zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Register for Free
Welcome to LaRouche Continued, a forum dedicated to all things Lyndon LaRouche (from the history of his political cult to present-day affairs.)
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. If you you'll be able to use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and sending personal messages. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!

Name:   Password:


Pages: (17) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 Is THE GRIFFIN building an alt org?, Helga, take note!
fightapathy
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 08:57 AM


LaRouche4POTUS 2020


Group: Members
Posts: 510
Member No.: 12
Joined: 30-December 14



Is Dr. Webster THE GRIFFIN Tarpley building an alt org to steal talent away from THE DEAR LEADER? It would seem so. Here is a video of the UFAA public assembly, and I wonder if anyone recognises the good folks dispatching their greetings to victorious ΣΥΡΙΖΑ via video. That is to say, are there any ex-members or former associates of LaRouche in the assembly?

UFAA Greets ΣΥΡΙΖΑ

This post has been edited by fightapathy on Jan 29 2015, 09:01 AM
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 12:04 PM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



I'm not a Tarpologist, so could you share with us what UFAA stands for?

Also of note is David Walsh, who commented here expressing support for the Greek election. David was the guy I was bashing the org with on their Manhattan Project YouTube thread and which I posted in The "Battle" For New York.

Interesting that while he said there were "definitely cultilike characteristics" of the org and agreed with me about climate change, his final post in that exchange went all conspirazoid about the evils of greed and "oligarchic corporatocracy."

I've heard that the Griffin is like a more overtly left-wing LaRouche. Is that fair?

Bob
Top
fightapathy
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 01:16 PM


LaRouche4POTUS 2020


Group: Members
Posts: 510
Member No.: 12
Joined: 30-December 14



UFAA stands for United Front Against Austerity, founded by an associate of mine who collaborated with Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley on Occupy Wall Street reporting but broke with him later over Tarpley's being a "polemic-spewing LaRoucheist". Tarpley had already assumed overall leadership of UFAA and its LYM-style wing, the TAX WALL STREET PARTY. I follow their amusing memes on facebook, and they seem harmless enough.

UFAA home page

Of Dr. Tarpley himself, I characterized him as a "Boomer LaRouche". Tarpley likely developed THE DEAR LEADER's Weltanshauung, that is, Lyn's wide global-historical worldview that defines the struggle of the supra-elite Peoples of the Sea vs. the rest of humanity as an unbroken chain up to the present time, where the British monarchy is in a death match to bring down the American System. In payment for this, Lyn gave Tarpley his splendid demagogy and acidic polemic, to use often and freely where possible.

Although THE GRIFFIN does not seem to have the same charismatic power as Lyn, and therefore likely cannot turn UFAA into a political cult, nevertheless there is evidence he would like to do so.

Only this morning I saw UFAA repost their old campaign meme #Tarpley4FedHead, which they unveiled back at the time Ben Bernanke was retiring from the Federal Reserve Chairmanship. This sort of exposition serves no purpose except inflate THE GRIFFIN's ego. And that is definitely a fragment of LaRouche that Tarpley took along with him when he left the org some time in late 1997.

On Factnet, I've published accounts of whenever Tarpley dropped Lyn's name on his weekly WORLD CRISIS RADIO program -- and its always a derogatory drop, of course. But still, Tarpley cannot escape his past. Not when LaRouche is so deeply manifest in his words and deeds.

...Or when distinguished outsiders uncomfortably tie them back together again, as in this case with economist Dr. Michael Hudson (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



And, perhaps the best takeaway from that exchange in 2009:

Michael Hudson to "E," Dec. 23, 2009

Dear E, ... If a host cooked a nice meal for you, you would appreciate that. But if she then vomited all over the meal, my guess is that this is what you would remember more than what she cooked. This is the case with the LaRouchies.


That's definitely a keeper!

This post has been edited by fightapathy on Jan 29 2015, 02:05 PM
Top
fightapathy
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 01:24 PM


LaRouche4POTUS 2020


Group: Members
Posts: 510
Member No.: 12
Joined: 30-December 14



From that same article on Dennis King's website I noticed this little tidbit, which goes far in explaining THE GRIFFIN's oft-repeated accusation that THE DEAR LEADER adores the CIA and probably is a CIA asset.

Webster Tarpley to "N," December 2, 2009

My association with organizations in which LaRouche was prominent ended in 1997. Since then I have been attacked in public by him and his remaining supporters several times. Since 1997, I have had no relation whatsoever to LaRouche.

Before 1997, I was President of the US Schiller Institute USA, and served on the EIR editorial board, and the US and European Executive Committees of the Labor Committee movement.

