Metamorphosis: Is Webster Tarpley Turning Into Noam Chomsky?

Part 1.

I want to state upfront that I respect and admire Webster Tarpley. He, along with David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones are the most redoubtable of the pillars of 9/11 Truth.

I have read some of Webster's writings and heard many of his presentations in the alternative media. I agree with him that America is afflicted with a corrupt oligarchy that will likely bring about its downfall. Webster has been great at dealing with 9/11, elucidating the mechanics of how false flag operations are carried out and is very knowledgeable about 9/11's antecedents, like Operation Gladio and other false flag operations.

The depth of his knowledge of the historical backround to 9/11 and of the international and historical dimensions of oligarchy at play, lend credibility to his analysis of the developing politics of the world.

We all know that his is a formidible intellect. He is very erudite and accomplished, particularly in languages. His is a genial personality, but one informed by purpose, the purpose being to put his country right and to supply an antidote to the poisons which erode its strength.

In certain circles I am sure he is considered a dangerous man. As 7Up is sometimes called the "uncola" in the soft drink industry, in the field of opposition to oligarchy, Tarpley might be referred to as the "un-Chomsky".

Chomsky, the darling of hundreds of thousands of simultaneously painfully selfconscious and narcissistic university students around the world has made his reputation as a scathing critic of the power structure in America, its decision making processes and of the nation's brutal and cynical foreign policy.

And he did it all from within the system!!!! Holding a position of veneration and adoration among the most important audience in the whole wide world . . . painfully selconscious, narcissistic university students, who want to never grow up and to be just like him, well paid incisive thinkers, living just off campus and, uh. . . isn't that enough!?!?!???

Chomsky has really torn strips off the United States. Did I mention that he teaches at MIT?

Anyway, Chomsky has exposed the awful, awful dealings of the US around the world. The things American businessmen and diplomats get up to overseas. Did I mention where overseas is?

Well, its far away from America's shores. That's the beauty of it. When a bunch of Kansas farmboys rape and shoot a little girl in Guatemala, people in America don't have to listen to the piercing shrieks . . . the piercing shrieks . . . the piercing shrieks . . . the piercing shrieks . . . of the child's mother.

Did I mention that MIT is the recipient of hundreds of millions dollars worth of research grants from the American government?

It's true. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research dollars from the government, the defense department and other agencies of government, but particularly the defense department. Scientific research is key to maintaining full spectrum dominance over places like Guatemala.

It is amazing that Chomsky is able to criticize the government the way he does while actually working for MIT, of all institutions. The man has courage, because he is imparting knowledge to students, knowledge of Americas crimes and sinister plots in the world.

Knowledge is power. Power to act.

Thank God America commits all its really heinous crimes overseas. It's hard for American students to act on criminal behaviour taking place thousands of miles away. Imagine if America started commiting heinous crimes inside America itself!

Chomsky's students . . . well , what would they do? They might erupt if Chomsky started exposing some heinous crime commited by America in America itself!!!!

Chomsky's employers might even go so far as to say, "Look. Chomper, we don't care what you tell your students about what is going on overseas. But we would like you to downplay the importance and basically lowball them on our domestic crimes. Got it?"

A clue that this might actually have happened would be if Chomsky had a radical departure from form about some domestic issue where the government might be widely suspected of having commited a heinous crime, within the continental US.

Like 9/11 for example.

Chomsky certainly has downplayed its importance. As a result he has lost his reputation as a critic of the United States and is now widely regarded as a "gatekeeper" by the 9/11 truth movement, someone whose job it is to keep a lid on America's student elite and make sure they themselves downplay the importance of 9/11, never investigate it thoroughly and most importantly, never turn knowledge into action.

Wouldn't it be awful if Webster Tarpley caught Chomskyitis and became another sort of gatekeeper, One who opens a gate into the void, and vents energy into space?

It would be helpful to listen to the following audio presentation, given by Webster on the Jeff Rense show. You can hear it on Webster's website under the following headline:

Again ».Suppressed But Crucial 9/11 Evidence: “Angel Is Next,” The Invisible Government’s Ultimatum to Bush to Launch the War of Civilizations

tarpley.net...

It will give you the flavor of what I'm talking about.

