCain captures " 20 percent of the Democratic blue-collar vote
nationally" he'll win the presidency.
And I'll add that from the press reports the blue-collar vote in WVa is a
white vote, so I'm able to conclude that the primary vote yestarday was
won by a racist majority. And that lets me believe that if the Dem. elite
thinks they can't win an presidential election with a black candidate then
they'll easily ignore the primaries and their own rules by picking Clinton
or some other person as candidate regardless of whether Obama wins the
nomination according to the rules
Hopefully only by concidence, web pages for yesterday and today provided
several pieces on the theme of "coup d'etat" - where the state exercises
power without recourse to legitimate procedures, and I'm asking if the
eventual choice of the next US President is being made by an elite rather
than by the people.
Certainly the view today expressed by Gore Vidal on DemocracyNow!
<http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/14/legendary_author_gore_vidal_on_the>
is that the coup has already occurred. Vidal leaves open the question of
WHO owns the US; the answer to that one doesn't really matter in deciding
on who will be the next president because the elite is more concerned with
blocking the "wrong" candidate than with endorsing the caandidate who has
jumped succesfully through the hoops.
I'm jumping into the "coup d'etat" thesis largely becase of a character -
Edward Luttwak - who's been around longer than me and who first came to my
attention 50 years ago when he was advising the Brits how to block
insurgency ( freedom movements) in what was then left of the British
Empire. And he wrote a book called "Coup d'Etat" which is decribed below.
Luttwak - and the NYTimes yesterday -- came up with
the thesis that Obama has been a Muslim, and that Muslims are forbidden
from changing religion under pain of being offed -
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html> apostasy has
connotations of rebellion and treason against Islam and is the worst of
all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's
family may choose to forgive); it leaves the apostate subject to execution
at the hands of any Muslim cleric.
So there's an additional reason being peddled by the media for not having
Obama for president -- not only do the bluecollar whites disfavor
blacks, hence may desert the Obama for McCain, but
also Obama is subject to assassination as the child of a
lapsed Muslim.
Sounds hoky ? but even hoky goes if it may serve the purposes of an elite.
So here please read a couple of relevant pieces:
#########
May 13, 2008,
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4698.shtml
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PROPAGANDA AND ELITE CONTROL By Harry R. Davidson, Ph.D.
The use of propaganda was historically associated with communist regimes.
{ Not true - propagands was devised by Hitler's colleague Goebbels -= but
he probably learned it from the success of commercial spin (Public
Relations to you) associated with the name of Bernays in the 1920's --
michael)
Today, the attack on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama and the Black
Church demonstrates that Americas propaganda machine is working to
manipulate the masses into accepting the rule of the elitists. The elites
are using psychology, the media and the pseudoscientific of polling to
manipulate and take advantage over an unenlightened citizenry.
Following his speech to the National Press Club, media contrived questions
where fed to Rev. Wright, questions designed to create sound bites for the
propagandists use to demonize Rev. Wright. White folks and Blacks who
adhere to White Supremacy then saturate the public with the thoughts of
the elitists. White Supremacy is employed to establish the parameters of
Black freedom of religion and speech. The racist White Supremacists
maintain the right to control and determine Black thought, to be the
experts on the education of Black children and all things related to Black
people.
Those who seek dominance and control seek to undermine and destroy
organized religion. Elitism has become the new religion. It is one in
which man not only strays from God; but ultimately positions himself as
God. The Churchs opposition to capitalistic colonialism, exploitation,
and expansionism and stands out in history. The power brokers resented the
Churchs authority and proposed the abolition of all religions. They
believed that man and not God should rule man, that the end justifies the
means and that the elite should take any means, moral or immoral, to
achieve their goals. Religion was opposed because religion taught that
only moral means might be used to achieve a moral end.
Secret societies have been formed to create an organization strong enough
to destroy the Church, to free man from religion and to establish elite
dominance over man. These ultimate goals have been passed down through the
ages. Murder, looting, war all become acceptable behavior to the real
believers of this new religion.