LaRouche was jailed in 1989 for tax evasion and related infractions, but more basically for political reasons. In order to get out of jail, he agreed to operate as an asset of the US intelligence community. This led to the ouster of several leaders like myself who would not accept that capitulation.


"Fascinating, captain."
Top
El Ron
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 01:57 PM


Not a Member


Group: Members
Posts: 192
Member No.: 9
Joined: 28-December 14



QUOTE (fightapathy @ Jan 29 2015, 06:24 PM)
From that same article on Dennis King's website I noticed this little tidbit, which goes far in explaining THE GRIFFIN's oft-repeated accusation that THE DEAR LEADER adores the CIA and probably is a CIA asset.

Webster Tarpley to "N," December 2, 2009

My association with organizations in which LaRouche was prominent ended in 1997. Since then I have been attacked in public by him and his remaining supporters several times. Since 1997, I have had no relation whatsoever to LaRouche.

Before 1997, I was President of the US Schiller Institute USA, and served on the EIR editorial board, and the US and European Executive Committees of the Labor Committee movement.

LaRouche was jailed in 1989 for tax evasion and related infractions, but more basically for political reasons. In order to get out of jail, he agreed to operate as an asset of the US intelligence community. This led to the ouster of several leaders like myself who would not accept that capitulation.


"Fascinating, captain."

Organizations in which LaRouche was "prominent." That's a hoot. Tarpley matches Lyn's bluster and blowhardyness(sic) in all things political, but when describing his subservience to LaRouche he has the understatement of a Gary Oldman in 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.'

And interesting that Webster still can't fully admit to Lyn's fraud, perhaps out of fear that people will assume he had something to do with it. No, no, of course it was a political trial and Lyn sold out to the CIA. The opposite of Lyn's claim in his sentencing that he was approached by the "intelligence community" to stay OUT of prison. Jeez it's like that old riddle with two doors and two guards, except both guards are lying.

I wonder what interest the CIA would have in an operative that holds Putin up to be some kind of Russian FDR who can do no wrong.

This post has been edited by El Ron on Jan 29 2015, 02:19 PM
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 02:01 PM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



QUOTE (fightapathy's tagline)
If a host cooked a nice meal for you, you would appreciate that. But if she then vomited all over the meal, my guess is that this is what you would remember more than what she cooked. This is the case with the LaRouchies. --Dr. Michael Hudson

Best. Tagline. EVAR.

Bob
Top
xlcr4life
Posted: Jan 29 2015, 08:19 PM


Furtwangler


Group: Admin
Posts: 780
Member No.: 14
Joined: 31-December 14



QUOTE
LaRouche was jailed in 1989 for tax evasion and related infractions, but more basically for political reasons. In order to get out of jail, he agreed to operate as an asset of the US intelligence community. This led to the ouster of several leaders like myself who would not accept that capitulation.


WTF!!!!
Larouche was PAROLED. Part of that was serving a minimum sentence and agreeing to a set of conditions which included no money scams, according to a few people who were still in at the time.
Larouche and Tarpley did unpaid work (as far as I can tell) for the Reagan right wing. Huh, aren't these the same people Dr. Webster The Griffin Tarpley is campaigning against now? Tarpley was an NEC international leader who was our public speaker about how the USSr was going to take over the world with their space based Dr Evil Lasers. I was in the office when he briefed us on how once the Soviet Laser Station is up in space, "they will dictate the terms of surrender"
I don't care if he has to fudge his Linkedin resume, but don't be delusional in denying that you were in an executive level position when we were spreading disinformation and slander about so many to gain favor with the Reagan Administration


.We also have to examine the fact that a genius like Webster was privy to every single moment when we began to court, date and then marry Nazi Rocket Scientists. I never in my entire time span in the LC ever heard a single peep from him against any of the Nazi Rocket Scientists or the praise of Peenemunde or Dora. Indeed the Good Doctor was an international spokesman against the OSI hunting Nazis like Dr Rudolph.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1985...tional_news.pdf