Part 2 to follow.

that's the beauty of the system. america gives it's citizens free reign to do what ever they want and all they have to do is pay taxes.

in return for your taxes you get the protection of the u.n., which america controls, american diplomatic clout, the media, like the case of the poor iranian hikers and the n. korean hikers which clinton had to bend over to get them home and a pick off official cover up stories.

and what's with these "hikers" can't they read a map.

Good thread,S&F! As,you said in my thread we are gonna have agree to disagree when it comes to Webster.I am glad you posted the Rense interview it's a good one.I just don't agree with your assessment about Tarpley.Chomsky is a gatekeeper no argument there.But,just because he has decided to not get bogged down by all the technical things about the collapse of the TWC,building 7 and the Pentagon does not put him in the same league as Chomsky.All of that has been debated and discussed countless times.The political side and the exposure of the special ops underground and the mole network is what should be covered next.

Tarpley criticises all the obsession with the details of 9/11 and the infighting that has gone on between its various camps. But he makes a major error of judgement in asserting that focussing on the strategic/political reasons for this event will be enough to convince the undecided that 9/11 was an inside job. It clearly won't. Supporters of the official story will just tell you that you are expressing a political opinion, not presenting any kind of proof for a conspiracy, and that will not impress them. People have legitimately been looking for anomalous evidence that indicates that the official story is a lie. Human nature being what it is, they disagree on how to interpret the anomalies. But this is the only kind of evidence that will convince those who have been duped by the official story, and it really is naive of Tarpley to believe that mere political analysis will win them over. 9/11 truthers have become obsessed with the details for good reason - whether the evidence is truly anomalous depends sometimes on those details and how they are interpreted.

Tarpley is an excellent analyst. But he has misjudged here, misunderstanding the nature of the problem that has faced those looking for evidence that will convince others that the official story of 9/11 is a complete lie.

reply to post by micpsi


You put it in a nutshell. Good. Now I don't have to do Part 2.

Just kidding. I'll post it when I get it done, probably this afternoon or early evening.

You nailed it brother, Tarpley is the best informed, most incisive historian working today. He makes Chomsky look like milquetoast.
I won't steal your thunder about "Angel is next".
Suffice to say that anyone who knows the secret service codewords has insider power.
It goes far in explaining the action of a certain person on 9/11 and why he ended up where he did.
I found it odd that no one else had made that obvious connection though.

At any rate I've read everything by Tarpley I could get my grubby little conspiratorial hands on.
He literally bombards you with so much information you cannot digest it all in one read.
Webster Tarpley, you are the Man.

BTW - Angel is Next really deserves it's own thread where it could garner the attention it deserves.
Just sayin'

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I'm going to deal with "Angel is next" in part 3 of this presentation. Here is part 2.

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 human.

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 . . . nothing, 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 this affair.

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, the President.

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 and British, 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.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Just as Oscar Peterson played the piano so eloquently Tarpley does political/historical analysis. As Oscar would have been somewhat lesser if he had picked up a guitar that night so would Tarpley be seen in a lesser light for veering off in to political activism. It's simply not his forte.

As for his conclusions about the "hidden hand" you have an interesting insight. I have wondered rather or not such a thing exists and whether he was purposely skirting the issue to save his own hide. Could he name names? If he could, would he? These are important questions.

At any rate I think he gives enough information that those searching for the September criminals could discover who for themselves. There were many, many false trails laid during the operation. People need to be aware of this going in.

Until I can find anyone better I will keep reading Tarpley and being an older, disabled person myself political activism is out of the question for me too.

I can't wait for your next part, great stuff.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Part 1.

I want to state upfront that I respect and admire Webster Tarpley. He, along with David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones are the most redoubtable of the pillars of 9/11 Truth.

DING DING DING! ALEX JONES ALERT!!

You're quoting Alex Jones as if he were someone to actually take seriously. You lose the debate by default.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Hi GoodOlDave, or "god" in acronym form. Are you having a boring afternoon at the water cooler in Langley? Don't answer. Nice to hear from you. I'll watch the video in a few minutes. I'm going for a smoke. Welcome to the thread.

reply to post by ipsedixit

Webster Tarpley. He, along with David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones

Wow - the new three stooges....

Tarpley is a Larouchite who has been mixed up in their bizarre conspiracy cult

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I just watched the video. I need to go out for another smoke.

