16 Responses to “Tarpley CSPAN Debate “9-11, False Flags, and Black Ops” 2012”

1. Ross Says:
   June 6th, 2012 at 6:04 pm

   I just watched Tarpleys debates with Kokesh and Jones myself just mere hours ago. Glad you spotted these clips and recognized their significance too. The diametric opposition that exists between the LaRouche/Tarpley, socialist American System and the Ron Paul Libertarian program, is one of the most necessary issues to be resolved before the so-called Truth-Movement or Patriot Movement (or whatever one may want to call it) can form a coherent political strategy. Seeing this prompted me to search the Internet for why Tarpley left the LaRouche organization in the first place. My search turned up this interesting article by a former LaRoucher turned typical fringe leftist. Though I no doubt disagree with the majority of this persons politics the critique of Tarpley is interesting nonetheless. It can be read through the link below.

   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greensabroad/message/794

   While I see potential dangers in the Ron Paul Revolution (dangers which were masterfully delineated by the Collins bros in their Balkanization of America series (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/Ron_Paul_Devolution.htm), I am at least equally concerned about the dangers of Tarpleys Neo-New Deal prescriptions and his often pro-Russia, pro-Red China sentiments. Former LaRoucher William Engdahl has illustrated the many detrimental results of FDRs economic policies in his article Some Unconventional Reflections of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Its especially refreshing since it doesnt come from the traditional Libertarian economic perspective.
   http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/History/New_Deal/new_deal.html

   Personally, I think Id take my chances with Pauls impotent form of government before I sought protection under the wings of FDRs semi-Marxist utopia.

   Furthermore, regardless of whether or not Ron Paul is or ever was a Freemason, Webster is being hypocritical on this particular issue since the U.S President he venerates most; FDR was himself a deeply committed Freemason. As evidence I cite the following articles, which do not come from the usual biased conspiracy websites but rather from sites promoting both FDR and freemasonry.
   http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/froosevelt.html
   http://fdrlibrary.wordpress.com/tag/freemasons/

   If youre looking for another lively debate between Tarpley and another alternative media figure Id point you or anyone else reading this post to James Corbettes debate with Webster from May of 2011. http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-335-webster-tarpley/

   Its my hope that this kind of debate can move the truth movement beyond a lose union of wacko fringe groups and into the realm of legitimate political solutions. I also hope the Easter Bunny will delivery me my Chocolate Eggs in December.

2. Terry Melanson Says:
   June 9th, 2012 at 1:37 pm

   Thanks for all the links.

   At least now we have a better handle on the dirigist/collectivist proclivities of Larouche et al. Seems like in the Corbett interview Tarpley was advocating for Plato’s “philosopher kings” … or did I hear that wrong? In any case, I do agree with your first link that he has a lot of splaining to do on his Larouchite activities.

   The most pressing thing for the states is to break the two-party monopoly, even enact laws to ensure that this happens. Ron Paul is a perfect example: he had to choose what he thought was the lesser of the evils to get a chance at being elected to Congress.

   Personally, I’m glad that I live in Canada, and feel that the Parliamentary system is superior, if only for the fact that it generally allows for greater accountability and say from a multiplicity of Parties.

3. Ross Says:
   June 9th, 2012 at 4:46 pm

   Yeah, Tarpley is absolutely advocating for Plato’s Republic. While I appreciate much of Plato’s metaphysics as a useful medicine against atheistic materialism and what the LaRoucher’s call ‘the no soul gang,’ I think Plato’s proto-socialist dictatorship is ultimately untenable and immoral. Tarpley likes to dance around the fact that Plato openly calls for state censorship, eugenics (both in the form of forced selective breeding and abortion), the destruction of the family unit, the abolition of all private property and control of the citizenry through a powerful military police force.
   Looks like some of Tapley’s claims about Paul playing covert wingman to Romney might have at least a grain of truth. With Rand recently supporting Romney it looks like many in the liberty movement are crying ‘treason!’ Maybe circumstances are going to force the patriot movement to have that internal dialogue sooner than I thought.

4. Terry Melanson Says:
   June 11th, 2012 at 1:22 pm

   I am still perplexed by their love affair with Russia, however. Seems like every Larouchite (former and present) casts the country, and its politics, in the most favourable light, while endlessly smearing America and England.

