Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to LaRouche Continued, a forum dedicated to all things Lyndon LaRouche (from the history of his political cult to present-day affairs.)

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Is THE GRIFFIN building an alt org?; Helga, take note!
Topic Started: Jan 29 2015, 08:57 AM (28,173 Views)
Snardbafulator
Member Avatar
Thomas Ruggles Pynchon
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
I had to check of course, and it turns out there actually is a historical event known as "the postmodern coup." It happened in '97, when the Turkish generals ousted a PM (not by physical force, just strongly coercing him to sign a humiliating memorandum that soon leaked out to the press) but left the parliament intact without calling for a new election. The PM was an Islamist (Turkey's Islamists are moderate but the Turkish military have been ardent secularists since at least the time of Ataturk) in an antecedent Islamist party of what would become Turkey's now ruling Justice and Development Party.

I think the general would have more appropriately called it a "coup lite," but I don't know if we import enough Bud or Miller over there that they'd get the reference.

Bob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hadji Gegenraum
Newbie
 *  
The answer to the question is yes and here is a morning briefing of some import
on the morally despicable Clintons....Killery and Bill.

Anyone can sign up for these briefings and not have to be a member of UFAA/Tax Wall Street Party
*****************

TAX WALL STREET PARTY/UNITED FRONT AGAINST AUSTERITY MORNING BRIEFING FOR SUNDAY APRIL 12, 2015

NOT THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS: WHY HILLARY CLINTON IS UNFIT FOR THE PRESIDENCY


HILLARY CLINTON— THE INTERNATIONAL NEOCON WARMONGER

As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason. Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clinton's career reveals the empirical evidence of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe. Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention, claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but “…for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent.” This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: “We came, we saw, he died.” As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state— conducive for exporting radicals through “ratlines” to the conflict against Assad in Syria. Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads. Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved “behind the scenes” in Iran’s failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a “snap-back” in policy by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this article? “Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back." This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario. Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husband’s hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: “I urged him to bomb,” even if it was a unilateral action. While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned “putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government”. When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko’s proto-fascist rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putin’s actions like “what Hitler did in the ‘30s.” As a leader of the bumbled ”reset” policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine. Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive response to what she called the “rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America.” This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil. It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillary’s clumsy façade comes from directly from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillary’s term as Secretary of State. He claimed in the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the “mainstream” by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted. Kagan stated: “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue...it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.

THE “GIANT SUCKING SOUND”: CLINTON GAVE US NAFTA AND OTHER FREE TRADE SELLOUTS

“There is no success story for workers to be found in North America 20 years after NAFTA,” states AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Unlike other failures of his Presidency, Bill Clinton can not run from NAFTA. It was Vice President Al Gore, not a veto-proof Republican congress, who lobbied to remove trade barriers with low-wage Mexico. The record of free trade is clear. Multinational corporations and Wall Street speculators realize incredible profits, wages remain stagnant in the US, poverty persists in the developing world, and the remaining industrial corporations in America and Canada are increasingly owned by Chinese, Indian and other foreign interests. America’s free trade policy is upside down. Besides Canada, Australia and Korea, most of our “free” trade partners are low-wage sweatshop paradises like Mexico, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Bahrain and Oman. The US does in fact apply tariffs on most goods and on most nations of origin – rates are set by the US International Trade Commission (USTIC), a quasi-public federal agency: http://hts.usitc.gov/ Since a German- or Japanese-made automobile would under USITC’s schedule be taxed 10% upon importation, Volkswagen and Toyota can circumvent taxation by simply building their auto assembly plants for the US market in Mexico. In Detroit, an auto assembly worker is paid between $14 and $28/hour, ($29,120-$58,240/yr); hard work for modest pay. In Mexico, the rate varies from $2-5/hour. In China, all automobile imports regardless of origin are tariffed as high as 25%. This allows the Chinese to attract joint ventures with Volkswagen and Toyota, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, “keep the jobs, the cars and the money.” NAFTA-related job loss is not a question of productivity, currency manipulation, “fair trade,” environmental standards, etc. While these issues are not trivial, free trade – as Lincoln’s advisor Henry C. Carey proved – is a matter of simple accounting. Can an American family survive on $4,160/year ($2/hr)? If not, cars and their components will be built in Mexico. If we want cars built in the United States, the only solution is a general tariff (import tax) reflecting the difference between those wage standards, like the very tariffs repealed by Bill Clinton. In the United States the “runaway shop” under NAFTA and CAFTA has sent trade deficits and unemployment soaring while wages drop relative to the cost of living. Yet Mexico and other “partners” receive no benefit either. Many manufacturing sectors in Mexico pay wages lower than the equivalent sector in China. Mexico is now the world leader in illegal narcotics exportation and weapons importation. The poverty level between 1994 and 2009 remained virtually identical. (52.4% - 52.3%). The shipping of raw materials to Mexico comprise the majority of so called American “exports”. The finished products from these exports are assembled and sold back to the United States at slave labor prices. Don’t expect Hillary to behave differently with the coming “Trans-Pacific Partnership,” which seeks to replace an ascendant China with less-developed Vietnam and Malaysia. Vietnam would overtake India-allied Bangladesh in the global apparel trade, and Malaysia has a high-tech manufacturing sector poised to rival China’s. With America’s manufacturing economy in shambles, the Clinton machine can now be redirected to geopolitical maneuvers.

THE CLINTONS ABOLISHED WELFARE C.1995. THEIR RECORD THE SAME.