The secret societies empowered today are the continuation of the
underlying skullduggery. The historic influence of the secret societies
has been played down as a baseless conspiracy theory. The overthrows of
religious, political and the orders were primary objectives. Abraham
Lincoln is quoted as saying: The money powers prey upon the nation in
times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more
despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy more selfish than
bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves
me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations
have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power
of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the
prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands,
and the republic is destroyed.
Lincoln's assassination was the result of his unwillingness to accept the
establishment dictates. The conspirators use artificially created
depressions, recessions, panics and even wars to seize control of the
minds of the masses.
SUBVERTING AND UNDERMINING RELIGION
Religion has historically been a source of organized resistance. All
religions exalt obedience to a power that is higher than man. Hence, the
conspirators need to undermine or subvert the major religions. In an
article titled Mans Upward Reach, New American, December 27, 2004, Dennis
Behreandt suggests that the innate tendency for man to seek domination
over other men is regulated by religion. Hence, the laws of God must
supersede those of the state and the state must not violate the God-given
rights of each individual. According to Behreandt: Freedom itself is an
extension of sound religious principles recognizing the proper
relationship among God, man, and the state; and free societies The author
concludes that there are those who see religion as the foe of progress.
The conspirators see religion as standing in the way of their progress.
Religion as a form of organized resistance must be crushed so that there
is no organized protest to economic expansion. It follows that, as stated
by Rev. Wright, the Black Church is also currently under assault. The
Black church has historically led the way in the liberation of Americas
and the worlds oppressed. Hence, the Black churches mission is far greater
than Senator Obama becoming the president of an oppressive nation. To
paraphrase Rev. Wright, if Obama becomes president he too must be
scrutinized.
The will of the American people is based on alleged opinion polls. Most
pollsters have an agenda and are more interested in shaping public opinion
than in reporting it; and inordinate importance is attached to polling
results. Pollsters report their findings as if the views of the few
individuals surveyed represent the thinking of the nation as a wholeand
then the nation is supposed to adopt that thinking as national policy.
In truth professional pollsters contrive polls to produce the desired
results. In America, the prevailing attitude is that the opinion of the
majority is more important than whether are not that opinion is based on
sound evidence or moral correctness. Polls are just another way of
assuring that the will of the elite over all of us. The decisions
affecting the important issuesthe so-called war on terrorismare being made
by a handful of individuals who are personally economically invested and
stand to reap significant profits.
The goals of the secret societies empowered today are the continuation of
the underlying skullduggery. Having been successful in creating wealth, a
select group of men whoonce unhindered by religionwill be able to dominate
covertly. They along with their colleagues have created
conflictsincluding world warsas part of a dialectical process of
consolidating global power.
President Bush and John Kerry have acknowledged their membership in the
secret society, Skull and Bones, Hillary Clinton has been associated with
the powerful group the Bilderbergers, who meet in secluded places,
arrogantly plotting the subversion and silent takeover of constitutional
governments everywhere. Their goal is a World Government ran exclusively
by their hand-picked puppets. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Ephesians 6:12
There is a reason Senator Hillary Clinton has stayed in the race. Hillary
Clinton the chosen one of the elites. Dont be surprised if Senator Hillary
Clinton, their predetermined choice, is nominated as the Democratic
candidate and ultimately becomes president. The elite have a strategy to
demonize Rev. Wright and to use him to discredit Senator Obama.
###########
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7354
May 13, 2008 at 05:56:24
Obama the Muslim, 9/11 and Luttwak's Coup
Diary Entry by Ed Encho
*Ed Encho is a free lance writer, activist and consultant who
resides in West Central Florida.
It was brought to my attention this piece in the New York Times by
Edward Luttwak that drags out the Barack Obama as a Muslim story in the
most legitimate MSM forum yet. The piece is entitled "President
Apostate?" <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html> and
continues to spread the neocon whisper campaign that greatly benefits the
campaigns of the win-win scenario of McClinton in November.
Who is
Edward Luttwak?
Suffice it to say that he wrote the manual on how to execute a Coup d'etat
and in the piece that I am going to excerpt from by Maurizio Blondet from
the collection of essays in the book "Neoconned Again" you will get a
good idea on exactly where I am coming from.
