Blondet On Luttwak's Coup

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.

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 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'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 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'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 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'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 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.

A Sham Democracy And It's Pocket Media Kingmakers

Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.

-H. L. Mencken

With the garish spectacle of the hyping of the butt-ugly meat market/slave auction of the first set of the 2008 presidential ‘debates’ still being discussed ad nauseam by fat and happy pom-pom waving pundits more loyal to their own team than to America as a whole it’s time to take a moment to examine it all with a critical eye to what it truly is – a total sham. The one inescapable fact that the pocket media can never be allowed to come to light is that the entire political system has been corrupted beyond redemption by money, transnational corporations, financial cartels and those whose bottom lines depend on the death of those deemed lesser human beings than Americans so as to better slaughter them and plunder the resources of their countries in the process. God forbid if the ugly realities of life where to ever intrude upon the hive/colony mentality of the masses of easily manageable ants here in the Homeland.

The carnival of perversion that is our sham democracy is now on display as the gradual culling process has now begun so that a gradual national soap opera can run in order separate the tokens from those who would best serve the empire and it’s ruling oligarchy. The second ‘debate’ of the political pre-season featuring the Elephant redshirts against the varsity was conducted last week in beautiful Simi Valley, CA, home to the holy temple that is the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.MSNBC’s latest version of Mandingo featured the spittle spraying Chris Matthews as master of ceremonies. The man whose tenure on the cable network’s Hardball has featured such disgusting exhibitions of poor taste and idolatry as the host slobbering over George W. Bush’s codpiece and flight suit during the now infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ photo shoot onboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln as well as sessions with the vicious gangster Tom DeLay when the puffy faced host practically dropped to his knees to perform an act of fellatio on the now deposed House Majority Leader and K Street muscleman.

MSNBC’s coverage of the equally inane Democratic party ‘debates’ was more of the same drivel and swill pimped off to the idiots as though it were sturm and drang of great import. The quisling corporatist wing of the war party was disgraceful for the usual lame half measures, the desertion of the true labor left and the focus group reliant frauds inability to take a stand and support Dennis Kucinich’s call for the impeachment the war criminal Richard B. Cheney and downplayed any of the serious issues brought forth by Mike Gravel. The cable network that is a subsidiary of defense contractor General Electric has done much for it’s parent company when it comes to promoting the income generating trafficking in human misery and death with a watered down version the same pre-invasion cheerleading and faux patriotic horseshit and rank demagoguery that then ratings kingpin FOX waved the bloody flag for 24/7.

MSNBC dumped Phil Donahue and Ashley Banfield back in those heady days when Michael Savage was still spewing homophobic vitriol and Don Imus rode tall in the saddle and all too happily contributed to the Weimar Republic style nationalist tripe that has pitted family members against each other, alienated friends and neighbors and created that vile Manichean us versus them attitude that exists today and has fueled the bonfires of Bushreich vanities. Despite somewhat redeeming themselves with offering up a forum for the righteous indignation of Keith Olbermann MSNBC is the epitome of the foul desecration of the national media that has served to turn this nation into the largest collection of downright dumb assed, mean-spirited, indolent and arrogant motherfuckers on the planet – a master race of self centered, slothful bitches and bastards that will be a pox on human history until the Earth itself ceases to exist and when all is said and done not even almighty God himself will judge us kindly despite whatever radical cleric James Dobson may say.

But back to the silly American Idol style dog and pony show ‘debates’ neither of which offered up any serious discussion of the true issues that plague the country and any mention of the relentless war on the middle class or of the decimation of the American economy through the cutthroat globalization looting spree were the ignored as the third rails that the oligarchy has designated them to be. Better to jabber and pontificate on the perceived evils of Charles Darwin, Roe V. Wade and engage in the verbal measuring of dicks (with the exception of Queen Hillary of course, the force of whose penis envy far exceeds the capability of the manly men) of who is the baddest of bad asses in the phony Global War On Terror.

But it is of course all window dressing, a grand façade of legitimacy to sell to the suckers who still believe that they live in a functional democracy where there is a true choice on election day when in reality nothing could be farther from the truth. Candidates whether they are the current version of the Republicans – a filthy cabal of theocrats, sodomites, gangsters and Social Darwinsts supported by a loyal die hard base of kool aid sipping, authority worshipping brownshirt dead enders or the Democrats, a party that is a mockery of what it once was before it was taken over by the DLC and a self-centered, arrogant collection of shakedown artists, corporate bagmen like that little douchebag Rahm Emanuel and beltway elitists who long ago sold their souls to the company store are for the most part interchangeable.