Thanks to Bill Clinton who abolished welfare in 1995, 50 million Americans were cast into the human outer darkness. In order to get himself re-elected Clinton “ended welfare as we know it”. Clinton destroyed Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), which was one of the titles of the Social Security Act (SSA) of 1935 and replaced it with the shell of former self Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF. The 2016 GOP House Budget submission aims to finish off the project by ending TANF. In September of 1995, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Chairman of the Senate Budget committee Pete Dominici of the Senate Budget Committee, and more than 154 Republican House member began to agitate for a Treasury default on the public debt of the United States. Such a default had never occurred in recorded history. Nevertheless, Gingrich and his fellow enthusiasts of the Conservative Revolution were threatening to use the need to raise the $4.9 billion on the public debt to force Clinton to accept a reconciliation bill that would include a capital gains tax plus savage cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and (in Title 4a, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, commonly known as welfare), farm support payments, student loans, and other entitlements. As a result of this synthetic debt crisis described above, a draconian welfare reform bill was proposed by Representative Clay Shaw (R-Fla.), passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. This reform came to be known as the Personal Responsibility and Opportunity Act and represented a direct frontal assault on the most vulnerable groups of the American population. But the secondary impact and medium-term potentials of this misbegotten law, also made it a sneak attack against the American middle class. In blunt terms, international finance capital appear to be preparing a reserve army of homeless, unemployed, destitute, with the intention of hurling them against the living standards of suburbia. Middle class voters who supported such a welfare reform because they had been blinded by their propaganda-stoked resentment against the inner-city and rural poor, might soon come to regret their own gullibility. Peter Edelman was the former assistant secretary for planning evaluation at the US Department of Health and Human Services who resigned in protest in 1996 over what was then still the welfare bill. Edelman had been an advisor to Robert Kennedy in 1967, and was proud that he has spent 30 years trying to fight poverty in America, Edelman kept silent until after Clinton had been re-elected in 1996, but then spoke out in an article entitled “The Worst Thing Clinton Has Done,” which was published in the Atlantic Monthly. In the Edelman’s judgement, ‘the bill that President Clinton signed is not welfare reform. It does not promote work effectively, and it will hurt millions of poor children by the time it is fully implemented. What’s more, it bars hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants - including many who have worked in the United States for decades and paid a considerable amount in Social Security and income taxes - from receiving disability and old-age assistance and food stamps, and reduces food-stamp assistance for millions of children in working families.” The bill, he pointed out, was stigmatized by Senator Kennedy as “legislative child abuse.” Edelman cited data from the Urban Institute showing that even under the unrealistically optimistic assumption that two thirds of long-term welfare recipients would find jobs, the current welfare law would move 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty. Further, the 1996 law reduced the incomes of 11 million low-income families, fully 10% of all the families in America. Of the families thus impacted, 8 million families with children would suffer losses of an average $1,300 per family as a result of food stamp cuts. Many working families slightly above the official federal poverty line of $12,158 for a family of three would lose income. But these statistics turn out to understate this vast problem. The fact is that jobs were not available in sufficient numbers to accommodate the welfare recipients that were going to have their benefits terminated in 1999, when the welfare law’s draconian two-year limit on welfare payments to many current recipients would expire. This was the point stressed by the US Conference of Mayors in late November 1997, with a warning that unless there were increased investments in job-creation, transport, child care, and health coverage, huge numbers of Americans risked abject poverty in 1999. These were the conclusions of a 34-city survey commissioned by the mayors. Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell, the chairman of the mayors’ task force on the welfare-to-work issue, stated that “By the summer 1999, for the first time since the great depression, there will be large numbers of Americans in American cities without any subsidies at all, without any cash payments. We cannot let that happen,” Rendell pointed to a “serious mismatch” between the large numbers of welfare recipients seeking employment and jobs available to them. “Regardless of the training and child-care available, it is too much to expect that these numbers of welfare recipients are going to finds jobs in this market,” said Mayor Rendell. [Financial Times, November 22, 1997] One key problem was that inner city welfare victims had no cars and could not reach jobs at shopping malls and industrial parks in the suburbs given the lack of any serious urban mass transit system in many metropolitan areas where welfare was most common. President Clinton failed the American people when he capitulated to the fascistic tendencies of Newt Gingrich and the profoundly reactionary proposals of the self styled conservative revolution. Clinton was a key part of the process of stripping away the economic rights of the American people. This was a direct assault on the New Deal and one of the most extreme assaults on the economic rights of the American people. As Americans we each have the right to not to be destitute. A society of destitute people is on the way to a dictatorship. If Madame Clinton wants your vote she must be asked- What would you have done in order to stop ending welfare as we knew it? What advice did you give your husband in 1995 when he signed the Personal Responsibility and Opportunity Act?

1999: BILL CLINTON SIGNED ABOLITION OF GLASS STEAGALL AND ALLOWED INTERSTATE BANKING

Bill Clinton’s repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act—which dissolved the firewall between commercial and investment banks—clearly indicates that Hillary would only serve the interests of Wall Street if elected president. Glass-Steagall prohibited low-risk commercial banks that dealt in managing deposits and providing loans from engaging in predatory high-risk speculation. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, signed by Clinton in 1999, effectively nullified Glass-Steagall and opened up the savings and pensions of the working class for looting from parasitic bankers. Although this repeal was among a larger wave of Greenspan era deregulation that sowed the seeds for the 2008 crisis, it fundamentally altered the nature of banking by normalizing overly risky practices and therefore expanding the scope of the shadow banking cabal. Moreover, it is near impossible to imagine Hillary reinstating Glass-Steagall considering that some of her biggest donors--most notably, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup--are the same financial madhouses that lobbied heavily in favor of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In fact, according to the National Review, Hillary netted $400,000 from two speeches delivered at a conference hosted by Goldman Sachs in October of 2013. Hillary knows where her bread is buttered, which means there would no be no honest banking under another Clinton presidency. For the TWSP, the return of Glass-Steagall is only one of many regulations needed to tame the infinite greed of Wall Street vultures.

2000: BILL CLINTON LEGALIZED DERIVATIVES

While the roots of our present crisis stretch back over many decades of free trade, privatization and shifts of power to the financial sector, no one act bears more blame for the 2008 financial panic and ongoing global turbulence than the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000. Following the repeal of Glass-Steagall and under continued pressure from Wall Street and reactionary senators like Phil Gramm, Clinton established the 1999 “President’s Working Group on Financial Markets,” chaired by Lawrence Summers, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt and William Rainer. Summers’ and Greenspan’s reputations as Wall Street hatchet men precede them; Levitt went on to advise the Carlyle Group and Goldman Sachs; and Rainer – who replaced the courageous, ousted Commodity Futures Trading Corp. chair Brooksley Born – went on to found a derivatives exchange and several investment funds. The CFMA proposed a series of “modernizations” (deregulations) of derivatives coinciding with the emergence of computerized “flash trading” capabilities that allowed Wall Street to steal untold billions from the productive sectors of the economy. Notoriously, it allowed for the creation and black-market trading of many synthetic derivatives, under the so-called “Enron Loophole.” Soon insurance companies, pension funds and other investors previously confined to stocks and bonds were involved in oil and food futures, credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, and other forms of volatile speculation that wrecked many of these funds and led to the events of 2008. In recent years, Bill Clinton has attempted to distance himself from the CFMA (“I think they were wrong and I was wrong”), claiming he and treasury secretary Larry Summers were misled by Alan Greenspan and that a veto-proof majority in Congress would have defeated his attempts at regulation anyway. Filmmaker Charles Ferguson, who interviewed Clinton for his film “Inside Job” chronicling deregulation and the 2008 crash, believes Clinton is simply lying. Tellingly, Ferguson had to cancel a planned documentary on Hillary Clinton, presumably touching on similar themes, as he was unable to secure participation from neither Clinton’s friends nor enemies. “I also saw one reason why Hillary Clinton might not be thrilled about my movie,” Ferguson says. “In Arkansas, she joined the boards of Walmart and Tyson Foods. One of the largest donors to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is the government of Saudi Arabia. The Clintons' personal net worth now probably exceeds $200 million, and while earned legally, both the money's sources and the Clintons' public statements indicate a strong aversion to rocking boats or making powerful enemies.” The Clinton Foundation receives millions from Wall Street banks, hedge funds, cartels and their related foundations. How can Hillary to have any independence on fighting Wall Street when her palms are greased by Barclays, Fidelity, Citibank, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, George Soros’ Open Society Institute and countless other Wall Street tentacles? Even Chelsea Clinton’s own husband, Mark Mezvinsky, is a hedge fund operator currently trying to recoup millions in lost investments in Greece. Simply put, whether Bill and Hillary Clinton have the intellectual power to have stopped derivatives, free trade, financial deregulation or any of a number of wars is immaterial. They have proved themselves to lack the moral courage required to bite the many hands that feed their political machine.


