Webster Tarpley's dubious past

"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."--Michael Hudson

Webster Tarpley, an "ex"-follower of Lyndon LaRouche who makes his living by purveying LaRouche's conspiracy theories in a slightly sanitized form (along with his own ideas about 9/11 being a U.S. government plot), tried last year to get the ear of policy experts specializing in the debt problems of Scandinavia and the Baltic states. When questioned about his past, Tarpley attempted to shrug off his quarter of a century sojourn inside the intensely anti-Semitic LaRouche movement (where he rose to the highest leadership levels) as a trivial mistake, and buttressed his case with self-serving lies as outrageous as any concocted by his former master.

U.S. economist and debt expert Michael Hudson, a longtime foe of LaRouche, struck back in the following email exchanges, pointing out that Tarpley has never made a clean break with the LaRouche movement or taken any steps to undo the damage he and and LaRouche wrought. I became peripherally involved at Hudson's request to provide background information on Tarpley, and am posting the below e-mails because of the controversy currently surrounding Tarpley, Alex Jones, and other conspiracists who are attempting to manipulate both the far right and the far left in the United States.

Webster Tarpley speaking at the "Axis for Peace" conference in Paris, Nov. 17, 2005. Conveners of this Red-Brown coalition of Jew haters included Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Note that the image on the screen behind Tarpley gives the LaRouche line--the "British" (the Rothschilds and a cabal of other London bankers, mostly Jewish) are the enemy, and they killed Italian prime minister Aldo Moro among other crimes. But...didn't Tarpley tell "N" in the e-mail exchange below that he had quit the LaRouche org in the mid-1990s?

I have arranged the emails from earliest to latest. "N" is an officer of a Swedish foundation that was promoting the publication in major Latvian and Icelandic newspapers of an article by "E"--about debt moratoriums--that cited conspiracist Tarpley as if he were a legitimate policy expert. Information that would have easily identified "N" and "E" has been stripped away insofar as it could be done without making the email exchange too confusing.

For the few policy experts and economists who recognize who "E" is, let me say that she appears to be pretty much an innocent party in all this. When Hudson warns her strongly, he does so based on his own painful experience of being gulled by the LaRouchians in the early 1980s. And if any reader thinks Hudson's a bit harsh on the Swedish individual known as "N," just imagine if Lyndon LaRouche stole $75,000 from you (read about Hudson's experience here and his after-the-fact analysis of LaRouche's fraudulent activities here)--and then publicly smeared you as a "KGB agent" when you tried to get your money back. And imagine if you then read in court papers several years later how a LaRouche aide had responded to your attempts at recovering your money by saying to her comrades, "Piss on him. Fuck him. That's what he gets for lending us money." All this would make you, like Hudson, a bit exasperated if you saw the likes of Tarpley trolling for a new generation of Useful Idiots (politically if not financially) and if you tried to warn one of the targeted persons only to see him or her turn a deaf ear because of naivete, stubbornness or downright stupidity. Personally I think Hudson would have been justified in speaking far MORE harshly to "N."

--Dennis King

P.S. I have added below, after the emails, a statement by a former LaRouche follower who says Tarpley's explanation to "N" of why he left the LaRouche org is "baloney."--DK

"N" to Webster Tarpley, Nov. 30, 2009

Dear Webster,

I appreciate reading your materials, and believe there is a lot of substance in it.

I notice that you in the past have been associated with LaRouche, which at least in Sweden has been questioned, particularly because of the relationship to EAP (European Workers' Party). At the same time, I have heard some insightful discussions regarding the debt situation from LaRouche.

I don't know very much about LaRoche and would appreciate if you can write a few lines about this and how you are related today.

Best regards


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. Since 1994-5, his political and economic analysis has become increasingly erratic and confused, always stressing that nothing can be done for world economic development without US leadership and control - an absurdity. He did not oppose Obama's election, but then discovered that Obama was the new Hitler. He virtually predicted the end of the world for last October 12, and it did not ensue. LaRouche is now 87 years old and needs to retire, but insists on maintaining a personality cult. HIs group has lost much of its membership and is of marginal importance within the US. In other countries there are still some who mistakenly view LaRouche as a significant domestic opposition to US financial imperialism, but this estimate is obsolete. LaRouche is increasingly irrelevant, and the quality of the group's journalistic output has collapsed to grotesque levels.