QUOTE

Coalition demands
disbanding of OSI
A press conference called by several organizations
on June 14 in Washington demanded
the disbanding of the Justice Department's
Office of Special Investigations and
the filing of charges of treason against three
individuals associated with it, former Rep.
Elizabeth Holtzmann, Neil Sher, and Charles
Allen.
Jeffrey Steinberg, EIR counterintelligence
editor, gave a background rePort on the
activities of the OSI, which has functioned
as a conduit for Soviet intelligence spreading
false accusations of "Nazism" against
such prominent, German-born U.S. rocket
scientists as Arthur Rudolph, whom the OSI
hounded out of the United States. Dr. Fred
Winterberg, himself a leading scientist,
spoke regarding the Rudolph case; Webster
Tarpley, representing the Schiller Institute,
outlined the roll of East bloc intelligence
Stasi operations in the. case;
and Warren
Hamerman, representing the National Democratic
Policy Committee, called for the immediate
disbanding of the OSI.
Steinberg read the following message
from Major-General John Bruce Medaris
(U.S.A.-ret.), former head of the U.S. rocket
program, which said in part:
"In recent days, the constitutio� abuses
by the OSI have gotten worse. I fear that
this is in response to the fact that that some
citizens have risen up to challenge these
abuses of basic constitutional rights. These
actions by the OSI can not go unchallenged
if we are to survive as a constitutional republic.
I have personally called upon President
Reagan to intervene to reverse these
abuses and reinstate Dr. Rudolph's full status
as an Anerican citizen. I now calion all
honest American citizens to join with me in
this demand for justice. What is at stake here
is the heart of the American system. "



Tarpley lost a lot of his life and money to Larouche. He inherited a home from the passing of a parent in Long Island. It was liquidated, in my view dirt cheap to save humanity. Tarpley got a beaten down old Cadillac, and some furniture to take to DC for his new assignment . I know this because I and a few other members helped him move the furniture out.

What I have a guess, based on some mentions by former members is that Webster was not going to do that again when another bit of funds came his way. I have no direct knowledge of this, but a few leading members who had elderly parents pass away left after the will arrived, and I don't mean Will Wertz.

Another story I heard was that part of why Webster left was because of the inhumane lumpen treatment of members. I have never read or heard that directly from him. Overall, the guy was Beyond Psyched by Larouche personally , fleeced, dumped and became "Uriah Heep" in the end. He has good reasons to be messed up a bit.
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Jan 31 2015, 01:39 AM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



QUOTE (fightapathy)
UFAA stands for United Front Against Austerity, founded by an associate of mine who collaborated with Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley on Occupy Wall Street reporting but broke with him later over Tarpley's being a "polemic-spewing LaRoucheist". Tarpley had already assumed overall leadership of UFAA and its LYM-style wing, the TAX WALL STREET PARTY. I follow their amusing memes on facebook, and they seem harmless enough.

UFAA home page

Of Dr. Tarpley himself, I characterized him as a "Boomer LaRouche". Tarpley likely developed THE DEAR LEADER's Weltanshauung, that is, Lyn's wide global-historical worldview that defines the struggle of the supra-elite Peoples of the Sea vs. the rest of humanity as an unbroken chain up to the present time, where the British monarchy is in a death match to bring down the American System. In payment for this, Lyn gave Tarpley his splendid demagogy and acidic polemic, to use often and freely where possible.

Woah ... I found myself agreeing with the about 2/3 of the articles on the front page, which is a little bit frightening. Sure, it's all woven into a grand historical conspiracy theory which pits Super Alex against Lord Evil. But it's remarkably devoid of insanity. First of all, I generally agree with their anti-Austerity ideology and share their loathing of Austrian school economics. I do think we should protect and nurture our industries and play by the same set of rules that countries like China do. And I share their general loathing of the GOP and their disgustingly astroturfed fake populism (no offense meant, my good dextral brother). What they seem to be trying to do is to grab a piece of the young left while avoiding "divisive" social and reform issues (which most of the left is pretty passionate about) while trying to repudiate the left's critique of economic growth without firebreathing about "malthusianism," to arrive at a progressivism without the nanny state. No mad rants for fusion, Mars and NAWAPA. Several kind words for the environment.

So it is a sort of left-LaRouche without the mean-spirited dementia.

But then they go and call Bernie Sanders an "idiot" and them's fightin' words. You can hector ol' Bernie all you want for being a Socialist, but a tool of Wall St. he ain't. Like most advocacy sites, they don't give much credit to the ideas of their opponents. Which is one reason I don't get my politics from advocacy sites.

The most interesting article I read was about the two GOP up-and-comers, Dave Brat and Ben Sasse. Along with a lot of what I'm pretty confident is sold information on their backgrounds and who's funding them, the Tarpology unleashed itself, and we got a long disquisition not only on the general evils of Prot fundamentalism in politics (a pretty trite subject at this point), but of the founding doctrines of John Calvin and the sins of the Massachusetts Puritans which hookslid into Dominion theology and Christian Reconstruction. Which, if this is to be taken at face value at least regarding these two guys (I need corroboration for that), is the damn odious and dead-oxymoronic combo of libertarianism and theocracy. I know there are lizards who buy into precisely this ill breed of fundamentalist Presbyterianism slithering in the halls of Congress, but do we really need to claim that both these guys literally believe the Pope is the Antichrist?