THIS DAILY BRIEFING IS DISTRIBUTED FREE OF CHARGE. TO SUBSCRIBE, CLICK HERE: http://eepurl.com/sJHcP. MEMBERS AND FRIENDS OF THE TAX WALL STREET PARTY SHOULD SEND THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF INTERESTED PERSONS TO TAXWALLSTREETPARTY@GMAIL.COM Follow us on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/UnitedFrontAgainstAusterity

Follow us on Twitter
https://twitter.com/TaxWallStParty






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xlcr4life
Furtwangler
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
It sounds weird, but I can't help but think that the Larouche cult is so desperate in trying to see if anything stops the slow death that the Manhattan project is there to combat Dr Webster The Griffin Tarpley. They are going after similar people and the good Dr. has a business smart plan in telling people that "Larouche is CIA" .

Some more details later on Larouche.Con 2015 where we may be seeing a real con going on.




In the mean time. This is highly amusing if you know Webster and Larouche. The descriptions of Webster have him with his own issues and still entrapped in a Larouche state. I have plenty of things in my life to take care, of, but man I had no clue of how much conflict ,er marketing competition is going on here .


A lot to read here, but fascinating if you know the two and can picture them on the upcoming MTV remake of "Celebrity Death Match".


http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...ebster-tarpley/


Quote:
 
Boiling Frogs Post’s Eric Draitser in Response to Webster Tarpley…
ERIC DRAITSER | APRIL 29, 2013 37 COMMENTS
It is sad that, despite all the news about Boston and Central Asia, the continued collapse of the US economy, the further mobilization of the police state apparatus, and so much more, that I have to write something in response to Webster Tarpley.  However, that is precisely the situation I find myself in, having to respond to spurious charges and baseless demonization by someone who should spend more time in self-examination and less time attacking people out of pitiful jealousy.  Let me first explain the connection I have had with Tarpley and the likely reasons for this attack…
I first met Tarpley back in 2011 at an event here in New York City in commemoration of the 1oth anniversary of 9-11.  Though I had been following his work for a few years, this was the first time I had ever met him.  He was impressed by my knowledge of a number of critical issues beyond simply 9-11 and false flag terror, so much so, that I spent the rest of the event and the evening with him and another colleague of mine, having dinner and discussing political issues.  At the time, this was a thrill for me as I had read Tarpley’s books, in particular his book 9-11 Synthetic Terror.  For me, I felt like I was forming a relationship with someone who I had only known through appearances on Infowars and his own radio show.  However, due to circumstances, our working relationship took on an additional dimension within weeks as, no more than a few days after meeting Tarpley, Zuccotti Park was occupied by a bunch of kids, and the phenomenon of Occupy began in earnest.
The historical significance of this moment was immediately apparent to me, and I rushed down to the park within days of the occupation.  It was my first-hand knowledge with, and experience in, Occupy that prompted Tarpley to put me on his radio show – my first actual radio appearance.  I was on his program a number of times in the weeks to come, providing detailed accounts of Occupy, the sabotage of the movement, and the continued efforts to push it in a positive direction (I realize now the fundamental flaw in such a strategy).  These weekly appearances on Tarpley’s program, along with my teach-ins at Occupy and working relationship with other independent media, encouraged me to consider beginning my own show and website.  Hence, StopImperialism.com and the Stop Imperialism podcast were born.  It would be dishonest to say that my connection with Tarpley wasn’t at least part of my motivation.
As weeks became months, and I began to develop my own unique style and voice, Stop Imperialism took shape.  It allowed me to explore issues that I felt no one was sufficiently covering, not the least of which being the true alternative media.  In so doing, I began to realize just how much the likes of Tarpley refused to address, including issues of the environment, big agribusiness, pharmaceutical companies, and countless other issues (more on that later). I felt myself drifting further and further from the quasi-Larouchian polemics of Tarpley and toward a more nuanced understanding of critical issues.  However, it was in attempting to work with Tarpley that his true colors were revealed and, simultaneously, my connection to him was permanently and inexorably severed.
The kernel of the idea to develop an anti-austerity organization came from Dan A. (a mutual friend of mine and Webster’s) however, for a number of reasons, Dan could not actually be part of building such an organization.  So, the responsibility passed on to me, and I began to run with it.  I thought (and still do think) it was a great idea and one whose time had come.  In the midst of a farcical presidential election, with both parties preparing to ravage the sick, the elderly, minorities, and countless others who depend on vital social programs, I thought an anti-austerity coalition would be essential to building an effective resistance movement in the US.  Frankly, it seems less of an idea and more of a mandate, as if history had left me no choice.  Naturally, because the idea had originated in a conversation that included Webster, he was the first person I approached about this idea.
I had only about 6 weeks between having the idea to put on an anti-austerity event in NYC and the event itself.  In that time, I managed to secure a number of notable speakers/guests, secure the space in which to hold the event, and organize the efforts of a handful of others to accomplish all the small tasks that had to be done in order to pull off the event.  In the meantime, Webster was busy preparing his plans for what I thought would be an anti-austerity movement but which turned out to be little more than a Webster Tarpley movement – one that sought not to work with others and build a coalition (as I had planned), but that instead promoted little more than Tarpley’s political and economic program.  In other words, a movement that I had never regarded as “mine”, was now most certainly becoming “his”.  Though the event went off without a hitch and was undoubtedly a success, I immediately withdrew membership in the organization I had created.  There were a number of reasons for this, the most important being that I had no interest in being the grand marshal of the Tarpley parade.  A few people asked me why I didn’t try to just reclaim control of the group.  The only answer I can give is that, when it comes to people like Tarpley, the less adversarial contact, the better.  He, and people like him, thrive on that sort of thing and, frankly speaking, I was too busy trying to build my own site and show to tie myself to that sinking ship.
So, I have not had any direct contact with Tarpley since the event last fall, nor do I plan on it in the near future.  Now, I would here like to say that I do not write this article because I want to engage in a tit-for-tat about the issue with Tarpley or anyone else.  Nor do I think Sibel or James needs me to defend them as they can fight their own battles.  I write this to explain what is undoubtedly one of the main motivating factors for Tarpley to attack Boiling Frogs – it’s his way of “getting back at me” for abandoning my own organization which, in his egomaniacal mind, is an abandonment of him.  The writers that BFP has “bought off” is a reference to me…pity is all I feel when I read such nonsense.
Now, since I’ve gone this far, I might as well lay it all out there.  There are a number of topics about which I learned a great deal from Tarpley’s analysis over the years: the nature of false flag terror and how it’s carried out, speculation, derivatives and their impact on the global economy, as well as a handful of other key issues.  However, his analysis is always partial at best as he refuses to address any issues pertaining to the environment which he regards as “anti-progress” Malthusianism.  He never discusses the criminality of Monsanto and big Agribusiness or the pharmaceutical industry for fear of being labeled “anti-science”.  He devotes his undying love and affection for nuclear power and, in the wake of Fukushima, his only analysis was that the world needs more nuclear power.  These are just a few of the countless examples that could be provided to illustrate his severely limited understanding of the real world.
Of course, no critical analysis of Tarpley would be complete without a very real questioning of his past.  Tarpley spent more than 30 years in the movement of Lyndon Larouche.  Anyone who knows anything about that organization should know that they are a proto-fascist, political personality cult that did little more than intimidate, attack, and otherwise subvert organizations and movements on the “Left” since at least the early 1970s.  It should be said that, to his credit, Tarpley claims to have left that organization in the late 1990s.  However, an analysis of his political views as mentioned above demonstrates quite clearly that,  though he may have left that organization in name, he certainly has not in spirit.
I have never had less fun writing an article than I have this one.  I find it an utterly odious task to write something solely for the purposes of attacking someone else.  However, in these circumstances, I think it is unavoidable as I cannot sit idly by while someone verbally attacks people like Sibel and James who I love and have tremendous respect for.  I make no secret about my own views and, particularly in terms of economic issues; I know that I stand in direct opposition to the “free market” ideology espoused by some of the contributors and subscribers to Boiling Frogs.  Frankly, I am happy that this is the case because, just as I said when forming the anti-austerity group, the only way to win in this fight is to work together, build our alliances and mutual understanding, develop a common language and key principles, and fight the transnational imperial-corporate system.  I am proud to stand with people like Sibel and James.  I am sorry that Tarpley has chosen irrelevance. But, so be it. The struggle is only just starting…
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf



some comments

Thank you for this article, Eric. I, too, have learned much from Tarpley from being on Infowars and from his own website. I also have the chance to meet him at the Vancouver 9/11 Conference last spring. As much as I repect his great intellect and research, he does seem to actively court confrontation in his speaking style which I had witnessed first hand at said conference. On his weekly podcasts, he avoids very obviously giving any other fellow “alternative” researchers any credit or airtime and only looks to bring up others in order to be dismissive. He will not acknowledge any rivals.
As I have said in a previous thread, I find Tarpley’s attack on Sibel and Corbett to be very disappointing and deflating. Unfortunately, in the so-called “truther” community there seems to be many with very large egos (I don’t include Sibel or James here) that are very defensive of their turf. I will still try to listen to as many researchers as I can that I find credible including Tarpley, but its kind of upsetting that I think some should come with a “personality warning”. - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Awesome explanation. I found it so weird when I heard the attack on his Saturday show especially using purposeful disinformation that it would take less than 5 minutes of research to determine. He can’t feign ignorance on what he said so his future credibility totally plummeted in my book. And he did make some reference to Larouche during the show but I forgot the context. I’m not impressed with groups who stand on the corner and hand out literature like Jehovahs Witnesses.
Sorry you had to go through that with WT. He genuinely seems to have quite a bit of expertise in a lot of things but he acted so puerile with his petty slander. And his little knock on James was ridiculous but I did learn a new word :)
In the midst of all the new developments in the last few weeks and the genuine critical analysis needed by the average Joe, this was really unnecessary from Tarp.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


@guitarman. I know WT attacks Larouche quite often on his twitter feed so that association may be permanently severed.
And, yes, I learned a new word too!
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Very disappointing to see disagreement in the ranks. But people will not always agree on everything. However the main thing is to stick together on who the real criminals are(Obama,Bush, CIA, Mosad,Pentagon and did I mention CIA). James, Eric and Sibel are my favorite people on the Web, so that’s a mark against on of my, used-to-be-also, favorite, Webster Tarpley. Maybe it’s time for Webster to fade away in the fog of obscurity. - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Simple terms WT is a know it all, to his credit he does know much.A great wealth of knowledge, but a bit lacking in ppl skills. - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Humorous thought – I’m still cracking up over WT’s use of the word “philodoxer”. I can’t think of a word better to describe Tarpley himself. Out of curiosity, is there a similar word for an author who loves to read their own words over and over again? If not, should we make one up?
I’m gonna try to use “philodoxer” in a complete sentence in a real life situation as soon as a situation merits it.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Few comments…
First the article… how many people here have gone to Christopher Bollyn’s site and read what he says about who WT… about his daughter and wife working for a man connected to 911’s long story? Believe this is under his… “2013 911″ way down the long posts… .
Eric here says concerning Lyndon Larouche…
“Anyone who knows anything about that organization should know that they are a proto-fascist, political personality cult… ”
Exactly who with a strong personality at its head let along… hundreds of politician followers… of a specific politician… do not have an element of “personality cult” in them?
IF the Larouche organization had done nothing else but publish “DOPE INC.” – humanity would still be in great debt to them. Has the author read it?
As for the term “fascist”… . After what is close to 90 Hollywood movies about Fascist and Nazis and Jews… without any except for two that I can think of… about Bolshevism … the word to me… only confirms a person a reactionary who has be successfully propagandized.
The word… should never be used in my opinion to define any… movement historical or current.
The Banking Cartel who largely speaking run both War Inc. and Dope Inc. and used ‘fascists,’ funded them… and used Marxists and funded them… who funded Lenin and who funded Hitler… who funded Israel and who were behind the Federal Reserve Law/IRS which… allowed the funding of both WW1 and WW11 BOTH SIDES… (really the same long event…) are not Left or Right or fascist or socialist/Communist, they are largely tribal… Jewish in the main element; although that must be to a degree qualified in terms of the City of London and aspects of WASPy Wall Street.
I have found WT to be an intelligent man incessantly talking in 20th century socialist lingo.
“Fascist” comes out of his mouth as “nice day,” comes out of the average person’s.
He is on the short side, bald and rides his considerable mind in barely suppressed aggressions… in part over those two facts.
I have never heard Webster extend ANY polite acknowledgement to another person without sensing a manipulative purpose behind these very rare gestures. He is not naturally truthful… he always measures his affect… and his, effect.
A political warrior may find danger in any level of warm hearted
meeting of another, half way… but I find it sometimes as an inclination… a mark of a Great man and its mirror image a mark of a little spirit.
History sometimes elevates the dark hearted to teach the Light.
As for the internecine quarrels of the ‘Truth’ movements… we weaken ourselves when we do anything but… hold up creative free action and its political means Liberty… as our goal.
I don’t think I have EVER heard Webster use the term “Liberty.”
As far a Sibel and her whistle blowing… she was a relatively newly minted American I believe, with idealism… .
“Chatter” in intelligence in America is used to lay “bread crumbs,” but… one should assume that, too much focus of OBL before the 911 EVENT… may have brought the “hijackers” if they existed… too quickly to the attention of some patriotic FBI,CIA or military intelligence agent… one loyal to the U.S. Constitution, say?
Sibel said after Boston… in effect, ‘lets look at what happens.’
So far Russia appears to have used the event broadly, as she suggested… to crack down… it is at least reported… on Muslim elements… or… has it?
Sibel said lets see if anything happens in Syria that seems to be related to the Boston Lock Down Event.
Tarpley’s criticisms reported in a post above… seem an extension of his ego as the post infers. Nothing surprising there… the man stumbles over his ego in every sentence.
WT’s criticism of Liberty based movements like Ron Paul… are narrow and reactionary BUT and other Libertarian think tanks today do seem to carry water for world empire banking racists… and this reflects my own thinking.
Webster, has no affection for liberty or the American Constitution… NONE.
“Neocons”… largely Jewish, supposedly American Libertarians, are in their policy outcomes… ALWAYS supportive of one thing, Israeli goals and are therefore… deeply tainted by the 911 Event, which leads to their door. But… the Event’s cover up… is more squarely the responsibility of the lowered moral character of the average American.
Obviously… “Free Markets,” have nothing to do with America’s interests as played out in the WTO etc. and its gutting of the American manufacturing base. Lyndon Larouche too has great affection for FDR supposed flavors of economic policy which was again historically banking cartel policy.
Webster would order… individuals to work or to camps or to vote or to think… all mitigated by an intellectual elite’s supposedly deeper insights… . This is his nature.
Webster disdains the idea of individual liberty as even a possibility my third ear, hears him say.
In Russia he would have worn Bolshevik narrow rimmed glasses… a long coat and moved millions as needed into camps or… rationalize starvations.
The man’s soul is torpid.
If a man can not be learned from… spiritually… then no matter how bright… he should be avoided and never be taken serious.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf



Eric it’s your co-worker Ry
Look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i7bzyKUBoU It’s Tarpley’s interview with Adam Kokesh. See what a pro-statist train wreck Tarpley is. The guy wrote a book with ZERO sources in it. He is full of propaganda and completely ignorant on subjects like economics which he confidently talks about anyway despite his glaring ignorance on every aspects of how markets work. Hit me up any time, I keep files on all the main kooks. His is one of the largest.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf



That’s sad news that your once-promising anti-austerity initiative was taken over. It’s not a good thing when an organisation has to deal with corrosive personalities and in-fighting. In listening to Tarpley, I was always impressed by his knowledge and analysis, but I never became a fan because I had the nagging suspicion that he is an egotist. I am not happy to be right. Eric, I hope you will continue to carry the flag of anti-austerity nonetheless. - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


My only complaint with this is the author’s characterization of the LaRouchies as proto-fascist–I don’t see the need for the prefix! - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


I discovered the alternative media about 3 years ago. I had never been exposed to any political ideas other than Republican v Democrat, and it had never even crossed my mind that there were alternatives. Mr. Tarpley’s knowledge of history impressed me. For the first time I saw that almost all the present struggles had happened in the past and are recurring.
I noticed a change in Mr. Tarpley’s attitude about 18 months ago when he had a heated argument with Alex Jones. An urgency for action in Mr. Tarpley seems to have replaced any desire for further debate or discussion of things we already understand e.g. imperialism, austerity, tyrannical polices. I do not understand Mr. Tarpley’s calumnies for the Boiling Frogs Team, but those aside, I can understand his desire to stop talking and start making an attempt to gain political power. We can endlessly report on abuses and discuss solutions, but I believe Mr. Tarpley is correct that we ought to figure out the details of nuclear power, GMO’s, and multinational corporations after we are in a position of parity with them. Mr. Tarpley is attempting to come up with a strategy that will bring the maximum support for the acquisition of political power. I think he has chosen the correct points. Most of the population of the world would rather have electricity and running water provided with nuclear power now–or whatever source will provide the most energy with celerity–, than to wait around another generation while we come up with a better solution. Once we have a position of political power, believes Mr. Tarpley, then we can debate the details and fine tune the policies. At present we can do nothing other than preach to the choir.
It is disheartening to learn that there is so much fighting behind the scenes between the alternative media iconoclasts, but I suppose it is natural as we grow as a nascent force in society. I value the opinions and respect the intellectual and peripatetic work of Mr. Draitser, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. Corbett, and Mr. Tarpley.
*************************************************
I couldn’t find “philodoxer” or “philodoxster” in any dictionary. The best I can guess by derivation of “philo-” love + “doxa” opinion is “love of opinion or love of belief”? Used as a pejorative then meaning perhaps “love of unproven beliefs”? - See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf



Eric,
I listened to Tarpley religiously for several years. I thought he was the the best political analyst on the Net. I read all his books. I loved 9/11 Synthetic Terror and the Unauthorized Biographies of Obama and the earlier one wih Tony Chaitkin of George H.W. Bush. This prompted my to fly from California to NY for the UFAA founding meeting in New York where I also saw you. Afterwards I took Webster to dinner and spent a few hours talking with him. Among other topics, I brought up Sibel Edmonds. I was appalled to hear him disparage her at that time, accusing her of being an intelligence agent. It was clear to me that he had no grounds for doing so other than that he viewed her as a competitor. This quickly changed my view of him. We did not argue but my time with him convinced me that he had serious personality flaws, that he has a pathological ego and is intellectually dishonest. I now find that BFP, the Corbett Report and many other sources are better and more reliable than Tarpley. I believe we are in full agreement about him. He can now be regarded as a has-been.
There is one important point where I differ with you, however. It derives from the fact that some of the things Tarpley said about LaRouche made me curious enough to take a closer look at the LaRouche movement. My father had told me LaRouche was a crank somewhere back in the 70’s, and I never took a look at them, although I would sometimes see them at their tables in a mall with their baseball caps and their leaflets and would laugh at them for looking like Trotskyites in a time warp, kind of like Deadheads at a Grateful Dead concert. I was happy to forgive Tarpley for his long association with LaRouche, since he had broken with the movement ten or fifteen years ago and now vehemently denounced and dissociated himself from them. But when I did finally get around to taking a real look at the LaRouche movement, what I found to my great surprise was that all of Tarpley’s GOOD ideas about political economy that I really liked, that I was hearing for several years of reading and listening to Tarpley, ALL came from LaRouche. So then, I proceeded to make contact with the LaRouche movement, and what I found is that they are good, honest, hard-working people like you and me, not “proto-fascists” at all but true-blue American progressives, proponents of Hamiltonian and New Deal American System economics. Yes, they are too doctrinaire and LaRouche centered, and I certainly don’t agree with them about everything, from nuclear power to Issac Newton, and especially their culture Nazi attitude about the degeneracy of all non-Classical music forms, but I find it is not difficult to reserve my disagreements about these matters by considering them as “wedge issues” and to work with them on the basis of our common political objectives. At this point our common objectives are the restoration of the Roosevelt Glass-Steagall Banking Act of 1933, which would completely restructure the economy, destroy the power of the finance capitalists and bring down the Empire, and the impeachment of Wall Street stooge Obama to accomplish this. These are objectives we all share. At this point I have enough experience with the LaRouche people to consider them to be the best, most effective political organizers in the business. I recommend that you work with them as I do. They have gotten a bill introduced into the House, HR 129, the Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013, sponsored by Democrat Marcy Kaptur that fully restores Glass-Steagall. Tarpley has called this a mere “process reform”. For that alone he should never be forgiven. He knows better, but he says it solely because LaRouche is a rival whom he wants to belittle. It is actually a fundamental restructuring of the economy that restores the separation of commercial and investment banking. It constitutes an orderly take-down of the whole Trans-Atlantic investment banking system, and is a sine qua non for a real economic recovery. LaRouche is proposing to replace the current bankrupt monetarist system with a Hamiltonian credit system with a national bank that makes the investments necessary for economic growth and full recovery. Any ideas along these lines that Tarpley has proposed come from LaRouche. LaRouche has converted me to Hamiltonian economics. It combines all the best features of socialism and capitalism. I was raised a Marxist, but I have now come to realize that Hamilton long ago figured out the right way to implement socialism, which is known as the American System of economics, and was the original basis of the Union that was the United States, now long buried and forgotten beneath centuries of imperialist propaganda.
From what you said about LaRouche, I gather all you know is what you heard somewhere or what you read in the Wikipedia biography, which, as may not surprise you, is disinformation from beginning to end. In other words, you are where I was on the subject of LaRouche about a year ago. So I would very much like to recommend that you take a few hours of your time to read the following documents, because I hope you will come to see the LaRouche movement as a valuable and positive resource, as I do.
HR 129 Bill to restore Glass-Steagall now with 60 co-sponsors:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/129
Support for HR 129:
http://larouchepac.com/hr129support
Platform for a full economic recovery:
http://larouchepac.com/fullrecoveryplatform
Draft Legislation to Restore the Original Bank of the United States:
http://larouchepac.com/restorethebank
I personally drove up to Sacramento and talked to my Assemblyman, Republican Tim Donally, yesterday as part of the LaRouche campaign for HR 129, to urge our state representatives to pass a resolution in favor of restoring Glass-Steagall, as the LaRouche movement has already accomplished in four other states. I only had a couple of minutes with him and I didn’t even get to Glass-Seagall. Like some other Republicans, he is concerned with the erosion of civil rights by the NDAA, so we talked about the “War on Terror” and the Marathon bombing. Now here is an issue that progressive Democrats can share with Republicans. I told him that I think Obama should be impeached. I think Obama has cut off the balls of progressives and the only way they can get them back is to dump him. The LaRouche picture of Obama with the Hitler moustache works just fine for me. I am going to be sending Donnelly a lot of literature on both terrorism and economics, and I expect this to be a fruitful ongoing relationship.
Current National Call To Action:
http://larouchepac.com/call_to_action
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