Accordingly, I suggest that we forget about LaRouche and see what can be done for Latvia.

Do you have any good books, articles, or web sites on the Latvian crisis? I should think there is no time to lose.

Webster Tarpley

Tarpley says, "no relation whatsoever with LaRouche." But here's LaRouche's führine, Helga (left), at the 2005 Axis for Peace conference where both she and Tarpley were promoting the LaRouchian line. The speaker beside her is a former Ecuadorian general.

And here's the Axis for Peace website's photo of Jacques Cheminade, the president of the French LaRouche movement, who also was a conference speaker. This is the same Cheminade who helped lure Jeremiah Duggan (a Jewish student in Paris) to his death in Wiesbaden, Germany two years earlier. Did Tarpley use the conference as a bully pulpit to denounce Cheminade (or Helga LaRouche, who orchestrated the coverup after Jeremiah's death)? Nope--and Tarpley's done nothing since then to help the Duggan family (for instance, he could have, but hasn't, provided information on the LaRouche org's past ties to Germany's security services that might help in cracking the police wall of silence re Jeremiah's death).

Jeremiah Duggan, 1980-2003. Tarpley's silence is the equivalent of spitting on Jeremiah's grave.

"N" to Michael Hudson, Dec. 10, 2009

Dear Mr Hudson,

I contacted you some weeks ago with a question regarding the IceSave process on Iceland, since I support E in publishing an article about Iceland and Latvia in their major papers. E uses one of your articles as a reference in her text. The intention of her article is to point out other possibilities for these two countries than just obeying the IMF and the EU. These countries have a strategic importance due to their small populations and relatively high level of education.

I have mentioned to [name deleted], the news editor at Diena in Latvia, that she could contact you to get some more [understanding] of the perspectives mentioned in E's article. I guess she needs some confirmation that this is a relevant view. I would appreciate if you have time to read through the article and send her a few lines of confirmation that there is some substance in E's perspective....

Sincerely Yours


Michael Hudson to "N," Dec. 10, 2009

I'm already well known to Diena and often have published there with my proposed solution.

I also publish widely in Latvia. I'm forwarding your article to [name deleted] and [name deleted], who may have some response, but they also are already involved sufficiently.

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...


"N" to Michael Hudson, Dec. 10, 2009

Oh I see...I wrote to Tarpley to ask him about LaRouche and his current connection (since he asked me for information about Latvia, and LaRouche has a not so positive reputation here in Sweden). He said he hasn't had any contact since '97 (if I remember correctly, it was a long time in any case), basically that he doesn't share the perspectives of LaRouche anymore. I think that this statement made a difference for E to hear.

I'm not asking you to promote the article, or to stand behind Tarpley. But it might be helpful if you can verify that there is some relevance in the basic underlying concepts of the article, since some of these ideas might be somewhat "outside the box" for an editor of Diena when compared to the predominant thinking.

The reason I ask you is that I think that it would really make a difference for this information to reach the people of Latvia. I live in Sweden myself, and have been very upset about the behaviours of the Swedish banks. To support the publishing of this article has been a way for me and the network for economic reform here in Sweden to try to give some kind of contribution to our Baltic brother people. It's not much, but we offer them an apology on behalf of the Swedish people until the banks and our goverment have the guts and the moral maturity to do it themselves.

So, I would appreciate if you can consider to support the article to be published, because of its basic intentions and for the sake of healing between our two brother nations.

Warm regards


From "N" to "E," Dec. 10, 2009

Sorry I didn't know about the controveries regarding Michael Hudson and Tarpley. I asked for his [Hudson's] support since he has been working in Riga and is known there.

Look at my answer to him, before you make the changes. Tarpley was very clear that he doesn't support LaRouche anymore.

