- My last update introduced you to Edward Luttwak, a hardliner
Zionist with ideas about Israel that many Israelis find harsh and belligerent.
Mr. Luttwak actually made the well-known comment about bombing in 1990
or 1991, just before George H.W. Bush attacked Iraq in a set-up of Saddam
Hussein. In the same way, George W. Bush pulled a set-up in 2003.
- The main point: if you know the Neocons, you will recognize
their references. Luttwak, an Israeli citizen, said "we" rather
than "the US is going to bomb them into the Stone Age". Take
his comments in the context they were probably meant, and you will know
where his allegiance lies.
- Pay attention to history and learn from it. What started
the first Gulf War? What was the true underlying reason? Iraq found out
that Kuwait, with the assistance of certain U.S. oil service companies,
had installed directional drilled wells from Kuwait, under the Kuwait -
Iraq border and were stealing the Iraq oil from the southern fields near
Basra. Those companies were siphoning off billions of dollars from the
trade in Iraqi oil, or, put another way, committing grand theft to the
tune of billions of U.S. dollars. When the issue turned into a diplomatic
dispute, our government, through Ambassador April Glaspie, explicitly told
Saddam that aggression toward Kuwait to collect on this debt-and stop the
theft of Iraqi oil-was of no interest to the United States. Do you see
- A transcript of that discussion is available at this
- One day while we were looking through 9-11 evidence,
I was contacted by a person in the U.S. Foreign Service. Just before Iraq
invaded Kuwait to collect on stolen billions, a conference call took place
between the United States and Iraq. That call made the "green light"
even more clear. It came from officials in our government far more highly
placed than Ambassador April Glaspie. This particular former USFS officer
was on that conference call while stationed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The
above-mentioned officials told Saddam that the U.S. had no interest in
his collection of Kuwait's outstanding debts from the stolen oil. Of course,
the United States was not willing to admit officially that it and some
of our home grown thug corporations had aided and abetted the theft of
- If you compare the facts to the first Gulf War in 1991-based
on government lies- and to the current War, also based on a series of lies,
the picture comes into closer focus. Kuwait was stealing oil from Iraq
and certain U.S. firms were aiding and abetting that theft. When you hear
the catch-phrase "rule of law" from the mouth of any Bush Family
member or from one of their cronies, you should immediately question the
statement and look for more information. In my opinion, those people have
no regard for the law, and the facts show they have acted outside of it
- Research we have done since 1999 [preparation for RICO
court cases] persuades me that the same "we" is responsible both
for 9-11 and for the current fiasco in Iraq. After you finish reading
what follows, you might see the past four or the past sixteen years quite
- With permission from the editors of those two books,
I have excerpted an entire essay from the beginning of Neoconned Again
written by Maurizio Blondet. I comment on it after the excerpt. I had
to go back and read it again while I was continuing through the second
book because something jumped out from the pages and caused me to pay even
closer attention. I ask that you slow down and read closely what follows,
written by Israeli citizen Edward Luttwak.
- This is excerpted exactly from Chapter 3 of Neoconned
Again and the Editor's Gloss that preceded the chapter:
- If there is one thing that stands out clearly in the
United States and the rest of the world, it is the widespread belief that
the official version of the attack on the Twin Towers does not stand up
to scrutiny. Even with the Report of the Commission of Inquiry issued,
many believe that there are still too many questions left unanswered, or
even unasked. This is not the first time that this has happened in America.
Many do not believe the official reports issued after the investigations
into the Waco Massacre, and far more do not believe a word of the report
of the Warren Commission which looked into the assassination of J.F. Kennedy.
- It was because Mr. Blondet made reference in his article
to Dr. Luttwak that we asked for and obtained his permission to reprint
a chapter from his book, Who Really Governs America?, a chapter which deals
exclusively with Dr. Luttwak's celebrated book, Coup d'Etat, which has
been reprinted endlessly since its first publication and which has been
translated into 14 languages. Neither Mr. Blondet nor the editors have
changed the text of the chapter that follows (though emphasis has been
added in parts), which is composed of illustrative highlights of Dr. Luttwak's
book along with Mr. Blondet's comments in brackets. It is here reproduced
because, in light of the fact that it is widely believed that the Bush
Administration, or parts of it, have hijacked the Pentagon and many positions
of influence within the American State structure, we believe that it might
provide food for thought to those who want to think for themselves in these
dangerously unstable days. -The Editors
- Postscript to Chapter 3: Luttwak's Coup D'Etat: A Practical
- 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.
- 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'état 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
- 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
- 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'état 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
- 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'état].
- 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
- 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
- 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
- The leaders of the coup will be scattered among the various
teams. [As we can see Luttwak is theoretically discussing an invisible
coup d'état: 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'état. It is
for this reason that the President was taken to a secure location for 10
- 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
- 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
- If you see the agenda and strategies of the Neocons,
you are paying attention. If not, please read it again and keep in mind
the title of the book Luttwak wrote, Coup d'Etat. The use of "we"
and "our" should not be lost on you as this is coming from an
Israeli citizen. Bear in mind that many right-minded Israelis find Luttwak's
- If you see the nonchalance toward death and killing uttered
by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et alia, you are paying attention.