5. Franco Says:
   June 11th, 2012 at 8:20 pm

   Very interesting comments Ross. I absolutely agree that Tarpley has some obscure issues to clarify. Specially his sympathy to FDR with his Fabian Socialist advisers like Stuart Chase, echoing his “Free Enterprise into X” all the way through to Obama.
   http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html

   Now, regarding Plato being pro totalitarian socialism, would you please refer me to your sources? From what I’ve read so far, the accusations are generally taken out of context. For example, rules that apply only to the “guardians”, are taken as they were for the general population. In practice, Plato’s Republic model don’t have much in common with totalitarian collectivism IMHO.

   I hope to get further insight on this subject, as I agree with Tarpley on the importance of philosophy on solving social problems.

6. Ross Says:
   June 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm

   First, to avoid getting off on the wrong foot I should start by saying that I consider Plato to be one of the greatest, if not THE greatest Philosopher of the ancient world so any criticism I have of his Republic should not be read as me accusing him of being the Great Satan.

   I know there’s the old argument that The Republic might have been meant as an analogy rather than something meant to be taken literally but that still remains a theoretical position at best and I’m not entirely convinced that it’s the case. Anyway, assuming the model of government discussed by Socrates in Republic is indeed meant to be taken literally it is fair to say that it calls for a kind of totalitarian socialism.

   Here I’m going by Benjamin Jowett’s translation of the Republic, which can be found online at:

   http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.1.introduction.html.

   Sadly, I’m too lazy to go through the whole thing and cite each of my individual claims but from memory here are some I things I thought rang more than a little totalitarian.

   All citizens will be taken from their parents at birth and raised in a state run education system, the purpose of which is to determine whether they are best suited to be part of the ruler class, the guardian class or the worker class. Once this is determined they will be told that the memories they have of their years of education were merely a dream they were having as their bodies grew in the earth. They will be told that each of them grew from gold, silver or bronze seeds; (representing rulers, guardians and workers respectively) the type of seed one grew from predetermines what class one will fit into. This is commonly known as ‘the noble lie’ and is meant to assure that citizens won’t rebel against their respective lot in life and thereby upset the system. To ensure the production of the best guardians, rulers and workers, the state would dictate who should breed with whom. Any child conceived in an unsanctioned union is summarily aborted. Additionally, as you correctly observed, guardians are not permitted to own property, which is meant to prevent them from becoming corrupt.

   Perhaps my memory is spotty and some of the above only applied to the guardians specifically, however that doesn’t really neutralize my criticism since the system is still totalitarian even if it is only carried out on some of the citizens rather than all of them. Nobody chooses of his or her own free will to be a guardian.

   I generally agree with the sentiment of Socrates’ cave analogy and share his frustration with worldly politics, however I think the problem with Republic is the same with so many other utopian systems, it presupposes the impossibly of morally perfect human rulers. For that reason I think a somewhat weaker form of government with a balance of powers is preferable. I seem to recall hearing that The Laws represents a somewhat more balanced and refined version of Plato’s political theories but I’ve only read a few random chapters of it so I can’t say for sure.

   Also it looks like the Tarpley/Jones dialogue is bearing more fruit. I still think Tarpley’s Manichean ‘blame Britain for everything’ thesis is a little myopic but Jones has at long last let him talk about the link between the Money Power and Austrian Economics. It’s certainly worth a listen.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4MahRKtM5s&feature=BFa&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg

7. Franco Says:
   June 15th, 2012 at 8:26 pm

   Thanks Russ

   You are right, The Republic sounds totalitarian, but it’s just Plato’s proposal to replace the timocracy-oligarchy-democracy-tyranny endless cycle. As democracy fails and gives rise to tyranny, he suggests to take the power away from the mob and into the hands of morally virtuous men (the guardians). We would not agree on everything he proposes, but the general idea I worth a shot IMO. We have to put ourselves living two thousand years ago to be able to grasp these concepts.

   Overall “truth movement” criticism to Plato and Pythagoras I find it to be misleading. So I feel the need to share these thoughts with people I respect to get an outside objective opinion as feedback.

