Post: #1

Sorry if this is a bit obscure. Since I am guessing Webster Tarpley is not that famous.

He is a regular pundit on the Alex Jones show. And I find him fascinating.

He speaks about six languages, got top grades at one of the Ivy League Unis and is an excellent pundit on world affairs. Until discovering him I had never really analysed international relations and geopolitics in this way before. He showed me a whole new way of analysing the world. For that alone he is almost a hero of mine.

Now - like I say. He seems super bright. Yet - he also seems kinda' nuts. Not just because he is a 9/11 Truther. I have no hard feelings either way on that issue - but do sometimes think it is a warning sign that somebody might be a bit of a kook.

I understand he is a former communist. He may still lean that way. Hard to say since there isn't much biographical information about him.

But - I just can't make up my mind on him. He is such an interesting and knowledgable speaker. Yet - alot of his analysis often breaks down to how most things are False Flag Terrorism. And the 'bad guys' are really dupes and patsies put in place by the New World Order or something.

He also thinks Osama Bin Laden has either being dead for a number of years, is an invented character portrayed by a number of different people or is a former CIA agent. At least that last suggestion has some basis in fact since the CIA helped organise Al Qaeda in the Russia/Afghanistan war of the 1980's.

I am doing him a disservice. He really is a smart cookie. His analysis of the balkanisation of Pakistan is novel and insightful. I love thinking about these issues since you will never look at a map the same way again.

He sees most of the activities in the Middle East as part of a long-term strategy of eventually playing China and Russia off against each other when they no longer have easy access to Middle Eastern oil and gas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFVwH2ICIV4

Anyway - for those familiar with his work. What do you think of him?

Cardguy

PS Speaking of geopolitics. It is interesting that most of America's bogeymen such as Iraq, Iran, Libya and North Korea have all threatened to start buying oil in Euros (or in the case of Libya - a pan-African gold backed currency) instead of US dollars. It is this sort of 'food for thought' that I enjoy getting from the likes of Tarpley and Alex Jones.

Post: #2

I enjoy listening to Tarpley, and he is certainly bright. That said, his views come from an ideological standpoint that stem from Lyndon LaRouche, his political hero. LaRouche and his movement hold the view that the British monarchy are far more powerful than people think, and this is frankly nonsense. That's why Tarpley always bangs on about the British on the AJ show. Aside from that, he is pretty clued up on geopolitical manoeuvring, but does tend on the side of the conspiracy theorists.

For the record, I'm a 'truther', because the official story of 9/11 is seriously flawed. Doesn't make you a nutter for pointing that out and wanting transparency.

Post: #3

(02-19-2013 01:38 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I enjoy listening to Tarpley, and he is certainly bright. That said, his views come from an ideological standpoint that stem from Lyndon LaRouche, his political hero. LaRouche and his movement hold the view that the British monarchy are far more powerful than people think, and this is frankly nonsense. That's why Tarpley always bangs on about the British on the AJ show. Aside from that, he is pretty clued up on geopolitical manoeuvring, but does tend on the side of the conspiracy theorists.

For the record, I'm a 'truther', because the official story of 9/11 is seriously flawed. Doesn't make you a nutter for pointing that out and wanting transparency.

You think that the british monarchy isn't powerful ? They are still one of the most powerful groups of people on the planet. The mega powerful/rich do not voluntarily give up control. It has to be beaten out of them.

The monarchy still controls the diamond trade. Almost to the last carat. The Queen is the largest land owner on the planet. No one even comes close. Yet they still convince the british public to pay all their heating bills.

Do you know what a Governor General is or an Lieutenant Governor ? The British Monarchy has these placed in their commonwealth states. These are not figure heads like most useless Canadians think they are. They pull the strings of our government and do the Queen's bidding. Whenever something major is about to shift in our government or one is about to be brought down by a scandal the Governor General acts and finds away to divert attention. Twice Harper's conservative government was about to collapse and twice she prorogued parliament. Basically the queen suspended democracy twice in Canada in the last couple years.

Post: #4

Also I do think Tarpley is an insightful guy. He also has balls. He was in Syria and Libya as all hell was breaking lose. I also read one of his works on the Venetians. It was truly a great read. It explains a lot of how countries play off one another and how they use the Venetian model. Very evident today with Israel pulling the strings of the US.