:::::::
The link to the New York Times article is here
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html> and it has been
picked up and run with through the seamier corners of the
right-wing blogosphere. In fairness to Mr. Obama who I personally would
not care one iota if he were a Muslim (actually I prefer a
constitutional amendment that requires every politician to be an atheist
in order to keep religion where it belongs which is completely out of
politics) but the neocons continue to insinuate, terrorize and
spread the dastardly little rumor that he may or may not be a secret
al Qaeda mole since it works so well with the rubes.
Here is a review on Luttwak's book in Time Magazine from 1969
appropriately entitled How To Seize A Country
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844868,00.html> from
which I excerpt the following:
Unlike a revolutionary assault from the outside, Luttwak notes, a coup is
an inside job, done by a government's own members.
It involves minimal manpower and bloodshed. As in judo, the secret is to
use leverage and make a state overthrow itself. Bureaucracy facilitates
this by severing the loyalties that once personally bound rulers and their
servants.
A modern bureaucrat follows impersonal orders; if his immediate boss is
subverted, the bureaucrat tends to obey orders blindly, even orders
designed to topple his own government.
Now from the collection of essays Neoconned Again I excerpt a large
portion of Blondet's contribution on Luttwak
<http://www.amazon.com/Neo-Conned-Again-Hypocrisy-Lawlessness-Ra
pe/dp/1932528059> (there is another included in the book as well
that would allow one to put the motivations of the latest Obama as
Muslim story in context). I Just thought that I'd bring this out in the
interest of fairness since the Luttwak piece in the NYT is starting to
make the rounds. Consider it a public service.
Postscript to Chapter 3:
Luttwak's Coup D'Etat: A Practical Handbook
Maurizio Blondet
It is not a recent book. Published by Harvard University Press in 1968, it
is entitled Coup d'Etat: A Practical Handbook. Its author is Edward
Luttwak, the well-known military expert who was an adviser on National
Security to Ronald Reagan. He is Jewish, an ultra-conservative and a
militarist with known links to the CIA, to friends in the Pentagon, to the
military-industrial complex and, naturally, to JINSA.
[ About JINSA --The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA) is a non-profit, non-partisan and nonsectarian educational
organization committed to explaining the need for a prudent national
security policy for the United States, addressing the security
requirements of both the United States and the State of Israel, and
strengthening the strategic cooperation relationship between these two
great democracies.]
We will seek to present crucial passages from this old book,
limiting ourselves to underlining in bold the ideas which could have
been in the minds of those - if our hypothesis is correct - who
orchestrated the tragedy of September 11.
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS A COUP D'ETAT?
A coup d'tat is not necessarily assisted by either the intervention of the
masses, or, to any significant degree, by military-type force. The
assistance of these forms of direct force would no doubt make it easier to
seize power, but it would be unrealistic to think that they would be
available to the organizers of a coup.
If a coup does not make use of the masses, or of warfare, what instrument
of power will enable it to seize control of the State? The short answer is
that the power will come from the State itself.
A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the
State apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its
control of the remainder [JINSA infiltrated the Pentagon in precisely this
manner].
CHAPTER 2: WHEN IS A COUP D'ETAT POSSIBLE?
First of all, Luttwak lists the necessary "preconditions": 1. The social
and economic conditions of the target country must be such as to confine
political participation to a small fraction of the population [this is the
case in America where non-voters are the majority].
2. The target State must be substantially independent and the influence
of foreign powers in its internal political life must be relatively
limited" [the United States is the only State remaining that enjoys these
conditions].
3. The target State must have a political centre. If there are several
centres these must be identifiable and they must be politically, rather
than ethnically, structured. If the State is controlled by a
non-politically organized unit [like the CFR, the representative of
business] the coup can only be carried out with its consent or neutrality.
Already in the Preface, Luttwak underlined as essential the fact that the
perpetrators of a coup must be able to count upon "the absence of a
politicised community," upon the apathy of the public.
"The dialogue between the rulers and the ruled [upon which democratic
legitimacy is founded] can only take place if there is a large enough
section of society which is sufficiently literate, well fed and secure to
'talk back.'" But "without a politicised population, the State is nothing
other than a machine.
Then the coup d'tat becomes feasible because, like every machine, one can
take control of everything by grasping the essential levers." [Now
Luttwak identifies this "machine" in the Bureaucracy.]
