American Coup D'Etat:

by **Gouda** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:16 am

911 may have been a coup, in a loose sense, over those in the national security state who had been dragging their feet. (It may have also been another type, maybe a ‘psychic coup,’ but that is another matter.) I think 911 was an example of the NSS perfectly animated by its own rotten voodoo. The planning (and/or controlled "failures") seems to have spanned administrations and was tacitly OK'd by players above, beyond and even ensconced in the fake partisan divide. Pressure had been building up in the NSS since 1947, and 911 was one more slip in the crust. Luttwak himself quoted in a Wikipedia blurb on Coups: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Coups typically use the power of the existing government for its own takeover. As Edward Luttwak remarks in his Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook : "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."<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_detat">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_detat</a> You may think, "those neocons again!" But neocons, neolibs and other assorted porno capitalists relying on the privatized Nat Sec State to funnel the globe's wealth onto itself, simply get into positions of power because their message wants to be heard and implemented by the greater capitalist establishment. I do not think that Luttwak's definition fits 911. No infiltration necessary! Proof: take a look at how the "opposition" democrats have rolled over and let the machine go into overdrive, sometimes assisting with the fueling operations. Maybe that's their clever version of a judo takedown. Sure there are mini-coups, counter-coups, dirty tricks, rigged elections and such, but all sides of the NatSecState use these commonplace (and unacceptable) tactics to get their moment in "public office" (which I think has become nothing more than the human resources department of increasingly merging corporations) for a few years in order to create conditions more conducive to bigger profits awaiting their return to the “private sector.” Private/public is so blurred by now anyway, we have redefine our terms. With means such as these, the ends are pre-determined. 911 was destined To Be the moment Roosevelt/Truman handed over the nation to the military-industrial-intelligence complex. edit for spelling Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 8/28/06 8:18 am

by **AlanStrangis** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:35 am

I suspect the burgeoning M/I complex learned their lesson after the 1933 (1934?) attepmted coup against FDR. If you can't beat them, buy them.

by **xsic bastardx** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:36 am

Gouda I would have to agree with you on that. My label "Neo-Con"....or....."Pro Christian Right Wing" are just fresh faces that are rotting in front of our eyes.....The true Players....Who knows Gouda, Who knows....... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=xsicbastardx>xsic bastardx</A> at: 8/28/06 8:37 am

by **rothbardian** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:16 pm

Gouda-- I would argue that your confusion lies in the misunderstanding of the term "privatize". Something has not been "privatized" until ALL government funds have been cut off. You seem to think that when the government hires private companies to do work normally done by government agencies...that is to be called "privatizing". That is incorrect, in my view. It's the exact opposite: What has happened there is that a private company has now been 'governmentalized' (if you will)...NOT that the goverment has been "privatized". You've drawn part of the 'private' world into the government sphere (with it's limitless and coercive tax dollars).