If not, please read it again and weigh carefully what you have heard them
say against the unexpected times he said those things. Then compare all
of that to his comments in the essay above. Consider how virtually none
of the Neocons have worn uniforms or put their lives at risk in wartime,
always act as if they have the only answers, and so casually send people
to die and be maimed or to kill, maim and torture as if it were just another
day at the office.
- If you see the plan for the false terror of 9-11, you
are paying attention. If not, please read it again and make the connections.
They are there and glaringly obvious.
- If you see how they have used pejoratives like "anti-American"
and "un-American", and "anti-Semitic" to smear anyone
who speaks out against their policies and actions you are paying attention.
If not, read and consider the changes you've seen America just since Bush
took office. It's easy to call names. Look who does the most name-calling.
- If you see the rationale for Patriot Acts I and II and
Homeland Security, you are paying attention. If not, please read the excerpts
again. Have you read the Patriot Act to understand how much of our Constitutional
freedoms have been erased?
- If you see reasons for the veil of secrecy the Bush Administration
and Congress have put on the most mundane information, you are beginning
to see what they are hiding and why.
- If you see sound reasons why Congress has acted so inexplicably,
you are paying attention. If not, please read again with more skepticism.
Even known "Anti-War" politicians are supporting this war in
Washington, D.C. and almost every day something surfaces to shed light
on the truth, that same truth that refuses to come from our National Capitol.
Almost every day the truth is coming out and the lies being exposed.
- In knowing who most of the Neocons are, I and others
have for four years sought after the author of "The Plan". I
had seen things in FOXNews, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and other mass
media outlets that had a common theme but no apparent reason to have such
a suspiciously similar message. We know now that these media outlets were
quoting or paraphrasing the ideas in Luttwak's book. When challenged,
their spokesmen equivocate and try to deflect your attention from their
actions, their conduct, and their earlier equivocations.
- If you see the media and Congress rolling over for a
New World Order, you are paying attention.
- In the next email update I am going to publish information
regarding Afghanistan that was sidestepped by the Bush Administration,
Congress and the 9-11 Commission. If you do not already know what is in
the next email update, remember this email and compare to the next one.
We went to Afghanistan for a reason and I believe Americans deserve to
know the real reasons. The Neocons needed a coup d'etat to implement their
grand war strategy and imperial agenda.
- In fact, in their own words (and they did put this into
writing), the Neocons knew that America would not buy off on their agenda
unless there was something akin to a Pearl Harbor attack on the United
States, just as 9-11 appeared to be. Bear in mind that the PNAC wrote
its most famous screed one year before 9-11 happened.
- the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary
change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor.
- -"Rebuilding America's Defenses -- Strategy, Forces,
and Resources for a New Century," page 51
- Project for the New American Century, September 2000
- Who is Dr. Edward Luttwak? The following comes from
three different sources:
- Author, Pentagon advisor, JINSA, author of 1968 book
Coup d'Etat, A Practical Handbook. Edward Luttwak is a senior fellow
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC.
His books include The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire and, more recently,
Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.
- Edward Luttwak----Member of the National Security Study
Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly
an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli
and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist
whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging
war on Iraq. WINEP's (Washington Institute for Neat East Policy) Board
of Advisors includes: Edward Luttwak and other well known Neocons. The
Washington Institute for Near East Policy was founded by Martin Indyk
- WINEP was founded in 1985 by Martin Indyk, previously
research director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
While AIPAC focused its lobbying on the U.S. Congress, WINEP was founded
as a think tank that would primarily interact with the executive branch
to set U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East.
- If I were President, Mr. Luttwak would be spending some
time before The Real 9-11 Commission along with a lot of people who were
never questioned by the farce Thomas Keane led 9-11 Commission. The 9-11
Commission appointed by Bush had Neocons investigating Neocons and had
people who are directly and indirectly benefiting from Bush policies, hence
they were not investigating anything for that would have impacted them
- Ladies and Gentlemen, we can beat these people. The Neocons
are few, we are many. They are not the heart and soul of this nation,
we are. They are not the true face of this nation, we are. They are trying
to steal this Nation from all of us and we all need to stand up and stop
that from happening.
- Contributions can be made via check through the mail
or via credit card at http://www.karlschwarz2008.com/contribute.htm
- If you have not read the platform, you may download a
copy of it at http://www.karlschwarz2008.com/platform.htm. Please get a
copy of the platform and pass it along to all you know.
- This is a battle about the future of America and all
that we love.
- Best regards,
- KARL SCHWARZ FOR PRESIDENT
- The American Patriot Party, An Independent 3rd Party
- Wake Up, End The Lies & Take Back America