The growth of modern bureaucracy has two implications which are crucial to
the feasibility of the coup: the development of a clear distinction
between the permanent machinery of State and the political leadership
[which changes], and the fact is, like most large organizations, the
bureaucracy has a structured hierarchy with definite chains of command....
The importance of this development lies in the fact that if the
bureaucrats are linked to the political leadership, an illegal seizure of
power must take the form of a 'Palace Revolution,' and it essentially
concerns the manipulation of the person of the ruler. He can be forced to
accept policies or advisers, he can be killed or held captive, but
whatever happens the Palace Revolution can only be conducted from the
'inside' and by 'insiders' [in these pages, we have seen nothing but the
work of insiders surrounding a weak President].
The State bureaucracy has to divide its work into clear-cut areas of
competence, which are assigned to different departments. Within each
department there must be an accepted chain of command, and standard
procedures have to be followed. Thus a given piece of information, or a
given order, is followed up in a stereotyped manner, and if the order
comes from the appropriate source, at the appropriate level, it is carried
out.... The apparatus of the State is therefore to some extent a 'machine'
which will normally behave in a fairly predictable and automatic manner.
A coup operates by taking advantage of this machine-like behaviour; during
the coup, because it uses parts of the State apparatus to seize the
controlling levers; afterwards because the value of the 'levers' depends
on the fact that the State is a machine.
Who are the best conspirators? Here is how Luttwak describes them: All
power, all participation, is in the hands of the small educated elite, and
therefore radically different from the vast majority of their countrymen,
practically a race apart. The masses recognize this and they also accept
the elite's monopoly on power, unless some unbearable exaction leads to
desperate revolt.... Equally, they will accept a change in government,
whether legal or otherwise.
After all, it is merely another lot of 'them' taking over" [this is
precisely the case of American society: a great mass of badly educated
people, remains passive because of need, accepts the new capitalist
flexibility so as to hold on to or find work].
Thus, after a coup...the majority of the people will neither believe nor
disbelieve.... This lack of reaction is all the coup needs on the part of
the people to stay in power.
The lower levels of the bureaucracy will react - or rather fail to react -
in a similar manner and for similar reasons: the 'bosses' give the orders,
can promote or demote and, above all, are the source of that power and
prestige.... After the coup, the man who sits at district headquarters
will still be obeyed - whether he is the man who was there before or not -
so long as he can pay the salaries....
For the senior bureaucrats, army and police officers, the coup will be a
mixture of dangers and opportunities. For the greater number of those who
are not too deeply committed, the coup will offer opportunities rather
than dangers. They can accept the coup and, being collectively
indispensable, can negotiate for even better salaries and positions.
As the coup will not usually represent a threat to most of the elite, the
choice is between the great dangers of opposition and the safety of
inaction. All that is required in order to support the coup is, simply, to
do nothing - and that is what will usually be done.
Thus, at all levels, the most likely course of action following a coup is
acceptance ...This lack of reaction is the key to the victory of the coup.
CHAPTER 3: THE STRATEGY OF A COUP D'ETAT
If we were revolutionaries, wanting to destroy the power of some of the
political forces, the long and often bloody process of revolutionary
attrition can achieve this. Our purpose is, however, quite different: we
want to seize power within the present system, and we shall only stay in
power if we embody some new status quo supported by those very forces
which a revolution may seek to destroy.... This is perhaps a more
efficient method, and certainly a less painful one, than that of a classic
revolution [this is a perfection description of the neo-conservative coup
d'tat].
Though we will try to avoid all conflict with the 'political' forces, some
of them will almost certainly oppose a coup. But this opposition will
largely subside when we have substituted our new status quo for the old
one, and can enforce it by our control of the State bureaucracy and
security forces. We shall then be carrying out the dual task of imposing
our control on the machinery of State while at the same time using it to
impose our control on the country at large.
As long as the execution of the coup is rapid, and we are cloaked in
anonymity, no particular political faction will have either a motive, or
opportunity, to oppose us.
CHAPTER 4: THE PLANNING OF THE COUP D'ETAT
Whether it is a two party system, as in much of the Anglo-Saxon world,
where parties are in effect coalitions of pressure groups, or whether they
are the class or religion-based parties of much of continental Europe, the
major political parties in developed and democratic countries will not
present a direct threat to the coup.