As for the 9/11 truther stuff. I mean what is that label ? Are you nuts to not believe the official story of 9/11 as told by the US government ? If someone just took one day to exam real evidence and listen to testimony of some key people you would at the very least come to the conclusion the US government KNEW it was going to happen and let it or even worse was part of it.

Post: #5

I'm not very familiar with the Queen's power but I do think you're probably over estimating her influence. She has very little power in England, believe me. That's why I don't believe some of the things you claim she has power over. If you have evidence or some links I'll defo take a look.

I agree with you about 9/11. The official story is CERTAINLY a sham. Whether they let it happen or made it happen I don't know, but I'm almost 100% they knew it was going to happen.

Post: #6

I believe Tarpley was the first to expose the 'false-flag' operation to assasinate Aldo Moro who was the Prime Minister of Italy at the time.

When I first read about it I was sceptical. But on further research it seems he is totally right. Check out Operation Gladio - even the BBC did a documentary series on this as well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXavNe81XdQ

Post: #7

(02-19-2013 02:10 PM)Teedub Wrote:  I'm not very familiar with the Queen's power but I do think you're probably over estimating her influence. She has very little power in England, believe me. That's why I don't believe some of the things you claim she has power over. If you have evidence or some links I'll defo take a look.

I agree with you about 9/11. The official story is CERTAINLY a sham. Whether they let it happen or made it happen I don't know, but I'm almost 100% they knew it was going to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada

Notice how all of these actions were enforced in order to stop scandals from being revealed. Also notice the wording. Advice from the Prime Minister, not orders. So the Governor General which is a representative of the Queen has the power to suspend democracy as they see fit. But the elected Prime Minister CANNOT suspend parliament.

Sorry to hijack the thread Cardguy. I will stay on point. One other thing I love about Tarpley is his ability to memorize all these key figures in different countries. For most of us white North Americans it is hard to keep muslim and asian names straight. But the guy can rattle off all key posts held by these guys.

Post: #8

A bit of both.

"There is a fine line between genius and insanity"

Post: #9

What I find astounding bout Alex Jones, Tarpley etc is that they have predicted total societal collapse for each and every year since 2008, yet none of it came true. When they are right with a forecast ( maybe 1:10) they talk about it for ages. This is just anecdotal but especially Tarpley and Gerald Celente have made some precise claims about civil war etc in the US that never materialized in 2009 and 2010.

Post: #10

(02-19-2013 03:50 PM)Asaxon Wrote:  What I find astounding bout Alex Jones, Tarpley etc is that they have predicted total societal collapse for each and every year since 2008, yet none of it came true. When they are right with a forecast ( maybe 1:10) they talk about it for ages. This is just anecdotal but especially Tarpley and Gerald Celente have made some precise claims about civil war etc in the US that never materialized in 2009 and 2010.

I've thought about that too. I suppose AJ has to keep predicting things to give him something to talk about. Of course, it all relies on it not happening though so he can actually continue living a normal life. Another thing I've thought about is if what he says is SO true and SO dangerous to the elite, why isn't he just assassinated.

I think JFK was assassinated by people in the banking elite possibly, anyone got any theories?

Post: #11

Hey BIGINJAPAN,

I head about that prorogation issue awhile ago but never paid much attention. I will be sure to check out your link.

---------------------------------

As for JFK. Well there are alot of good theories around. But the most interesting is the link involving George Bush Snr. But before I touch on that I want to mention some fucked up things about the Bush family.

Firstly - George W. Bush's grandfather was a banker who helped fund the rise of Hitler in Germany - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep...ndworldwar

Secondly - George Bush Sr. (the first Bush to be president) actually features as a minor character in the novel 'Catcher In The Rye' - http://tarpley.net/2010/01/28/did-the-la...n-the-rye/

Thirdly - it is said that LBJ (who hated the Kennedys) helped arrange the assasination so that he could be president. George Bush Sr. was supposed to be involved in this. Now Bush denies being in Dallas that day but there are some inconsistencies surrounding Bush's whereabouts on that eventful day. There is possibly even a photograph of him standing outside the book depository from which Oswald fired off his shots - http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/16/...on-of-jfk/

Something to do with the Bay Of Pigs fiasco led to the CIA wanting to get rid of JFK.

