reply to post by Asktheanimals
I'm going to deal with "Angel is next" in part 3 of this presentation. Here is part 2.
Webster Tarpley is a great man.
In these dark times, these "Senecan" times of the American Empire, great men go unacknowleged, except by a discerning few.
Rediculous people and human offal, on the other hand, are exhalted.
In the mid 1970s, I had the good fortune to attend an open air concert at Ontario Place here in Toronto. It was a performance by a jazz trio led by
Oscar Peterson on piano, and including Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen on upright bass and the great Joe Pass on electric guitar.
What a night!
Everyone was great. It was astonishing to see Joe Pass trading solos with Oscar, and keeping pace with him. If I hadn't witnessed the performance, I
wouldn't have believed it was possible. Oscar was a titan and that night, he played like God.
Toward the end of the concert, he played a piece, solo, which was truly sublime. I still have the impression of golden clouds of beautiful musical
phrases ascending to the sky, under the stars and vanishing . . . .
Ascending and vanishing.
Like Oscar. Like all of us. Yearning, ascending and vanishing.
Oscar made an important statement that night, in a visceral way, about the human condition, our situation, our fate, about being
Oscar carried me on his broad shoulders for a little while that night and made me privy to his own insight, through the medium of his art.
What he did was to demonstrate an important paradigm, the elaboration and refinement of insight, it's elaboration and refinement into . . .
, the void, the endless vacuity, without reference points.
The ultimate destination of all human effort . . . on the grand scale.
Webster is a first rate political analyst.
He has elaborated his analysis of 9/11 in detail and is in the process of refining that analysis. He is discarding analytical findings of a technical
nature, at this point, and urging people to forget about technical issues, to focus instead on political analysis, which he believes will be more
useful in the long run, in getting to the truth of what happened on 9/11 and presumably revealing who is responsible for 9/11.
The ultimate goal, according to Webster, is to avoid future 9/11s. Sort of like how we avoided future Reichstag fires, after we had gotten to the
bottom of that incident.
Webster knows all about the Reichstag Fire and Operation Gladio and the Kennedy assassination and the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the "canned goods"
operation that preceded the invasion of Poland, etc., etc., etc.
This knowledge is extremely important. Smart people, like Webster Tarpley, tell us that by knowing the truth about the Reichstag Fire, we will be able
to avoid a future "Reichstag Fire", . . . like 9/11, for example.
Uhhh . . . I don't really mean 9/11, because we didn't avoid that.
What I mean is a future, future false flag operation, that we will
be able to avoid because a great mind like Webster's has shown us the truth
about false flag operations.
Like that stupid, opiate of the masses, rock band, The Who, says in song, "Won't get fooled again."
Right. Just over and over and over again.
Webster has a following in the 9/11 truth movement.
He is highly thought of. His following is a little like the following that Noam Chomsky has among university students.
They tend to be smart. One could say that they are, within the truth community, a worrisome group, from the point of view of the oligarchical tyranny
that controls our world.
Tarpley's adherents, like those of Chomsky, can follow a complex analytical discussion, think for themselves and come to conclusions that are not
likely to be swayed by the infantile propaganda used to control the mass of the population.
They can even see through the subtle sophistry of someone like Richard Clarke, for example, articulating an exculpatory fallback position of "bumbling
incompetence" for the perpetrators of the mass murder that took place on 9/11.
Tarpley's folowers are not as numerous as Chomsky's and consequently, not as dangerous, but they are very annoying. They have a fanatical grip on the
idea that the truth of what happened on 9/11 is an important thing to determine.
Or at least they did have.
Noam Chomsky's bright young elite students, like Chomsky himself, don't think that 9/11 is all that important, in the grand scheme of things.
Chomsky first articulated the view that 9/11 was simply payback for America's foreign policy sins, . . . you know, all the meddling, all the murder,
all the theft, all the corruption and degradation visited by America, on countries around the world.
(To be fair, in cooperation with the venal leaders of those countries . . . America having first undermined or assassinated the honest former leaders
of those countries.)
Some of his adherents were shocked that he didn't seem to understand what had happened on 9/11. When this was communicated to him, he still seemed a
little fogged in and finally allowed that 9/11 might be something like the Kennedy assassination, certainly arresting, but unimportant in the grand
scheme of things and certainly not worth making into a cause célèbre
as has been done in the case of the "incident" in Dallas.
Chomsky, like Oscar Peterson, sees the big picture, but I have to say, he doesn't have much of Oscar's human feeling
Chomsky is like one of those intellectual wizards from Gulliver's Travels
, or Voltaire's Micromégas
, sitting in an ivory tower peering out at the world below, far, far below . . . and even turning his spyglass
around so that it appears farther and farther away.
Farther and farther away . . . from Ground Zero.
Ground Zero was the death place for nearly 3000 people on 9/11, but it was the birthplace of technical analysis of the crime.
A mountain of technical analysis has been amassed, much of it useless. But a mountain is a mountain and even a small fraction of a mountain can be a
substantial body of material.
There is a substantial body of good technical, court ready, analysis of the crime scene at ground zero. Some of it will be argued fiercely if ever
presented at trial and defended against fiercely by the perps. Juries will have to pay attention, if they are ever called upon to decide issues in
But, prosecutors won't be embarrassed by what they bring forward at trial. Much of it is devastating.
However, here we are, ten years after 9/11 and none of the prominent suspects have been indicted. That is not a problem with the case. That is a
political problem, which requires political change. Only through political change will 9/11 indictments reach the courts.
So what is my beef with Tarpley? He is advocating political analysis
Well that is the problem. We don't need political analysis. We need political action
designed, ultimately, to get cases to court.
Let me back up a little. We have had ten years of broad spectrum analysis of 9/11, both political and technical analysis. What we need to do is push
for court cases and publicize the reasons we are not getting them.
Technical analysis of every aspect of 9/11 has led inexorably to political conclusions
From technical analysis of every aspect of this crime and how its aftermath was handled by American authorities we know that the American people have
lost control of their legislators, their military, their judiciary, their police departments, their press and most importantly, their chief executive,
We know from technical analysis of this crime, that the American people are at the complete mercy of the American, Tarpley would say the American
, oligarchical tyranny.
Americans must restore the intent of the Constitution, in keeping with the modern age, and take back control of all legislative and administrative
functions of government in the United States.
They must reassert control over the military, the secret intelligence services and the police departments of the nation.
Noam Chomsky's students will never do this. They are too refined for that sort of proletarian stuff.
And now I am beginning to wonder if Webster Tarpley's followers are being guided away from the field of political action
, into further and
further refinements of political analysis.
Like Chomsky's students. Farther and farther away. Farther and farther and farther . . . away.
Gatekeeper Chomsky blocks the bright sheep from getting through the stile and gatekeeper(?) Tarpley takes the ones who do get through the stile, under
his wing and guides them farther and farther away from technical analysis and along a path in search of "the hidden hand", the secret super
government, the super powerful force that makes the White House itself run for cover, that makes the command structure of the most powerful military
in the world tremble before . . . what?
Webster says that they tremble befor the invisible, the invisible, the malevolent invisible
power and he wants people to abandon technical
analysis and go in search of the invisible . . . into nothingness, into the complete dissipation of effort . . . into the void.
I'm not sure I follow Wep on this one.
Part 3 to follow.
edit on 19-9-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)