Dave, I have to write part three of my thread and much as I'd like to spend the rest of the week arguing semantics with you and the rest of the team of probationers on training out at Langley, I can't do it this time.

Apologies to all. Nice job getting Al Qaeda into Libya.

Part 3.

"Angel is next."

Webster Tarpley says that this message, received on 9/11 by the receptionist in governmentland, complete with all sorts of secret codes associated with the launch of nuclear weapons, caused a panic within the command structure of the blah, blah, blah and caused the President to be put aboard Air Force One and sent aloft where he would be safe from . . . and the reason this must be true is because Condi Rice was shocked by what had happened and the White House command structure didn't know what was going on and, "Gee willikers! Where did they get those codes?" And who are these people anyway? They must be the secret government. Thank God the President got aloft and out of harm's way. I know it isn't aliens who are doing it, but it's bad, it's serious, it's revolting and disgusting, horror film revolting and disgusting . . . it's, oh my God in heaven, help us, help us, . . .it's the British, aaaagggghhhh!!!!

The invisible Anglo/American super government, to be more precise.

Uh . . . it's a possibility, I suppose. It sounds like that movie, Predator, where Arnie's squad are battling the invisible alien British banker, and they all get wiped out except for Arnie, who gets covered in filth and becomes invisible himself and finally defeats, but doesn't kill, he's just too strong to kill, the ugly revolting British banker.

Is that what Webster is talking about? I'm having trouble taking this seriously.

I'm just a little troubled when I find Webster Tarpley taking Condi Rice as a bellweather indicator of the significance of any political incident or development, particularly when the script involved seems like it could have been written by Roger Corman.

A hidden malevolent super government threatening the United States President!!

That, were it to actually have had some basis in fact, is a hostile antagonistic relationship. It would have to be a long running hostile, antagonistic relationship. Those sorts of relationships usually have peripheral accessories and exist within a perceptible environment.

There are usually casualties on both sides.

Remember, the last time that somebody threatened George W. Bush with any seriousness, they got their arms and legs chopped off and nailed to the walls of a little farmhouse outside of Brownsville, Texas.

"Angel is next", in my opinion, is a red herring.

Webster observes that it was played up for a couple of weeks and then quietly dropped, as was the truck with the 9/11 mural on the side of it, the dancing Israelis, the Mossad agents dressed like Arabs, the exploding cars, the exploding truck. All things that served to rev up the panic level, that were used to achieve a short term effect and then dropped, unexplained.

That is one of the hallmarks of the hopelessly inept black op that was 9/11, strange disconnected developments that are quietly dropped and never referred to again, as if they had never happened.

Like "Pull it.", like "Angel is next."

Webster, has anything happened in any venue that would lend credence to the idea that American nuclear security had been breached on 9/11?

I'm in security!

I would expect to see a comprehensive rotation of shifts of key personnel in a situation like the one you and Condi describe. Everyone scheduled to be on duty during 9/11, would be removed and replaced by people not sheduled to work that shift . . . if the threat you and Condi describe, was actually real and not another element of the scam being pulled that day.

Did anything like that happen? Tell us about it.

Did a Rothschild get hauled out of bed in Paris or London and roughed up by some special forces sargeant?

Did David Rockefeller wake up the following morning to find a horse's head on his bed?

Webster, people like Poppy Bush don't let British bankers push them around. What you are saying doen't make practical sense.

You need to back that 18 wheeler intellect of yours off the dirt track to nowhere and get back on the highway.

I'm not saying that you should stop political analysis, but I think you have to re-examine the nature of the relationship of the oligarchs to their political servants. You should remember, as they most certainly must, that Adolf Hitler was a political servant once too. He could have snapped Fritz Thyssen's neck in an instant, if it were necessary.

Convince me that "Angel is next" is not a red herring.

If you don't, you look like Chomsky, you look like Richard Clarke, you look like just another brand of gatekeeper.

You look like someone they've gotten to.

Part 4 to follow.

But he makes a major error of judgement in asserting that focussing on the strategic/political reasons for this event will be enough to convince the undecided that 9/11 was an inside job.

He makes another major error in judgement with his praise for FDR. Where did all of that gold FDR stole at the point of gun from my grandparents and great grandparents generation? Umm ... da banksters.

That really confused me about him ...