Best/ N

From Dennis King to "E," Dec. 10, 2009

Michael Hudson cc'd me his correspondence with you. It is unclear what kind of article you are working on, so I will just restrict myself to the issue of Tarpley. Tarpley quit the [LaRouche] organization formally, but continues to have its ideology in most respects except for personal loyalty to LaRouche. He currently makes his living purveying LaRouche-style conspiracy theories without mentioning LaRouche's name, via books and through lectures. He still sells a book [that he had written] for LaRouche on George Herbert Bush to get even with Bush for not halting the government prosecution that sent LaRouche to jail for stealing the life savings of senior citizens. Tarpley uses the 9/11 truth movement as one of his vehicles, and leftists in this movement who won't go along with accepting him as its guru have been publicly smeared, hounded and threatened. Tarpley is involved also with a newspaper published by the neo-Nazi Willis Carto, and Tarpley's books are sold in Latin America via the National Condor Movement in Argentina, a neo-Nazi outfit that is named after the Condor death squads. I have seen his books advertised on other anti-Semitic conspiracist websites. Tarpley is what I call a LaRouchian without LaRouche. He has never revealed any of the secrets of the LaRouche movement and thus, as Michael says, is still complicit in its many crimes.

Go to my website and read about the LaRouche movement's involvement with death squads in several countries at https://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-fascism.htm [much of which] occurred while Tarpley was in the international leadership of the LaRouche movement.

From "E" to Dennis King, Dec. 10, 2009

Okay thanks. Duly noted!--E

Michael Hudson to "E," Dec. 10, 2009

What a lot of bullshit [Hudson is referring to N's statement that Tarpley was "very clear" on no longer supporting LaRouche--DK].

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 "N" to Michael Hudson, Dec. 22, 2009

Dear Michael,

For your personal information, I send this mail from Webster Tarpley [includes the Dec. 2 Tarpley email; see above--DK]. It was his answer when I asked him in an open-minded way about his relationship to LaRouche (which I think is a very strange person and context). I asked him this before I received your comment about him.

I experience his answer and his articles about Iceland as quite sincere, balanced and committed. I also feel he is worthy of respect for distancing himself from LaRouche in this way.

He has asked me to support him with facts about Latvia, in order to write a piece in support of the "reform movement" there. What is your advice on this? Personally, I feel that it's a positive thing with more people engaged and focussing on this part of the world - that it might be good to focus on what all of us have in common instead of the differences between us.

But I do appreciate your advice and perspective in this delicate issue.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


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.



Michael Hudson to Dennis King, Dec. 22, 2009

Was this too strong, Dennis?

Dennis King to Michael Hudson, Dec. 23, 2009

No, it was NOT too strong. This guy is either stubbornly gullible or has a malevolent affinity for Tarpley's conspiracism...

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

But no, I'm not a LaRouchie, and I appreciate you're warning me on that...[This was apparently written in response to an email that was never forwarded to me.--DK]

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

Dear E,

Here's what I suspect happened.

The LaRouchies do a Google search of people who cite them or their publications. Your name came up. So they tried to capture you.

And they naturally moved on to the people you cite.

They've been after me for [decades]. And contra to what the liar Tarpley says, LaRouche was sent to jail for FINANCIAL fraud, NOT politics. Saying that he worked for intelligence services was his DEFENSE at the trial. It did NOT come later.

So here's what happened. They found either an operative or an idiot in Sweden, who tried to bundle you up with me in asking "us" to help work with Tarpley to "solve" the Iceland/Latvia debt problem.

If they succeeded in getting you to quote Tarpley and me together, they then would spread on the internet your quote, using you and me together to legitimize Tarpley.

His lies about LaRouche felony convictions and those of his financial gangsters show that he is indeed still a LaRouchie, and is utterly dishonest and is to be shunned.

E, you look at what you can find positive in people. That's a nice quality. But it's also important to see what ERRORS people do. You say, "They write good stuff." The problem is the BAD stuff they write.

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.

If you cite them, they will find you on Google and cite YOUR citation of THEM, to legitimize themselves. And this will discredit you in the process.

So take out EVERY reference to EIR, Tarpley, etc. As you know, I had my own qualms about even citing Bill Engdahl, but decided that he's genuinely in the clear--but I would NOT suggest your citing what he wrote while still a member of the [LaRouche] financial rip-off gang in Germany.