My new favorite word.
philodox, philodoxer One who is especially fond of his/her own opinions or someone who loves to hear herself/himself talk; a chatterbox; a dogmatist.
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/philodoxer
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf



@Xicha:”Can you understand this question, as distinct from the points of agreement you brought up?”
I did listen to the World Crisis Radio episode containing the initial insults, but after reading Mr. Draitser’s responses, it seems to me there is allusion about personal disagreements between the two of them. If Mr. Tarpley had an ephemeral outburst of obloquy after passionate arguments with Mr. Draitser than I am not going to dismiss Tarpley as unworthy, washed-up, or irrelevant. I will ruminate on your suggestions, though, and keep my ears open when I listen to WCR to hear if Mr. Tarpley continues ad hominem tirades.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


@djpetrik: I also noticed tonywicher’s comment about going to dinner with Tarpley (seems like everyone is going to dinner with himwho picks up the check?). Tarpley was reported to have called Sibel an intel disinformation agent at that occasion as well. Looks like a pattern.
I’d look for an apology and explanation before giving him any more attention. And, your critical listening approach is always a good idea.
Thanks for the response. I hope I’m not insulting anyone with my statements about Tarpley. I just don’t know what else to say about someone who is so wrong and belligerent towards Sibel. She is very important to me and a lot of us, and I think a strong, uncompromising position is warranted in this situation. This is because there is no validity to what he is saying about Sibel. And that is the part that we shouldn’t treat as a “disagreement”.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Xicha,
I just listened to Tarpley’s World Crisis Radio broadcast for this week and I heard what might be described as a backhanded apology from Tarpley to Boiling Frogs Post at in the last couple of minutes. It was framed as a plea that people at BFP should stop their ad hominem attacks and personal denigration of Tarpley. There was no admission by him that the reason for these attacks was that Tarpley had personally attacked and denigrated Sibel and impugned her integrity to me and others for absolutely no good reason, just out of pure ego. He richly deserved everything that has been said about him on this thread. That said, if Tarpley will now stop this childish behavior, I’m a man of peace who is always willing to forgive and forget. I’ll even apologize for calling him a “has-been”, because I did find his broadcast interesting and thought-provoking. I very much agree with his support for the Warren-Tierney Bank on Students Act which will requires the Fed to finance student loans at the same rate 0.75% rate that they not give to the “too big to fail” banks to back up their derivatives. But Tarpley needs to understand that this bill is complimentary to the Kaptur-Harding bill to restore Glass-Steagall in its original, ironclad form. The Fed must be required to invest in future productivity by financing education, and it must at the same time be PREVENTED from financing speculation. Glass-Steagall (HR 129 in the House and S. 985 in the Senate) breaks up the so-called TBTF banks and ends bailouts and quantitative easing, freeing up credit for real economic development, including education but also infrastructure. I repeat that Tarpley is hugely misleading everybody by calling this a mere “process reform”. It is a fundamental restructuring of the economy, a reorientation to production instead of speculation, just as it was in 1933 when it was originally enacted. As an economist and historian Tarpley knows this very well, and it is again only ego and competitiveness, in this case with the LaRouche people who have been leading the fight to reinstate Glass-Steagall for years, that leads him to say this. He should be ashamed of himself. I said he should never be forgiven for this, but again as a man peace I am willing to forget and forgive if he changes his behavior. He should strongly support Glass-Steagall, and the LaRouche people should strongly support Warren’s bill in return. This is the way to advance our common objectives.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf


Hi tonywicher,
I took a listen – there was no apology. I wouldn’t give him the time of day. Thanks for the heads-up anyway.
It does sound like he might be reading here, so @Tarpley: You are a dick and you know it. There’s your ad hominem. I know you’re proud of yourself, but you’re still a dick.
Honestly, there’s been a lot of talk about strategy in the comments here, but I really don’t see anything valid except what might take place in a criminal courtroom. The government is completely corrupt. Unless we have some prosecutions for corruption, war crimes, US sponsored terrorism, etc., I don’t see things changing away from the GWOT, security state, fascist narrative.
I still find refuge here at BFP, as it is the closest thing to a justice oriented, evidence-based, criminal investigation available. That’s why it works to have such variety in the perspective. The whistle blowers and excellent producers here all have my respect.
- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/04/29...h.hiFFNexh.dpuf 






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fightapathy
LaRouche4POTUS 2020
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
Eric Draitser
 
I had no interest in being the grand marshal of the Tarpley parade


Heh! One could hardly blame Draitser for his lack of interest. I remember that article on BFP when it first came out, as I'd observed the United Front Against Austerity program as it unfolded. And, just as he describes, it quickly became a micro-LaRouchePAC. I follow UFAA on facebook, and the one remarkable feature is that their sense of humor is identical to anything one might find in THE DEAR LEADER's org.