Then we get fragrant little meadow muffins like this:

QUOTE (Kyle McCarthy)
This bleak view of man’s role in the universe was in fact essential to the spread of slavery, usury and other anti-Christian practices by the British and Dutch empires. Both Catholic and protestant contemporaries accused Calvin of seeking to “judaize” the church, by preferring the barbarism the Old Testament and primacy of rabbinic interpretation to the teachings of Christ.

Dogwhistles, anyone?

And this:

QUOTE
As Franklin D. Roosevelt proved, the antidote to Ben Sasse and Dave Brat is a focused program of concrete economic demands. It is time to put divisive and obscurantist issues like global warming, gay marriage and campaign finance reform on the back-burner, and unify behind an economic recovery program that will appeal to the vast majority of the American people.

So is this supposed to encapsulate the patented Tarpley brand of conspiracism with a human face? Dismiss three issues out of hand as "dismissive" and "obscurantist" that just about all lefties I know care passionately about to aim for a new synthesis of All-American platitudes based on demonizing Wall. St. and the British?

Go gettem, tiger.

Bob
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Jan 31 2015, 07:00 PM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



Here's The Gryphon's (he should like the Middle English spelling) Wikipedia page. It's utterly astounding to me why this wasn't flagged for bias. It presents him as if he's just, you know, another historian. But he's a freakin' truther, he believes the Anders Bening Brevik massacre was a NATO operation and that Edward Snowden coordinated with the CIA for a "limited hangout" to keep the people from knowing about the truth that, you know, the US engineers all Mideast wars including now in Syria.

So he's got a page built by Tarploholics. Where are the damn editors?

Bob
Top
man114
Posted: Jan 31 2015, 11:31 PM


Asteroid Dodging Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,635
Member No.: 1
Joined: 26-December 14



Unlike LaRouche's page he isn't "big enough" in terms of traffic or importance to be moderated as heavily for the content of his Wikipedia page. However that should be indicative of itself as to how small his presence is.
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Jan 31 2015, 11:51 PM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



QUOTE (man114 @ Jan 31 2015, 11:31 PM)
Unlike LaRouche's page he isn't "big enough" in terms of traffic or importance to be moderated as heavily for the content of his Wikipedia page. However that should be indicative of itself as to how small his presence is.

I was an editor for a very small amount of time on Wikipedia (that's how I discovered IRC) until I just gagged on their insular culture, but usually it's the opposite. It's the stuff with little notoriety that gets thwacked hard by the editors while more genuinely controversial stuff gets embroiled in editor wars like the crap on the LaRouche page.

I mean, don't try to post up an "article" about your garage band using Facebook pages as "sources;" the bots'll flag it in the first round and you'll at least get a tag for improper sources when the human editors wake up and look at the flagged posts. Then, if you don't rectify this, it will be deleted in about three months.

In the Tarpley article the references consist of one bit from C-SPAN, but everything else from a Tarploid source like his own pubs, or Russia Today or PressTV.

These aren't considered valid secondary sources by Wikipedia guidelines.

I'd log in myself but I'd have to refamiliarize myself with their editing syntax. I think a good Wiki warrior like Dennis needs to get in there and slap a tag on his ass.

Bob
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Feb 1 2015, 12:04 AM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



After having checked out the Talk page, I was wrong; there was a pretty big debate on whether or not to keep the article, which seemed to grind down into a stalemate. The persuasive argument for keeping it is that he has been a bestselling author, which argues for notability.

Both Dennis and Chip Berlet made due appearances on the Talk page.

Personally, I'd vote to at least flag most of the sources as non-notable.

Bob
Top
man114
Posted: Feb 1 2015, 12:37 AM


Asteroid Dodging Administrator


Group: Admin
Posts: 1,635
Member No.: 1
Joined: 26-December 14



It's been a long time since I investigated his Wikipedia page, but just went and took a look. The sources are a joke, though I suppose from an author standpoint it is moderately passable.

Non-notable stuff on Wikipedia either flies under the radar or is quickly deleted. It only depends on if it appears believable enough until someone other than a bot actually takes a look at it.
Top
fightapathy
Posted: Feb 2 2015, 11:27 AM


LaRouche4POTUS 2020


Group: Members
Posts: 510
Member No.: 12
Joined: 30-December 14



QUOTE (Snardbafulator)
And I share their general loathing of the GOP and their disgustingly astroturfed fake populism (no offense meant, my good dextral brother).