It is a false choice, a grand bait and switch the equivalent of a Three Card Monte tournament held on Main Street of a Potemkin Village – no potential candidate can be allowed to successfully navigate the political system unless compliance with the current spread of gloabalism by force, a perpetuation of empire and an ongoing support of the undeclared class war has been ensured. Every candidate is a tool of the oligarchs, the Wall Street looters, the blood barters and shacked to the continuation of the misguided foreign policies of our ‘allies’ in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Each cycle of elections is a Hobson’s choice, Pepsi versus Coke, The Big Mac versus The Whopper, fascism versus fascism lite and the pocket corporate media acts as a tool and ally in propping up this sham democracy and in shilling for it’s legitimacy is an accomplice in the criminality.

The corporate media specializes in marginalizing candidates who in an honest and sane system would be legitimate but in this corrupt shithole are deemed as too big a threat to the establishment to be afforded anything other than the mockery and public scorn that only a well-coordinated media propaganda campaign could induce. Our ruling elite have become far more sophisticated since the Sixties when the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther King were assassinated by mind controlled patsies, now when it becomes necessary to terminate a threat the media is used instead of a bullet. They made a joke of Ross Perot the second time around and that “giant sucking sound” continues to resonate with today’s economic crisis, they vilified Ralph Nader who warned of the corporations, turned Dennis Kucinich into a jug eared cartoon and this year they are closing ranks to keep Texas libertarian Ron Paul out of the Religious Right’s slave auction.

In the Republican ‘debate’ the pocket media primarily focused their attention on Rudy Giuliani’s non-lockstep adherence to the party line of overturning Roe V. Wade, John McCain’s ludicrously over the top comment that he would follow Osama Bin Laden to the “gates of Hell” (where the Manchurian candidate will likely one day find himself along with most of the other torture promoting hypocrites in the GOP) and the three knuckle dragging lunkheads (Tom Tancredo who also threatened to bomb Mecca, the messianic madman Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee) who raised their hands when asked whether they did not believe in evolution. The disgusting display of mass pandering to the rubber fetus crowd was second only to the invocation of the name of Ronald Reagan the Christlike (Antichrist is more like it) iconic figure of a morally bankrupt political party who started the undeclared war on the middle class and the American mind a quarter century ago and whose administration served as a neocon incubator. Frank Rich of the damned liberal New York Times did a good piece on the Reagan idolatry that the GOP is fixated on and in which they are in denial sowed the seeds that are leading to their own destruction.

Here on this blog I personally choose to never endorse politicians favoring instead to shower condemnation upon corrupt scoundrels but I would like to single out and recognize Congressman Paul primarily for this one great speech (from which I will excerpt a large part of below) that unlike any of the other co-opted servants of the oligarchy called it like it truly is - back in 2003 – this is the most dead on condemnation of the neocon Nazis that I have yet to see. And it is even more amazing that it comes from a sitting politician, a profession that has far more in common with the world’s oldest than that of a statesman.

I might add that no Democrat from either the den of iniquity that was Tom DeLay’s House of Representatives nor any of Hillary’s temple eunuchs in the Senate where deference to the coming queen by not intruding upon the limelight apparently took priority over taking a fucking stand for what was right chose to address the vile Machiavellian usurpation of the United States Government by the neoconservatives and this is shameful. A pathetic excuse for an opposition party is largely responsible for our current disaster and I only wish that I could be optimistic that things would change under Pelosi-Hoyer and that neutered little runt Harry Reid but when it all comes down to it the only color that matters is green or gold, fuck the red, white and blue for there is no reward for honesty or principle in these disgusting days which makes Ron Paul’s frankness all the more admirable. Here is a link to the transcript of the whole thing go to or you can get it off of Google video.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

And…

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

And…

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine.

The placement of operatives in the media has been as commonplace as the use of it to pass off the big lie that somehow democracy and capitalism are one and the same. The media has ALWAYS been abused by power to spread the lies that serve the empire from the vintage days of the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst to The Creel Committee to the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird to the implementation of the Republican Noise Machine to FOX. Rolling Stone magazine ran a great piece by Carl Bernstein (the Watergate reporter who didn’t sell out) back in 1977 entitled The CIA and the Media that goes into great depth on the planting of operatives as disinformation agents and gatekeepers. Today it has become far more dangerous with the consolidation of the mass media into the hands of a military industrialist cartel that has gone into the media business with interlocking directorates and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and could give a tinker's damn about all that quaint shit about a free press and a people's democracy. Now back to some more from Congressman Paul:

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

And...

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

"Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle."

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:

"Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular."

It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

The rise to power of the radical religious right in America has been a terrifying spectacle to watch, most of the population goes about their daily lives completely oblivious to the growing malignancy of this dangerous tumor on the body of a secular democratic society that incrementally finds itself becoming less of both. This is the first of a series of posts over the coming months that I am going to use to take a good hard look at what is potentially the greatest threat that this country has ever faced and has the potential to metastasize into something malignantly evil that will change the lives of Americans forever in a way that is only too evident when reviewing history as well as theocratic regimes that are in existence elsewhere in the world today.