by **Gouda** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:08 am

Roth: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Something has not been "privatized" until ALL government funds have been cut off. You seem to think that when the government hires private companies to do work normally done by government agencies...that is to be called "privatizing"<hr></blockquote> Wikipedia: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Privatization (alternately "denationalization" or "disinvestment" ) is the transfer of property or responsibility from the public sector (government) to the private sector (business). The term can refer to partial or complete transfer of any property or responsibility held by government.<hr></blockquote> Privatization is a PROCESS and part of a trend, dear boy. As much as our deluded rulers would like to fully privatize everything in one fell swoop, it can't be done so easily - but it is getting done nevertheless. Subcontracting/outsourcing is one step; the creep of privatization. Look at the larger trend. Yes, subcontracting/outsourcing can be quite helpful to a government (under enforceable regulation, transparency and public accountability) but it can also be one baby-step towards full privatization, which is the trend, which transfers accountability & oversight from the public to private interests. The government as it is now is a weak cover for corporate interests, and is being phased out. Roth: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What has happened there is that a private company has now been 'governmentalized' (if you will)...NOT that the goverment has been "privatized".<hr></blockquote> Ouch, I just sprained my cerebral cortex trying to imagine that. Diebold, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, Halliburton, Dyncorp, Crown Agents and the SIAcorp (which hava just posted about) are "governmentalized" eh? So you mean these bad boys are elected, that my granny has some oversight over them, and they work for the people in the interest of the nation they find themselves in? Who are they accountable to? Why, to their (few) shareholders and their bottom line - not to the public. You will say, well, that's our taxdollars funding these contracts, thus they are "governmentalized." Two responses to that. One, they get these contracts because the so-called public servants are really private servants (see cunningham, wilkes, etc) who are bought out on the free market by the highest bidder. Two, yes, there is massive collusion between the state-corporate nexus in wasting taxdollars - but whose taxdollars? It's the taxes of the poor, working, and middle-classes who are often WORKING for these companies or subsidiaries. It is recycled dough to a great extent - and as these companies increasingly merge, there is a greater chance your salary will come from them to pay the government to pay your salary right back to the company. Double-whammy. These firms would prefer getting direct compensation without having to funnel wages through a state taxation-and-bribe scheme. Too much money is lost, too much time is wasted. Now imagine the government is smashed in a capitalist coup and all those nice civil servants and politicians are unleashed into a world of unfettered free market capitalism. The government middle-man and taxes are cut out. You think the poor, the working and middle classes will get a better deal with greatly enhanced corporations now fully unregulated? Competition is ruthless and self-interested, and jungle forces dictate an upward flow of wealth, mergers and acquisitions. It becomes the feudal pyramid all over again. That's what they want, man. Again, I can't honestly say I like governments or state apparati, or that most governments are accountable to or operate in the people's interest - I don't, and they are not. But a government's corruption can be primarily attributed to the money/profit factor, the corrupting influence of mammon on public institutions and civil servants, and politicians. It would be even worse in an unfettered capitalist utopia. How do I know? No one can know, but I can surmise. Look at the trend: capital markets are eating nations, states, public institutions, and things are NOT getting better for earth itself or the majority of its people. Our sick rulers want pure capitalist anarchy, just like you do. Libertarians don't understand that if you smash the state, your anarcho-capitalism becomes, as a good friend of mine puts it, "a sort of techno-feudalism or mafia-Yakuza society." While too many fret over a the establishment of a "one world government" the friggin' One World Market is way ahead of that and almost there.

by **Gouda** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:05 am

Whistleblower uses YouTube to out key coup co-conspirator, Lockheed Martin, contracted to prepare coast a guard fleet to be easily compromised by...who knows? Terrorists? Is this glaring, bumbling private-sector incompetance, or very competant, efficient planning for a fall back to such an explanation should something occur? Either way, pretty clear who's in cahoots and not a ringing endorsement for the virtues of the private sector. Let's see if some government oversight can do something about it (not holding my breath) now that the whistleblower's statement is on you tube. <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO_Whistleblower_uses_YouTube_to_tell_0829.html">www.rawstory.com/news/200..._0829.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 8/29/06 7:13 am

by **greencrow0** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:35 pm

Thanks for posting this link to the whistleblower, Gouda. this supports an 'intuition' I've had for some time about 'You Tube'. I intuit that You Tube is a vehicle of the 'good guys'...particularly after watching the videos related to the Kennedy assassinations, I feel that You Tube must be surreptitiously funded by those who are attempting to stop the cabal. bravo to this whistleblower. I will post his link on other fora. thanks again, gc

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:55 pm

Gouda-- You ask me if by "governmentalized" I mean that Halliburton has been 'elected' and that your grandma now has some oversight. You would know as well as I do that Halliburton is not the will of the people...it's the will of the gang that has taken over the government. So...I don't understand your question. Halliburton has been drawn into the fold of government and tax dollars. If it were forcibly separated from those tax dollars (which are it's only source of sustenance) it would die. You say that "privatization" is a process. I don't exactly what you mean by that but...it's a separate issue from the question of what, in fact, privatization is or is not. And it certainly sounds like Wikipedia is just as confused on the issue of "privatization". It's a simple issue. If Halliburton did not have access to tax dollars it would die.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:08 pm

When the Pentagon occupies and controls a territory by co-opting the locals into doing their bidding, they call this- "Force Magnification" And that's exactly what the military-industrial complex is, millions of people whose survival is based on making weapons and occupying the world all staking out and defending their jobs in this destructive beaurocracy spreading like a cancer. If you thought it was hard to get tobacco farmers to grow something else...

