Webster Tarpley is the main source in this video. I don't agree with everything Webster Tarpley comes up with, but I agree with a great deal of it. As an example of where we diverge, Webster is an AGW-denier (anthropogenic global warming; human-caused global warming; "fossil" fuels/carbon burning/releasing caused). However, I'll supply a second video below showing where Webster Tarpley and I agree (with qualifications).
Concerning the following video on Syria, I need to know more before ruling out that Webster has jumped to some of his conclusions. That's been my main bone of contention about Webster's body of work: that he jumps too readily to conclusions in support of his overarching thesis about US imperialism. US imperialism is a reality and onerous, but that it is as transparent and black and white as Webster suggests is something I've found not to be the case. There have always been other factors that I believe Webster realizes but doesn't mention for effect. Is he conscious of it? Is it intellectual dishonesty? I suspect he gets caught up in his certain brand of conspiratorial thinking. Don't get me wrong. I'm a firm believer that there are many conspiracies afoot. How many people are charged with conspiracy to commit crime(s) and are actually guilty of same? Of course people plan to commit crimes. Of course there are those who use government for criminal ends, including on a global scale. To deny it is to deny the very existence of sociopaths in high places -- just what those sociopaths want.
Austrian School versus American School
I agree with Webster Tarpley in this second video, provided the context remains the choice between Austrian School economics on one hand and American School economics on the other. I totally disagree with Austrian School prescriptions and proscriptions. The American School is vastly superior to the Austrian School (however, the Christian Commons is vastly superior to the American School).
Here's an update-entry:
The first thing about this next video is that it is the basis for much of the first video above. I wanted to hear Webster at length about Syria. What I noticed was how it stands out to me how Webster did not even hint at how his group of journalists might have been led into a setup demonstration. Why does he "assume" that what he saw is representative enough so as to make across-the-board judgments? I'm not sure of the timing of his visit vis-a-vis when Assad's forces actually took over the city. It seems from what Tarpley is saying is that it was during a transitional phase, but the fact that Assad's forces did takeover should not be left out of the calculations.
Second, you will hear Webster Tarpley going after WikiLeaks (again; he's done it incessantly, as if Julian Assange is a Zionist). I have looked into this nearly exhaustively and find zero merit in coming to the conclusion that Assange is a witting CIA agent or otherwise. Why in the world would Julian have released the Iraq War Video showing the US military attacking civilians, children, and unarmed journalists working for mainstream Western media if Julian were CIA? That video was hugely damaging to the Iraq War cause of the US Military Industrial Complex and the US military and foreign policy in general, much more damaging than anything Webster has ever done or said. Frankly, Webster has jumped to wild conclusions against WikiLeaks. If Webster were correct, Bradley Manning would have been living in a country club setting from day one at worst.
Mass Murderers in the US Military
Look at the mass murderers (not all but some) in the US military who don't even get more than a slap on the wrist for wiping out whole unarmed families in their pajamas and that after raping their 12-year-old daughters. I'm telling you that Webster's conclusions are based on sketchy evidence at best. His ideas are worth considering, but anyone who accepts them without further evidence is acting foolishly im my view. Don't dismiss everything he says out of hand, but do reserve judgment and ask more questions.
What's Tarpley thinking? He says that because internal US State Department cables don't self-condemn US State Department allies so much, WikiLeaks must be CIA. Now that's nonsense logic. If Julian were picking and choosing for the sake of the CIA, he would not have worked so hard on the War Videos. In addition, Julian tried a full release before that and it didn't work. The mainstream didn't pick it up. He made deals, and got the mainstream worldwide to pick up the stories. Then, that same mainstream trashed him and went along with the real Zionists, such as Joseph Lieberman, to help shut down WikiLeaks and to help crucify Assange as a rapist, which he most certainly is not -- sexually lax, yes, a rapist, no. Those two women were naked in bed with him of their own choice and did have sex with him. That he engaged again but "unprotected" does not rise to the level of rape. Regardless, those two women were culpable in their own downfalls. To couch them as not responsible for what happened at all is to say that women can be as provocative as they want while being as irresponsible as they want at the same time just because they are the so-called "weaker" sex.