Though such parties have mass support at election time, neither they nor
their followers are versed in the techniques of mass agitation. The
comparative stability of political life has deprived them of the
experience required to employ direct methods, and the whole climate of
their operation revolves around the concept of periodic elections.
Though some form of confrontation may be inevitable, it is essential to
avoid bloodshed, because this may well have crucial negative repercussions
amongst the personnel of the armed forces and the police.
CHAPTER 5: THE EXECUTION OF THE COUP D'ETAT
With detailed planning, there will be no need for any sort of headquarters
structure in the active stage of the coup: for if there is no scope for
decision-making there is no need for decision-makers and their apparatus.
In fact, having a headquarters would be a serious disadvantage: it would
constitute a concrete target for the opposition and one which would be
both vulnerable and easily identified.... We should avoid taking any
action that will clarify the nature of the threat and thus reduce the
confusion that is left in the defensive apparatus of the regime....
The leaders of the coup will be scattered among the various teams.
[As we can see Luttwak is theoretically discussing an invisible coup
d'etat: the infiltrated coup participants speak with the voice of the
legitimate government, of that which they have seized. On September 11,
let's remember, the immediate entourage of President Bush were not
thinking of an Arab attack, but of a military coup d'tat. It is for this
reason that the President was taken to a secure location for 10 hours].
In the period immediately after the coup, they [the high level Civil
Servants and Military Commanders] will probably see themselves as isolated
individuals whose careers, and even lives, could be in danger. This
feeling of insecurity may precipitate two alternative reactions, both
extreme: they will either step forward to assert their loyalty to the
leaders of the coup or else they will try to foment or join in the
opposition against us. Both reactions are undesirable from our point of
view.
Assertions of loyalty will usually be worthless since they are made by men
who have just abandoned their previous, and possibly more legitimate,
masters. Opposition will always be dangerous and sometimes disastrous.
Our policy towards the military and bureaucratic cadres will be to reduce
this sense of insecurity. We should establish direct communications with
as many of the more senior officers and officials as possible to convey
one principal idea in a forceful and convincing manner: that the coup will
not threaten their positions in the hierarchy and the aims of the coup do
not include a reshaping of the existing military or administrative
structures [this appears to be exactly the task of JINSA].
The masses have neither the weapons of the military nor the administrative
facilities of the bureaucracy, but their attitude to the new government
established after the coup will ultimately be decisive. Our immediate aim
will be to enforce public order, but our long-term objective is to gain
the acceptance of the masses so that physical coercion will not longer be
needed.... Our far more flexible instrument will be our control over the
means of mass communication.... In broadcasting over the radio and
television services our purpose is not to provide information about the
situation, but rather to affect its development by exploiting our monopoly
of these media. [This is exactly what the American mass media has done
since September 11.]
[The action of the media] will be achieved by conveying the reality and
strength of the coup instead of trying to justify it [the emotional blow
of the collapse of the World Trade Centre was presented with plenty of
"reality" and "force" by CNN]. We will have fragmented the opposition so
that each individual opponent would have to operate in isolation. In these
circumstances, the news of any further resistance against us would act as
a powerful stimulant to further resistance by breaking down this feeling
of isolation. We must, therefore, make every effort to withhold such
news. If there is in fact some resistance...we should strongly emphasize
that it is isolated, the product of the obstinacy of a few misguided or
dishonest individuals who are not affiliated to any party or group of
significant membership. The constant working of the motif of isolation,
and the emphasis on the fact that law and order have been re-established,
should have the effect of making resistance appear as dangerous and
useless.
There will arise, Luttwak says, "the inevitable suspicions that the coup
is a product of the machinations of the Company [American slang for the
CIA]. This can only be dispelled by making violent attacks on it...and the
attacks should be all the more violent if these suspicions are in fact
justified.... We shall make use of a suitable selection of unlovely
phrases [for example, anti-Americanism? Anti-Semitism?]. Even if their
meanings have been totally obscured by constant and deliberate misuse,
they will be useful indicators of our impeccable nationalism."
It seems to this author that these paragraphs describe, with shocking
precision, all that has taken place in America since September 11.