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Dave, I have to write part three of my thread and much as I'd like to spend the rest of the week arguing semantics with you and the rest of the team of probationers on training out at Langley, I can't do it this time.

Where are there any symantecs to argue? Alex Jones said, and I quote...

"HA HA HA HA! HA HA HA HA! The Jokes on them! HA HA HA HA! Ah, it's getting warm in here!"

..which, to most rational people regardless of where they stand on 9/11, would give one pause as to his credibility on even what brand of toothpaste he recommends to use, let alone on his opinion of the events of 9/11. You're claiming he's one of the most credible sources of information on 9/11, which in your mind is an endorsement, but in reality all you've done is single handedly prove everything I said- you conspiracy people aren't even remotely thinking things through critically. You're simply swallowing the garbage those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shovelling out, and now that you've been given irrefutable evidence that Jones is a foolish person, you're doing the same thing you conspiracy people always do when you're presented with information that contradicts what you want to believe- you simply cover your ears and pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm sorry, but the rest of us have to be more intellectually honest that this. I can't comment on what your personal reasoning is for your speculation on Webster Tarpley turning into Noam Chomsky, but it's blatantly obvious what kind of person it was who put that asinine idea into your head to begin with.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

 

post removed by staff

I have a better question- you obviously didn't get word about all this information about Tarpley and Chomsky from your totem spirit, nor did partisan fighters from a destroyed 24th century beam this information back to you as a warning through a subliminal dream. You got this itch to rant about Tarpley from somewhere and I say this "somewhere" is one or more of these very damned fool conspiracy web sites I've been railing about since day one.

Am I correct?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

"GOD", staunch backer of the "19 hijackers" theory, rides to the rescue of Webster Tarpley, one of its fiercest critics, ready to unleash the ad homina!

There is no website source for this material Dave.

Part 4.

Clueless

The movie about a young girl whose bubble wouldn't burst.

It's a very cute film with a wonderful script written by Amy Heckerling, who said in an interview with Howard Stern that she wanted to write a script about contemporary young people in a well off community in the Los Angeles area, particularly a "valley girl" type, played to a tee by Alicia Silverstone, whose bubble nobody could burst.

It could be America's theme movie. Not Citizen Kane, not It'a a Wonderful Life, not numerous other films a cinephile might nominate, but Clueless.

Eventually the Alicia Silverstone character emerges from her bubble and does get a clue. Maybe that will happen with America too.

America has been the prettiest girl on the block for a long time, but not a real long time. No pretty girl is the prettiest forever. Even if she starts to knock off her rivals, instead of staying on top, as the prettiest, she turns herself into the least ugly of the ugly girls and finally just another ugly face.

The usual interpretation of "Angel is next" is that it was part of the 9/11 scam, but a very odd part of the scenario, kind of like a weird nouveau cuisine garnish on an already chaotic salad.

Webster Tarpley, if we are to judge by his talk given on the Jeff Rense program, seems to be developing a theory that interprets all the odd movements and incidents involving the sitting President, George W. Bush, on the morning of 9/11, with a credible threat to his life, involving "terrorists" in Forida and the coded message "Angel is next".

Personally, I think this stuff is part of the scam directed at the public and also at upper echelon dupes in the administration and military command structure, who would be knowledgeable enough to realize that only a seat of very great power could send such a message, but too stupid to realize that their own bosses were making fools of them.

Hello Richard Meyers.

Webster will really have to deliver the evidentiary goods to make me think otherwise.

Despite my barbs, I do respect what Webster Tarpley has given to the world, his dissection of oligarchy, his studies of it's pathology, his usually acute observations on the developing political scene.

But when he dismisses the hard work of people like Craig Ranke and the CIT crew with a derisive chuckle, or seems to imply that the work of Steven Jones and others on the explosives issues are petty woolgathering, I wonder if I am listening to a performance given by the Noam Chomsky Players.

At the very least, Webster appears to be losing his perspective on the truth movement as a whole. It is very out of character, very Chomskyesque.

Big sigh.

I'm afraid that America is determined to remain clueless. Britain got smart, or rather, always was smart, the Catherine Deneuve of the pretty girls, just now starting to show her age, at 35.

I'm not going to quote Muggeridge on America. Look it up.

Americans need to come out of the bubble and get a clue. They need the help of Webster Tarpley to do that. They don't need to be wafted into the clouds.