Monday, June 6, 2011

Webster Tarpley, the floor is yours

Infowars has posted some nutty stuff in its day, but few made me immediately laugh as quickly as a video they posted of Webster Tarpley. Tarpley is just one among many desperate screed-peddlers on the 9/11 denial carnival-of-the-damned lecture circuit, and watching him doing his insane lying thing to the tune of what sounds like beats copped from a 1960's sci-fi movie is just too much.

Notoriously trollable blogger Paul Joseph Watson sets the stage with the run-onniest sentence that ever ran on:

In a bombshell new video interview, historian and author Webster Tarpley exposes how White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, is a Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century.

And thus, the stage is set.

"Ultra-Hitlerian genocidalist:" Worst screen name ever. (Best?)

Tarpley is such a notorious fraud that even fellow deniers try to distance themselves from him, declaring him a "disinformation agent," a "plant" and, worst of all, "nothing like Ron Paul." What he's saying is purely false, of course - Holdren explicitly stated he doesn't endorse coercive population control measures and was doing what good scientists do, namely, proposing thought experiments without actually trying to advocate them, which he doesn't - but that much is obvious. The cult isn't about truth. It will be interesting to see if this level of stupidity finally gets Tarpley jettisoned from what remains of the denial community. I certainly doubt it, but if anyone in the cult has a remaining interest in legitimacy, ignoring its lunatic fringe (sic, in this case?) is its only hope.


Matt said...

That's not a run-on sentence, Einstein.

Matt said... just has a long (and arguably awkward) relative clause.