by **Gouda** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:16 pm

Privatization does not happen overnight, like public one day, bang, private the next. It is a process, a slow creep, a step-by-step, barely perceptible scam. The capitalist elite do not want to spook everyone with a blatant offing of all government responsibilities - they need to keep the illusion while patiently working to discredit, subvert and then eliminate it, here and abroad. That's a process. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>proc·ess1 (prŏs'ĕs', prō'sĕs') pronunciation n., pl. proc·ess·es (prŏs'ĕs'ĭz, prō'sĕs'-, prŏs'ĭ-sēz', prō'sĭ-). 1. A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result: the process of digestion; the process of obtaining a driver's license. 2. A series of operations performed in the making or treatment of a product: a manufacturing process; leather dyed during the tanning process. 3. Progress; passage: the process of time; events now in process.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/process?ff=1">www.answers.com/topic/process?ff=1</a> Oh, and from Barron's: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Privatization Process of converting a publicly operated enterprise into a privately owned and operated entity. For example, many cities and states contract with private companies to run their prison facilities instead of managing them with municipal personnel. Many countries around the world have privatized formerly state-run enterprises such as banks, airlines, steel companies, utilities, phone systems, and large manufacturers. A wave of privatization swept through Russia and Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism in the 1990s, and through some Latin American countries such as Peru, as new, democratic governments were established. When a company is privatized, shares formerly owned by the government, as well as management control, are sold to the public. The theory behind privatization is that these enterprises run far more efficiently and offer better service to customers when owned by stockholders instead of the government. Finance and Investment Terms information about privatization Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. Copyright © 2006 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/privatization?ff=1#copyright">www.answers.com/topic/pri...#copyright</a>

by **Gouda** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Halliburton has been drawn into the fold of government and tax dollars. <hr></blockquote> Is that why Cheney keeps moving back and forth from government to private sector to government, cutting taxes all the while? Who needs taxes with all the other income they got coming in. Force and profit multipliers.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:47 pm

Gouda-- You ask the question-- "Who needs taxes with all the other income they got coming in. Force and profit multipliers." I don't know what the point of confusion might be here-- Halliburton HAS NO OTHER MONEY coming in, other than tax dollars from their government contracts. I would include in that, counterfeit dollars 'printed up' by the Federal Reserve...which is just another form of theft. By the way, that's why Cheney and others can talk up 'tax cuts'....they have their sneaky back door tax in the form of Federal Reserve counterfeit money.

by **Gouda** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:59 pm

I will let you privatize my granny if you can prove our meager tax revenues are covering those trillions.

by **rothbardian** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:35 pm

Well...like I said in my previous post--the tax revenues (per se) are NOT covering the full cost. Halliburton gets much of it's money from another source...counterfeit Federal Reserve money. Fed counterfeit money is a quasi-tax. When they create it out of thin air, it obviously DEvalues the already existing dollars (my savings account, the money in my pocket etc.) so...it's another form of tax, a form of theft. Halliburton has nowhere to go for money except the government.

by **Gouda** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:20 am

I don't like The Fed either, Roth, but that's a private matter. They are not government. They are not elected or accountable to the people. The congress holds perfunctory show hearings with them now and then. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Halliburton has nowhere to go for money except the government.<hr></blockquote> Good thing it owns the government too then. That's some smart business. Meaning, it simply goes to its own cashiers there for a small portion of funding. The rest is printed up as you say, by the private banking industry which gets mixed up with all kinds of enterprises via the the black economy (the drugs, arms & human free market) is laundered, accounts doctored, and then funneled back to Halliburton, which also runs large parts of the drugs, arms & human free market. Smart business. If we can make government work for the people, Halliburton would die. But too many of "The People" either condone or are not aware of this state of affairs. Education is also a process. *** More private sector excellence: IEM (Innovative Emergency Management) & NOLA where the private sector and sympathetic government agencies have successfully cleansed 1/2 (the undesirable part of) the population in a mini-corporate coup. Palast has a video scoop: <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Greg_Palast_Video_Killing_culture_in_0829.html">www.rawstory.com/news/200..._0829.html</a>

American Coup D'Etat:

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Re: Forlorn Hopes of Dismantling 1947's Nat. Sec. Apparatus

Who is online