Fundamentalist Christianity is a virulent strain of social virus, determined to infect every organ within the body politic and the power brokers who are behind this movement have made an astonishing amount of progress in laying out and executing a very well planned and financed agenda. It is an agenda that has been enormously successful due to their ability to work with other groups with seemingly conflicting interests that are able to assist the theocrats in bringing about their ultimate goals:

Military Industrial Complex War Profiteers: The ability to bring about the war that is necessary to kick off Armageddon as well as the crusade to 'Christianize' the globe and wage war against Muslims and Islam.

The Israeli Lobby: Christian Zionists need partners to unify the Holy Land in preparation for the return of Christ, never mind that in order to fulfill their fever dream prophecy that the Jews will have to either convert or die.

The Neo Cons: For their staunch support of the state of Israel as well as their ability to influence foreign policy to fulfill the goals of crusade and war.

Wall Street Uber-Capitalists: Despite all of the rhetoric of Christ being king even God himself knows that in this society that the true king is cash. The ability of the megachurches to mobilize voters keeps politicians friendly to corporatism in office.

The Wealthy Elite: As with Wall Street these people benefit financially from having a savage, Social Darwinist, tax slashing beast of a government in power. Many may have hold their nose while supporting the theocrats but as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and the enemy is progressive government and liberal society.

Through alliances the ideologues have been able to build a coalition that has effectively seized control of the American political system. The rise in power of the theocrats has coincided with the spread of neo-liberal, Social Darwinist 'free-market' capitalism that exploits the most poverty-stricken countries of the third world, the same impoverished and downtrodden masses that Christ himself championed. The ascension to the pinnacle of power of the American ayatollahs and their armies of converts has not surprisingly coincided with the rise of the empire of satellite television and the ability to mass disseminate propaganda in their alleged mission to spread the message of Christ. This wonder working power has instead been used to not only transform the message to be more capitalist friendly by eliminating the emphasis of all of that bothersome stuff about ministering to the poor and downtrodden but to co-opt Jesus as a brand name for theocratic moneychangers. You see, in post Reagan, Bushist neocon Amerika they are the ones who have run his longhaired liberal ass out of the temple and Ledeen along with his ilk are down with all of it as it allows for the Straussian maniuplation of religion or the noble lie.

Now back to Ron Paul's speech on the neocons:

I’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”

He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.

Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):

…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”

Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.

The PNAC statement about ‘a new Pearl Harbor’ has done more to undermine the official story on the events of 9/11 than anything else and amazingly the neocons are very proud of this, so proud that the incriminating document remains on their website along with all of the other schemes of world conquest by the men appropriately nicknamed “the crazies” during Daddy Bush’s abbreviated presidency when the decision to stop short of an all out assault on Baghdad put a giant sized bug up the asses of Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Perle, Rummy and all of the rest of the extremist freaks where it would fester for years before their finding a new host for their parasitical needs in the current criminal Bush administration.

This speech was given in 2003 – yet as of May 2007 I have yet to see a major news publication address anything at all on Michael Ledeen, The Project For A New American Century, The Neocon links to Leo Strauss nor their exploitation of 9/11 to implement their plans for spreading ‘democracy’ at gunpoint. Why is that? Were it not for the internet and the alternative media that has at least served to provide legitimate information for those who are not bewildered sheeple content to remain enveloped in the comfort of a blissful cloak of willful ignorance. Had Ron Paul’s questioning of the neocon agenda been more widespread would Americans still be getting slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad, dying for the delusions of a fascist cult and it’s hubris crazed unitary executive/nascent dictator?

No wonder the vested interests in the MSM are putting the kibosh on Paul who no matter what you think of his politics and strong religious beliefs has to be applauded for his frankness and courage in calling out the neocons and the master of evil that is Michael Ledeen, a veteran spook and puppet master whose name has become increasingly mentioned in relation to the faked Niger yellowcake documents that allowed the fascist Bush-Cheney-Rove Axis of Evil to lie American into the disastrous war in Iraq.

Ledeen’s admiration for 20th century Euro-trash sytle authoritarianism specifically his taste for Italian fascism is so profoundly anti-American that it boggles the mind that it is even accepted at all rather than marginalized let alone become the driving force behind the very dangerous U.S. foreign and domestic policies that have this country on the brink of a police state at home and a brutal conqueror’s army of God’s own bastard crusaders abroad. That we have allowed these reactionary thugs to seize the keys to the war machine while keeping the populace jacked up on a toxic mix of omnipresent fear and televised fantasy worlds is terrifying. A through the looking glass, down the rabbit hole bizarro world of Orwellian proportions where up is down, black is white, war is peace and freedom is slavery. We are all very close to having that rabbit hole become a grave unless something is done to combat the unleashed darkness of the alliance of the neocons, their lackeys in the Rapture cultist Religious Right of Pat Robertson and James Dobson and the treasonous looters of Wall Street.