Later on - George Bush Sr. was director of the CIA during the The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations which was set up in the late 70's to reinvestigate the JFK killing. Perhaps he was in the perfect position to help cover it up?

Another thing about George Bush Sr. are the strong links between him and the attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan - http://rense.com/general53/assass.htm

At the time - Bush was vice president and his son was due to have dinner with the brother of John Hinckley Jr. (the shooter) the night after the shooting took place. Also - Hinckley managed to get away with it by pleading insanity in one of the few remaining states where such a plea was still allowed.

Now - with the most recent Bush - you have had the links between him and the Saudi Royal Family (due to his father's oil deals which made him billions). And the links between him and Osama Bin Laden's family (they were alledged to be the only people allowed to us US airspace in the immediate aftermath of 9/11). You also have the whole '9/11 was an inside job' and the lies about WMD and the war with Iraq.

So - the above is just a little guide to some of the fucked up things which this family has supposedly being getting involved with. There is just too much there for me to fully analyse. So I thought I would just pass it along since it is interesting. I tend not to get too bogged down in conspiracy stuff since I am too busy trying to learn about other stuff.

Lastly - and on a lighter note. Here is an interesting short film by the legendary filmmaker Errol Morris about the mysterious Umbrella Man who was filmed at the scene of the JFK killing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoZWb9gqv0

Post: #12

On a sidenote - here is an excellent article about the history (and controversy) surrounding the Zapruder footage of the shooting:

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-oth...-ever-made

Post: #13

BIGINJAPAN - do you have any other links about this issue? I am struggling to see what the problem is.

It seems that whenever a coalition or minority government is about to collapse that things will get messy. This happened in the UK in the early 1970's. And nearly happened when Gordon Brown lost the election and it looked like he might resign as leader of the party - but remain as prime minister. Things could have gotten very messy here if that had happened.

I am open-minded on these issues. And despite being English - I don't care about trying to defend the Queen. I am just unsure what to make of the issue. Since it seems as if the Queen and her representitive were getting dragged into a messy situation in which they would be damned whatever they did.

I really doubt the Queen is a power hungry despot. The only thing she cares about is horse racing. But it is hard to figure this stuff out from the wikipedia article since it is pretty dry. And doesn't give a good flavour as to why people were protesting against the Queen.

Post: #14

Look into the Privy Council also. This is a awkward branch of Government in which high profile politicians are places for life as lobbyists for "the crown". They essentially keep the arbs twisted to pursue the Queens holdings/ interests in Canada.

Canada was granted full Sovereignty in the 70's and barley even 30 years in one if the most resource rich nations had to default and nearly declare bankruptcy in 1993. In the tube grave the Crown and American business interests looted our nation dry. We had to source IMF loans and budget packages, sane crisis felt in Mexico was felt here but just did not receive any press. Canada now is nothing more then an American satellite state with the Queen controlling all of our profitable land.

Re- think your views in the Queen Teedub. A UK citizen is still forever a 'subject' and the Queen owes nobody anything on the scope of powers she processes. Laws in Westminster put done text so fluffy rules of protocol and Governance, but let's not be fools and think the Queen does not still think she rubs the world via the "grace of God".

There is probably one or two places earth the Queen would not be welcomed with exclusivity: The Vatican, The CITY of London. Both those places still have debts and beefs that go way fuking back. aside from that don't let her manners and hats fool you as She has Trillion upon Trillions in assets.

Post: #15

Cardguy

When the parliament was suspended in 2008 that was because Harper was about to lose his government. Now I don't like coalitions being formed, but that is legal and they have every right to lead that way as they were elected to do just that. But instead the Queen suspended parliament. In the early 2000's the liberals were involved in a massive massive scandal. They had a huge majority government. If an election was called they would have lost. But instead the Queen suspended parliament and by the time the next election came around the liberals were able to use the time away to hold onto power for a few more years.

The whole problem is we are being governed from abroad. The Governor General is not elected and is not accountable to the people. Yet is probably the most important post in the government besides the privy council which Kosko mentioned. The privy council really is the secret government that runs Canada. Their marching orders come straight from the Queen as well and they are not elected.