How very good of you to say so, dear sir. None taken.

QUOTE (Snardbafulator)
The persuasive argument for keeping it is that [Tarpley] has been a bestselling author, which argues for notability.


QUOTE (man114)
It's been a long time since I investigated his Wikipedia page, but just went and took a look. The sources are a joke, though I suppose from an author standpoint it is moderately passable.


Speaking of sources, some people have derisively criticized THE GRIFFIN's books for having NO sources whatsoever. I haven't had the pleasure of reading "Synthetic Terror: Made in America" or "Obama: the Postmodern Coup" or "Just Too Weird: Bishop Romney and the Mormon Takeover of America" (the last one sounds like a real page-turner!) but having listened to THE GRIFFIN for nearly as long as THE DEAR LEADER, I should not be surprised if the accusation bears truth.

Interestingly enough, it was in autumn 2013 that Tarpley was promoting a historical investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack of 7 December 1941, with a view of discrediting conspiracy theories that accused FDR of foreknowledge concerning the surprise attack by Japan. After three months of declaring that his work was to be released in time for Pearl Harbor Day by Progressive Press, a printing house dedicated to such fare (and which counts Tarpley as its most prolific author, and which offers DOPE, Inc. on its best-seller list), suddenly Tarpley announced that it was being held up for last-minute revisions. Since Jan. 2014, he hasn't uttered a word about his explosive conspiracy-debunking tome.

Which leads us to two conclusions: 1), either Progressive Press does not care to publish a book that debunks conspiracies for once, or 2) Tarpley's manuscript was so poorly sourced (i.e., zero) that even they refused to touch it.

This post has been edited by fightapathy on Feb 2 2015, 11:36 AM
Top
Snardbafulator
Posted: Feb 2 2015, 01:50 PM


Thomas Ruggles Pynchon


Group: Supermoderators
Posts: 484
Member No.: 13
Joined: 31-December 14



QUOTE (fightapathy)
"Obama: the Postmodern Coup"

Oh that's beyond hysterical. I mean, you can have a postmodern reading of Shakespeare. A coup d'etat is one of those concrete things that either happens or it doesn't, so it's not very amenable to tortured interpretations. Especially since last election when Obama's opposition not only nabbed the Senate, but took more seats in the House than since the 1920s. An Orwellian coup? Maybe. The Republicans would all have to be secret agents of Obama's agenda. That'd be quite a ... coup ohmy.gif

It really shows how just how deeply overgrown that "walled garden" as Wikipedia calls it has become that The Gryphonator exists in. (A "walled garden" is the 'pedia term for the way tiny cults like fringe conspiracists, New Agers and UFO jockeys jack up the appearance of their notability by citing each other in a recursive daisy chain without any reference to those unenlightened sheeple who gatekeep the notable.)

You have to be one seriously insular former academic to be fulminating about postmodernism these days. The "silly French fad" as my girl Camille Paglia called it has been fading from the American academic scene at least since the turn of the millennium and extreme forms of radical subjectivism, social construction and historicism are no longer quite the au courant rage they once were. The main reason is that they're simply pedagogically trite. When you have a roomful of undergraduates in a Shakespeare class turning in papers about why sexism and homophobia are wrong it's pretty much unenlightening for everyone concerned. Not to mention, you know, an example of the very same cultural narcissism that po-mo was intended to deconstruct, since to "interrogate the text" too often means to twist literally everything around to refer to one's precious personal experience.

Facebook and Jacques Derrida are a truly awful combination ...

Bruno LaTour, who along with Paul Feyerabend was one of the enfants terrible of the sociology of science movement in the 70s and 80s, has completely recanted and has become one of the most trenchant critics of the excesses of po-mo. He watches with horrified fascination how cranks and well-funded reactionaries have seized on the rhetoric and assumptions of Foucauldian deep critique and radical skepticism to push Intelligent Design, climate change denialism and the 9/11 truth movement: Everything is a mask for power relations, authorities simply can't be trusted and there are only competing narratives. "Teach the controversy!"

Like most everybody these days, I'm a moderate constructionist. I do believe that context is important and very few ideas spring from authors fully formed as if from the head of Zeus. But the world doesn't need more bogus utopian teleologies.

Phenomena which are trans-observable indeed deserve a privileged status.

Bob
Top
« Next Oldest | Tarp Talk | Next Newest »
zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free

Topic OptionsPages: (17) [1] 2 3 ... Last »



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0466 seconds · Archive