I do wonder if crass witticism is a prerequisite of running a modern lobbying group, or is it just Lyn's influence stretching to now a third generation -- Lyn, Tarpley, Tarpley's Millennial followers?

Anyway, xlcr's observation that The Manhattan Project is a reaction to THE GRIFFIN's New York City-based UFAA org is intriguing. If that could be the case (and not just because Helga wants to be closer to her favorite boutiques), however, the org runs a real risk of Tarpley's group stealing away members from Lyn, and not the other way around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xlcr4life
Furtwangler
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
I am placing my bets with Dr. Webster The Griffin Tarpley. Despite what was posted above about him , he does not yet have a cult of personality . There is an audience which Tarpley must directly confront Larouche in which makes his sounding of Larouche = CIA a smart decision.

In any event, head over to Larouche.Con 2015! to read another question raising email from the inbox about The Manhattan Project of Lyn.

Can this lead to the cult doing an intervention against The Griffin in NYC this May in a true "Global Showdown" for hegemony??????
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fightapathy
LaRouche4POTUS 2020
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
xlcr
 
Can this lead to the cult doing an intervention against The Griffin in NYC this May in a true "Global Showdown" for hegemony?


I think THE DEAR LEADER's muscle needs to undergo some severe physical training before even dreaming about another Operation Mop-Up. LaBoomers are too elderly and the La<50s are too fragile to storm into an UFAA rally with chains and batons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
borisbad
Member Avatar
Planck
 *   *   *   *   *   *  
I am looking around the internet doing explorations on the truthers, the base for Webster Tarpley and found how so much of it is also involved with cultist, new age and out right fascist ideology that makes LaRouche look like a democratic city councilman under Bill DeBlasio. And so much of this interweaves both the left and the right wing cults. Ironically Ron and Rand Paul, the heirs of Ayn Rand, link up to very destructive cult movements as well as anti-democratic pro plutocrat ideologists like Von Mises and Milton Friedman. But interestingly these are often the same people who denounce the Jewish financiers as the alleged controllers of the world's financial markets.
Of course, everybody is familiar with the Koch Brothers and their machinations in the GOP and especially in the Tea Party Wing. Then I read about a movie called "Thrive" which was funded by the heir of the Proctor & Gamble family. Unlike LaRouche it has a New Age appeal. It talks about limitless energy through developing a perpetual motion device shaped like a fusion torus. Then it talks about freeing the economy from the financial overlords. Of course, unlike LaRouche, they also want to free individuals from any form of "oppressive" government intervention, whether socialistic, communistic or mildly progressive forms of FDR economics.
It draws in New Age people like Deepak Chopra and even leftist journalists like Amy Goodman, although many people later repudiated their appearances in Thrive.
Of course, you also get the arch cult promoters of fascist ideology like Richard Ickes.
And while the movie draws on aliens as the ones being responsible for developing free energy (necessary for interplanetary or intergalactic space travel) how far is this different from the idealization as the solution to the world's problems and from the idea that the elites are suppressing our getting the benefits of limitless energy. This also reminds me somewhat of the "science" the hadji was pushing not too long ago.
Anyway if anyone is interested, or who has maybe seen "Thrive" which I think might be available on the Web, I attach a review.
While alot of the views differ from LaRouche's statist ideas, it is clear that a milieu exists that draws left and right into these crazy quilt conspiratorial theories.
http://transitionculture.org/2012/01/09/fi...s-best-avoided/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snardbafulator
Member Avatar
Thomas Ruggles Pynchon
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
Your post wins teh internetz, boris ...

Wow ... what a ton to chew on. As many of you know, I've been on Politico a lot making the world safe for Democrats, and I encounter a lot of Fringy McFringersons who slip through these very cracks. I've got a ton of backlog here including a few emails, so let me get through those first and then I'll give your post a thorough responding. I do agree that there's a libertarian nexus as well as New Age nexus.

The common denominator does seem to be Money Fer Nuthin' ...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fightapathy
LaRouche4POTUS 2020
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
borisbad
 
While alot of the views differ from LaRouche's statist ideas, it is clear that a milieu exists that draws left and right into these crazy quilt conspiratorial theories.


Its called dissatisfaction with the line of BS emanating out of the main stream, borisbad, and nothing more. Frankly, I don't know which is more exhausting: faux warnings from the right about moslem extremists planning sharia in Arkansas, or leftists biting their nails over conspiracy theory hocking constitution-lovers planning another Oklahoma City bombing. I consider the fear-mongers far more dangerous than the groups they target for hate and loathing -- mostly because these "groups" hardly ever put down their mobile devices or walk away from their keyboards long enough to actually meet as a group and demonstrate for the policies they claim to support. At least THE DEAR LEADER succeeded in getting his people out onto the streets -- even if its a card table and their goal is really just to collect for Helga's first class flights.

borisbad
 
Anyway if anyone is interested, or who has maybe seen "Thrive" which I think might be available on the Web, I attach a review.


You know, this is the first mention of Thrive I've seen since it was released. I actually watched the whole film on its release day, when the producer had a free sneak peek. It seemed that Thrive hoped to become something like Zeitgeist but never got out of the starting gate. Far from being a revolutionary movement-maker it was designed to be, the film was a disaster in editing.

Here's a hot tip for Foster and Kim Gamble: NEVER EVER begin a film with Alien artifacts and inventors of perpetual motion machines claiming they were targets of assassination attempts and looking for investors for their forbidden devices. It made me think I was watching a rip-off of Total Recall (or perhaps one of those fake commercials director Paul Verhoeven always inserts in his films) and really put a damper on the REST of the film, which actually gave good descriptions of the corporate and financial systems, and the benefits of "living locally" and "making less go farther".

I mean, if one promises free perpetual energy and then tells the viewer to conserve, conserve, conserve, one MIGHT end up a tad confused as to what they're trying to do. (I still don't know.)

Snardbafulator
 
As many of you know, I've been on Politico a lot making the world safe for Democrats, and I encounter a lot of Fringy McFringersons who slip through these very cracks.


I just knew your silence meant you'd found more exciting playmates than us, Bob.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fightapathy
LaRouche4POTUS 2020
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
A little blast from the past came to me this morning...

Email string from Dennis King's site
 
Michael Hudson to "N," Dec. 10, 2009

I don't like my name being associated with LaRouchies like Tarpley, and therefore cannot promote E's article. I've urged her to drop the crazies...

...

Michael Hudson to "E," Dec. 10, 2009

If Tarpley really doesn't support LaRouche, let him tell the story of what he knows about the crimes and other bad behavior that he must have been a part of in the LaRouche cult.

To remain silent IS to support LaRouche.

As long as you support LaRouchies like him, I must dissociate myself from you. I like you, but you have no sense at all of who you're dealing with. This lack of selectivity threatens to discredit your ideas. It's as bad as quoting Scientology or the Moonies.