Post: #16

Do you think the Queen is important here in the UK? She seems to just be a figurehead. Anyway - it is really interesting stuff since in the UK - we have being taught to think that Royals haven't had any real power for about 300 years or so.

Post: #17

To be a pundit or talking head you have to have certainty about what you believe. Now, based on my own research, I believe that JFK wasn't killed by a lone gunman, and that the 911 story is fishy. But do I have certainty about what actually did happen? Of course not, and neither does any other sane, reasonable person. The information is simply not in the public domain and never will be.
So people like Tarpley have half the truth, but they top that up to 100% with their own ideas and have a weird personality quirk which enables them to project absolute certainty about their unsupported conjecture.
They still beat mainstream pundits because they are not beholden to corporate interests.

Post: #18

(02-19-2013 11:18 PM)RawGod Wrote:  To be a pundit or talking head you have to have certainty about what you believe. Now, based on my own research, I believe that JFK wasn't killed by a lone gunman, and that the 911 story is fishy. But do I have certainty about what actually did happen? Of course not, and neither does any other sane, reasonable person. The information is simply not in the public domain and never will be.
So people like Tarpley have half the truth, but they top that up to 100% with their own ideas and have a weird personality quirk which enables them to project absolute certainty about their unsupported conjecture.
They still beat mainstream pundits because they are not beholden to corporate interests.

In psychology these people are called "hedgehogs" whereas a discerning, less convinced person is a " fox". Today's media landscape favors hedgehogs even though a complex world is better analyzed and understood using the fox mindset.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexcha...a_hedgehog

http://www.chforum.org/library/choice12.shtml

Post: #19

(02-19-2013 11:18 PM)RawGod Wrote:  To be a pundit or talking head you have to have certainty about what you believe. Now, based on my own research, I believe that JFK wasn't killed by a lone gunman, and that the 911 story is fishy. But do I have certainty about what actually did happen? Of course not, and neither does any other sane, reasonable person. The information is simply not in the public domain and never will be.
So people like Tarpley have half the truth, but they top that up to 100% with their own ideas and have a weird personality quirk which enables them to project absolute certainty about their unsupported conjecture.
They still beat mainstream pundits because they are not beholden to corporate interests.

Tarpley's key is that he does not try to "look ahead" or predict things. He is a historian and studies facts so it's easy for to see evens shape due to events that prelude it or parallels that can be drawn from similar events in the past. His best works are auto- biogrpahys on fmr Presidents where he scours the records to give you a unpolished critical view of thier true heritage and upbringing.

I appreciate Tarpley because though at times he can be a drawn out old man, stuck on certain topics. He is a legit force because the man has made enemy's from the mainstream world and the alternative world. He does not please evreybody, nor does he try too. you see him get in arguments with Alex Jones because he calls out AJ on bullshit quite a bit, and IMO gets to close to AJs hornts next of his controlled intrests which pisses Alex Jones off and leases him to go on character smashing rants when Tarpley gets to close to be fire.

Tarpley's work on both Syria and Libya was great also. When evreybody was being a armchair analyst and taking dodgy fundemental Islamist "rebels" words as truth his man hops on a plane to go see he situation first hand and gave real accounts on how these rebels are nothing more then Mercs. sent in to destabilize legitimate Governments and cause internal strife to those nations.

Post: #20

I like Tarpley. I have been listening to his interviews off and on for years. Tarpley is an offshoot of the Lyndon LaRouche operation who managed to find his own feet. He supports strong state control of the economy via a nationalized central bank such as under Alexander Hamilton and Nicholas Biddle in United States history. He also supports socialist ideals, such as universal healthcare. He loves FDR and the new deal. His historical scholarship was focused on Venice, particularly the Venetian black nobility. Venetian oligarchy went on to fund the Bank of Amersterdam, the bank of England, and later the United States Federal Reserve system. He is incredibly knowledgeable in this area and I enjoy listening to him, although philosophically I hold very different beliefs as a classical liberal and a fan of Austrian school economics. Listening to Tarpley is always interesting, especially when he is off on the front lines doing a radio interview and shouting at some local in a different language in between questions.

Post: #21

Tarpley distanced himself from LaRouche a few years ago. But I guess they share similar styles in their thinking.