American-British-Israeli Alliance Split Over Iran
Webster says that the American-British-Israeli alliance is seamless. However, we see clearly that the US and UK are not going along with the Zionists on Iran. The Likudniks would have had the US bomb Iran long ago. The US though knows that we all know that Iran does not have a nuclear-weapons program and that any US administration that attacks Iran for Israel without real, hard, independently substantiated proof (which will never be forthcoming) will be the last pro-Zionist US administration. The anti-Zionists would savage that administration and policy at least one hundred fold the criticism the Bush-43 administration experienced, and that's not even over. Just look at how the members of Bush-43 can't travel. They can't travel largely because of US entities who push foreign entities into making such travel all but impossible. The Bush-43 administration is a war-crimes committing group. The Obama administration has more than run the risk of being found the same, but it still has "liberal" Democrat cover. Liberal Democrats have more sway at the UN, etc., in terms of human rights issues and the like. That cover is not inviolable though, and Barack Obama knows it. That's why he's backed off so much on war and the austerity garbage -- good things those, but he's campaigning (meaning he won't live up to them).
Responsibility to Protect
I want to back up a bit to address the Responsibility to Protect. Webster downplayed it as being second fiddle at best to the right of national self-determination. He based it upon the UN Charter. However, there is the Declaration of Human Rights, which is actually of equal weight, just as the Bill of Rights within the US Constitution is at least of equal weight with the remainder of that document. I would argue that it is actually the only reason that the rest of the document has survive in even the disastrous state that it's in (frankly, effective lawlessness). The Responsibility to Protect is an attempt to elevate the individual human being to the level of the state. It is an attempt to say that individuals will not be left to the mercy or lack thereof of individual states but rather that the member states must be held to account for how individuals are treated. Of course, it is ironic how American citizens are often brutalized for merely speaking out. We also have the President claiming that the Secret Service now has the power to determine who has the constitutional right to protest at campaign events, etc. Yes, there are protests that can get out of hand and become dangerous, but all too often we've seen police-state police cracking heads of totally peaceful protester who should have been left alone so long as they were not violent or damaging the property of others, etc. What we've also seen is the Black Bloc destroying property with impunity. We also know that police routinely act as agents provocateur. They dress in plain clothes, enter the ranks of the protesters, and stir up trouble and violence, etc. This is routine also with the FBI creating entrapment situations were the FBI incites illegal activity and terrorism to increase funding and to gain power, which should be completely illegal.
Time for Radical Changes
I agree that we should not be stampeded, but that this is not the time for radical changes is completely false. Stability would suggest leaving the banksters to continue. Webster is attempting to have his cake and to eat it too. We need a New World Order for sure. The question is not whether or not. The question shouldn't even be what kind. What we definitely do not need or want is neoliberalism. Neoliberal economics is a disaster and has been since the beginning.
Christianity versus Coercion
Individual human rights should be sacrosanct, but what rights should one be recognized as having? As a Christian, I am non-coercive or against coercion. Jesus Christ made his pronouncements and then left it at that. He did not wage physical wars. I see zero reason to believe that he has changed his mind or would return as a mega-violent, wrathful spirit, against which he preached and acted the first time he was here. To see Jesus as leading a violent war is to grossly misunderstand just how hypocritical that would be and to forget just how against hypocrisy Jesus was. How are we to read the Second Coming then? Well, I have often said that it is a parable not to be taken purely literally as a tiny child would take it and also that Jesus never said that Jesus would be the son of Man who destroys and kills. We are to look at the evil consequences of our evil choice is the one and only point worth taking from it all, lest we become mired in endless, fruitless hairsplitting.
What I can't stand is basing "rights" on falsehoods, such as that homosexuality (especially in its main act of male on male sodomy) is harmless, fine, healthy, even something to be celebrated. What a load of nonsense that is. Homosexuality is being pushed and pushed hard by many of a fascistic mentality where they seek to outlaw what I just said -- that sodomy is a fundamental error and should never be engaged in -- that sodomy does go against what is clearly naturally correct. Everything about sodomy is unnatural/contrived/artificial. You don't find it anywhere else in nature where the non-human creatures have not been messed with by humans. It is a singularly human aberration that should never be condoned. It doesn't matter what homosexual say about it either or about anyone who says the truth about it, as I just did. Only the very weak-minded are cowed by homosexual and pro-homosexuals leveling specious attacks and allegations. This is one of the reasons the West is attacking the Middle East, where Islam is at its strongest. Iran needs to be toppled so the Zionists can be safe as homosexuals in the Middle East. That's one of the reasons the Zionists want the US to wage war for them. Yet they have the nerve to make the claim that God gave them the land to take away from Palestinians who had done nothing against those Zionists, the same God of Moses who said homosexuality is a capital offense. They are clearly insane.
Nuclear Energy versus Sustainables
You hear Webster advocating nuclear energy, etc. He sounds like the old Lyndon LaRouche disciple that he is. Look, nuclear is not the answer. Nuclear gets a target painted on your back and front too. What the Middle East and everywhere needs to do is focus solely on sustainables that do not take up good land that could be and should be used for growing crops. Of course, new methods of crop growing need to be put into place as well.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)