...

From Michael Hudson to "N," Dec. 22, 2009

Please do not write me again. I want nothing to do with you. You show utter ignorance in trusting this bastard.

Goodby.

Michael


Since THE GRIFFIN's back from his whirlwind tour of Donetsk and other top vacation picks for 2015, I tuned into his WORLD CRISSSSIS RRRRRRADIO program. At 16:00, he digs into Dr. Michael Hudson in a monologue about Greece, the troika, bank defaults, and the like:

THE GRIFFIN
 
Ask the people of Iceland! They took the advice of Michael Husdon! They didn't take my advice to declare a debt moratorium. And what happened, uh, their interest, uh, the level of their currency, collapsed! And because they import everything, that meant their living standard also... steeply declined.


Of course, nobody would want to tell THE GRIFFIN that Iceland did the right thing, and the hardship they suffered was sharp but short, and the fall was only relative to the extreme heights of their pre-2008 situation. As a result, they are the only economy in Europe with growth. What would happen if Iceland took THE GRIFFIN's advice? Well, they wouldn't, because he is not an economist, even if his UFAA racket still tweets out #Tarpley4FedHead now and then.

If Tarpley had a triple-curve function like THE DEAR LEADER, only THEN could he claim to be an economic genius. Until then? No dice,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xlcr4life
Furtwangler
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
FightApathy

Did the goood Doctor mention anything about his appearance at The Left Forum convention in NYC?


I noticed this from a recent webcast.

https://larouchepac.com/20150601/lpac-polic...che-june-1-2015

Quote:
 
"BILL ROBERTS: You know people think about the Presidency in terms of the "President," but I think this point that you've been making, Lyn, and sort of your whole career has been based on this intervention into the institution of the Presidency. The reason why you can have this coming from the Congress, for example, like you are, is because the real process of the institution of the Presidency is the way in which the population can become encouraged. And I saw this yesterday in an interesting way around this 28 pages question. There was a conference in Manhattan, organized by the left; it was this Left Forum, and there was a panel discussion on 9/11 and it basically was around the question of why it is that the left is so stigmatized and against generally identifying the fraud of 9/11 and fighting on this question."



This is about a recent event "The Left Forum" where the forces of Larouche and Webster were scheduled.

http://www.leftforum.org/


Dr. Webster The Griffin Tarpley was full of glee about his session being the best attended. Dennis Speed had a slot on a panel while it seems like the EIR slots were cancelled. No BRIC a BRAC from EIR I guess. There has not been any mention of Dennis Speed overwhelmingly taking over the Left Forum with his presence on LPAC as far as I can see.

Was this event a showdown of The Griffin vs Larouche in who has the better Manhattan project?


BTW. I have a review from someone who spent time with the Historic June Schiller event with Helga. The cult has to screen these things better. Is there any conference in the past 5 decades which has NOT been historic and decided the fate of mankind?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fightapathy
LaRouche4POTUS 2020
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
xlcr
 
Did the goood Doctor mention anything about his appearance at The Left Forum convention in NYC?


Oh yes, certainly! In classic LaRouchian style, THE GRIFFIN proudly exclaimed that his revolutionary cadre succeeded in SAVING The Left Forum from the vile grip of insane dupes of the CIA limited hangouts (Edward Snowden, Julian Assange et al.) and color revolutions. That implicitly means, "I stopped well-known CIA hack Lyndon LaRouche in his tracks."

"Gone are the days of swooning!" as the good doctor boasted. He also reminded us that Glenn Greenwald himself accused Tarpley of being the origin of the Snowden Limited Hangout Operation conspiracy. The doctor treats it like an honor, instead of the insulting smear it was intended to be.

"And the great poobahs were not there!" chortled Tarpley. "Amy Goodman was not there! Michael Moore was not there! Gnome Chomsky was not there!" THE DEAR LEADER was not there, either. But I guess his poobah days are long gone.

Tarpely also stated his UFAA/TWSP dominated six panels or forums, but there was a Trotskyist putsch attempt by the British IOS, who monkey hammered 25 forums into subservience. (Tarpley always makes these events sound like the storming of the Winter Palace.)

Uh oh. If THE GRIFFIN is hating on the British, as he did several times in this edition of WORLD CRISIS RRRRRADIO, then Lyn's position is dire. If there is Battle for Manhattan, then it must come down to a fight between UFAA/TWSP and the IOS. Dennis Speed and Diane THE STARE will have to stand aside with their Obama Mustache posters and take notes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Snardbafulator
Member Avatar
Thomas Ruggles Pynchon
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
The only reference to "IOS" I could find in the 'pedia linking the acronym to Britain is the Independent on Sunday, a Liberal Party non-organ organ. Or a center-left competitor of The Guardian if you prefer. Is that the reference here, FA?

"Gnome Chomsky," ROTFL !

Bob
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Guest
Unregistered

Snardbafulator,Jun 9 2015
04:22 AM
The only reference to "IOS" I could find in the 'pedia linking the acronym to Britain is the Independent on Sunday, a Liberal Party non-organ organ. Or a center-left competitor of The Guardian if you prefer. Is that the reference here, FA?

"Gnome Chomsky," ROTFL !

Bob

Snardbafulator,Jun 9 2015
04:22 AM
The only reference to "IOS" I could find in the 'pedia linking the acronym to Britain is the Independent on Sunday, a Liberal Party non-organ organ.  Or a center-left competitor of The Guardian if you prefer.  Is that the reference here, FA?

"Gnome Chomsky," ROTFL !

Bob


Tarpley screwed up. The group he meant to cite was the ISO, the International Socialist Organization. Instead he called it the IOS.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
xlcr4life
Furtwangler
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *  
I have to go with Dr. Webster The Griffin Tarpley as moving ahead of Larouche in the battle for Manhattan . It looks like the strategy is pretty simple.

Tarpley looks for hegemony

Larouche looks for hegemoney


When I see Larouche on the webcast meetings, addressing the members, you will see that so much time is spent attacking being "practical". The last time I heard this so intense was when Lyn decimated cowboy hat wearing Gerry Rose at a National Conference around the 1980 Presidential campaign. Rose was the Chicago NC and was running the campaign in the MidWest and pissed Larouche off with doing "practical" things like addressing civic and voting clubs and meeting voters.

Lyn wanting nothing to do with that and preferred winning the White House by meeting and demanding lunacy from people we presented as capable of delivering him power. As soon as Rose sat down, Lyn emasculated er decowboyhatted him.


Webster in his tweets mentions real events and political debates like the TPP bill and even warned against a Supreme Court decision that would derail ObamaCare and throw 6 million people out of ACA coverage.

Something tells me that some sort of discussion has been taking place about how crazy it is too try to organise off pure Larouche. The recent facebook postings show you what well intentioned outsiders think once they find an issue of concern that has been Laroucheified.


In the meantime, let us enjoy this from Webster and the cult from 1996 and how Country Western music is also part of grand plot against humanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHI0NH1vGgE
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Tarp Talk · Next Topic »
Add Reply