   Back to Tarpley: in Jones’ interview, he demonized Hayek and then called Milton Friedman a fascist (which I find outrageous). But he did not mention Keynes until later when he linked him to Malthus briefly. This I find very odd, as Keynes was quite a character.
   http://www.keynesatharvard.org/
   http://praxisblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/keynes-on-marx-and-malthus/

   I did get a kick of “me gold”

8. Ross Says:
   June 18th, 2012 at 2:49 pm

   Franco,
   Yeah, Tarpley’s ‘Me gold’ line was quite funny, especially since it means at some point Tarpley sat down and watched at least a little bit of ‘Leprechaun in the Hood.’ Webster is quite erudite and he often comes across as a man with little time for the frivolities of popular culture so the mental image of WT curled up with a bowl of popcorn watching the Warwick Davis ‘classic’ is hilarious indeed.
   As you point out, the fact that Tarpley made such an impassioned attack on Friedman while paying so little attention to Keynes is outrageous. Keynes was head of the British Eugenics Society for 7 years; he practically worshiped Malthus and his family married into the Darwin-Galton-Huxley gene pool; in other words he hits all the alarm bells when it comes to being the worst kind of globalist elitist.
   I’ll have to read all the info in your links. No doubt they are filled with allsorts of interesting tidbits on Keynes.

9. Freeborn Says:
   July 2nd, 2012 at 2:13 pm

   Kay is not at the races. His intellectual credentials are extremely limited. The guy came across as just rather dumb.

   The example he chose to try to prove that a major conspiracy could never be kept under wraps for long was typical of the charlatan he is. Yes Smedley Butler went to the press to reveal he’d been offered the lead role in a coup against FDR. That much is true. But an outspoken critic of war for bankers was hardly likely to back a bankers’ coup was he. The whole event was scam to make FDR look like an enemy of the bankers. The bankster-controlled commie press (New Masses et al) went into overdrive covering the banking and arms cartels that had supposedly financed the “coup”.

   It was a scam. Typically Kay hadn’t done his research: http://www.savethemales.ca/002094.html

10. Jason Says:
    July 3rd, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    The Smedley Butler so-called coup has been used by left-wing conspiracy theorists for years. Whenever they need it, they dust off the old “underground reich”/ Operation Paper Clip stuff, usually to discredit the CIA and the entire U.S. military.

    Mae Brussel
    Dave Emory
    Dr. Joseph Farrell
    Benjamin Fulford

    All are advocates of the “underground reich”/Operation Paper Clip/Bush family conspiracy geneology.

11. Ross Says:
    July 4th, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Kay’s logic itself is fundamentally flawed. The assertion that no big conspiracy could be kept secret for long simply because some big conspiracies have been discovered in the past doesn’t hold water. It’s like when people say, “there’s no perfect crime.” Obviously if there are people who have committed ‘perfect crimes’ we would never have heard of them since they were never caught and never blabbed their secrets. The absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence, however it isn’t proof of anything either. At best Kay is just wasting time with a pointless dialogical stalemate.

    I remember reading this Save the Males article on the business plot before. It is actually one of the more reasoned articles he wrote. Similar arguments to this were made by Anthony Sutton in his book “FDR and Wall Street.” A link to the relevant chapter is available below.

    http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch10.html

12. Ross Says:
    July 4th, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Oops

    -”I remember reading this Save the Males article on the business plot before. It is actually one of the more reasoned articles he wrote”

    The “he” I was referring to in my previous post was Henry Makow, the often kooky webmaster of savethemales.ca

13. Freeborn Says:
    July 6th, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Another example of Kay’s puerile reasoning occurred when he remarked that you can never win an argument against a “conspiracy theorist”.

    In an argument between Jonathan Kay and the caged Myna bird in my local pub my money would be on the bird every time!

14. Ross Says:
    July 7th, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Too true! He also argues that 911 “conspiracy theories” serve the purpose of ‘demons,’ that is they function to explain the supposedly random act of terror that was 911. Someone should have asked Kay how this is any less true of the official narrative. It’s not like this event was a tornado or flood. In both the official or unofficial theories of 911 human agents are involved in the planning and carrying out the attacks. Again in both narratives the attacks are explained as the results of shadowy conspiracies. While I think the truth movement needs to do a lot of house cleaning on certain false leads and often repeated but long since disproven myths, there are still many questions left unanswered by the official story and 911 truth can’t be as easily dismissed as Kay would have us believe.

15. Terry Melanson Says:
    July 7th, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    You can never win an argument against someone who has made up their mind - Kay and his ilk much more than others.

16. Freeborn Says:
    July 9th, 2012 at 8:24 am

    Sad to say we are now living in a culture where “truth” is used as a derogatory term.

    In other words we have reached the stage where what the overwhelming majority of the public believes is irredeemably false. Writers like Kay are actively involved in ensuring this situation continues.

    It is the Orwellian endpoint to which Bernays and all the mind control propagandists since have brought us.

    Ignorance is strength.

Leave a Reply