Here is something that should send a cold chill up your spine - Ledeen has even been referred to as “Rove’s Brain”. This begs the up to now unasked question of exactly WHO Mr. Rove really is and exactly how long that he has been allied with the neocons – was the relationship possibly pre-George W. Bush? Was Bush seen as a ‘change agent’ who could be duped into destroying the Constitution and laying the groundwork for theocratic fascism. The relationship between Rove and Ledeen has drawn zero scrutiny and for such an influential neocon figure Mr. Ledeen himself sure manages to stay out of the limelight where Perle, Kristol and others are the pitchmen.

And this brings up other even more sinister implications like how deeply have neocon operatives infiltrated and driven the extreme Christian Right? It would be very interesting if a serious investigative reporter or combination of bloggers could do some digging into this because God help us of where it could all lead to because the neocons from that roiling spring of fascist filth The American Enterprise Institute continue to enjoy vast influence in shaping disastrous foreign policies and using the pocket media to disseminate their propaganda. The Washington Post regularly offers up the propaganda of notorious fifth columnists like Joe Lieberman and Richard Perle including prominent space in Friday’s edition where the prince of darkness contributed a column entitled How The CIA Failed America in which the treacherous little toad railed against former director George Tenet:

But the greatest intelligence failure of the past two decades was the CIA's failure to understand and sound an alarm at the rise of jihadist fundamentalism. It is Wahhabi extremism and the call to holy war against infidels that gave us the perpetrators of Sept. 11 and much of the terrorism that has followed. In his attempts to blame others for CIA shortcomings, Tenet cannot say, "I told the president that our Saudi allies were financing thousands of mosques and schools around the world where a hateful doctrine of holy war and violence was being inculcated in young potential terrorists." Fatefully, the CIA failed to make our leaders aware of the rise of Islamist extremism and the immense danger it posed to the United States.

Perle you see is a member of that competitor of the CIA, the other team, the secret team that is only whispered about: the shadow government. And for the record it is these veteran spooks, reactionary thugs and dual loyalist Machiavellian masturbators like Perle, Ledeen and Eliott Abrams whose covert machinations during the Iran-Contra days at least as much to sow the seeds of Middle East discontent in the darkness than the CIA did and should be held equally if not more responsible for blowback.

While Ron Paul has views on many issues including the right-wing’s holy chalice of abortion that are anathema to many liberals and progressives he is honest and that in and of itself is a rare quality in the whorehouse that is the Capitol where the business of the mass selling off of America is conducted by amoral charlatans. Ron Paul also dares to address the sham of the Federal Reserve that allows for the oligarchs to stack the deck in their favor by manipulating the money supply by ‘running the printing presses’ 24/7 to create money that is backed by nothing and only devalues the dollar and instates a system of peonage that enslaves the people and allows the looters on Wall Street to engage in a ruthless zero sum game that has this country on the brink of economic ruination. Any honest discussion of the Fed in America is strictly verboten and the pocket media will deal with Mr. Paul most expeditiously for the existential threat that he represents to the corrupt system itself – the truth that would ultimately set the people free were they to see the big con for what it is. But this is not about the Federal Reserve system, for a more in depth look and if you can fast forward through all of the bullshit about the overly long segment about the legality of the income tax then check out Aaron Russo’s flick America From Freedom To Fascism but I digress..

In an honest game with a level playing field then we could have a choice between a real conservative in Ron Paul a real liberal in Dennis Kucinich where real issues are discussed and the common ground on what is best for America -like how to get the fuck out of Iraq- is paramount over the business as usual fealty to the wealthy, corporate crooks, AIPAC, the red state fascist theocrats and the wet dreams of militant hardliner Likudniks.

The problem with the truth is in finding a delivery device that is better than the E Crack of television that keeps this society addicted and in a state of blissful ignorance where the sheep are able to maintain a sense of security until the hammer falls on their heads at the end of the chute.

It is the moral imperative of all Americans who are truly loyal to the principles on which this country was founded to start the mass awakening that is essential to repel this fascist menace while there is still time and at least the framework of a democratic system – but that very framework is being methodically eliminated incrementally by the minute. Time is not on our side given the immense damage already done but if aroused the numbers are and there is still enough of the American spirit to repel these vampires if the truth is revealed before they can complete the eradication of the Constitution and muster their private armies for the inevitable final assault and conquest of liberty.

If we all rattle the fucking cages loudly enough the lemmings just may wake up before they march en masse over the cliff and into the abyss dragging the rest of us behind them.