I'm saying this as your friend. I know that you're not a LaRouche cultist. So why let your name be sullied?

I hope you take this in the spirit of friendship.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Webster Tarpley's story is "baloney"

By "Eaglebeak"

The writer of the following statement spent decades in the LaRouche movement in close contact with many of its top leaders.

Webster's baloney about why he left the org should be exposed point by point.

First, Lyn was not sent to prison primarily for political reasons. To say that, as Webster does in the thing you quoted, is to perpetuate the LaRouchean lie. He went to prison because he and his sidekicks ripped off a bunch of people. And because he didn't pay his taxes.

Second, Webster has no way of knowing that Lyn "agreed to collaborate with" U.S. intelligence or whatever idiotic claim he makes as to why LHL got out of prison. Lyn thinks Clinton personally let him out--Webster evidently thinks so too. As to intelligence collaboration--Point 1--Lyn had claimed for the preceding 15 years that he'd been working with U.S. intelligence. Point 2, Webster does not have access to a transcript of Lyn's appearance before the parole board. He's just guessing. In Websterworld, that's what passes for research. If he claims he's going by something Lyn told him, that is, ipso facto, evidence of delusion.

Point 3, Webster was not kicked out of the org for refusal to capitulate to such collaboration (which had been going on for years, which he KNEW had been going on for years--for heaven's sake, in a version of The Power of Reason that came out in 1989 or 1990, Lyn basically claimed to have been penetrating the left for the Feds). The idea that Webster's exit in 1997 was forced is ridiculous.

Webster stopped coming to National Executive Committee meetings because, as he told other NEC members at the time, he couldn't stand them. Understandable, and even commendable. No one else could either. Other NEC members who left in that same period left because they couldn't bear Lyn.

He wasn't "forced out." Lyn just sat there drinking and screaming at everyone, and I guess Webster figured he could do better elsewhere.

Michael Hudson's thing about Webster identifying Lyn's crimes is not enough--Webster might be happy to do that. What Webster should really tell us is what he knows about the European org and the death of Jeremiah; his ex-wife Muriel's contacts with terrorists and Islamic extremists, and her antics in Iran; and his own checkered history of making up "research" for whoever pays him enough, either in ego gratification or, more recently, actual $$.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Further comments on Tarpley (from Factnet):


"Earnest One," May 31, 2010, 04:27 PM

Tarpley is a great analyst with feet firmly on the ground; he knows reality when he sees it! He took part in shaping the world--he was a key leader in a world historical movement! Sadly it all changed, and fairly recently. As Tarpley points out:

"His [LaRouche's] group has lost much of its membership and is of marginal importance within the U.S. In other countries there are still some who mistakenly view LaRouche as a significant domestic opposition to U.S. financial imperialism, but this estimate is obsolete."

In other words, the group was once of significant importance within the U.S. How sad that things have changed.

Moreover this significance was recognized by people in other countries who accurately viewed LaRouche and his group as posing SIGNIFICANT opposition to U.S. financial imperialism. Ah yes, the good old days.

Note, too, that LaRouche was wrong only ONCE, the infamous October 12th "forecast." Prior to that, he was spot on. Up until just recently LaRouche's forecasts were renowned for their accuracy.

It is amazing, truly, that Tarpley was a member of such a powerful group whose leader has "lost it" only recently.

Bravo for someone who tells it like it is. Sometime BEFORE 1997, LaRouche was a world leader. Now he has sold out and, although his influence is insignificant, U.S. intelligence recognizes the value of having this superb asset on their side.

Freezone LaRouchies and the Blood-Stained Passport

"Patentrezept," May 31, 2010, 05:13 PM

I read the King piece and have one addition to make: Tarpley not only remains silent about the Duggan case but actually had his book on Obama translated into German by the very woman who was in possession of Jeremiah Duggan's blood stained passport and her late husband (for Kopp Verlag, probably the currently leading right-wing populist and conspiracy publisher in Germany--this was detailed in one of my previous posts).

For those who wonder why I call these people Freezone LaRouchies, this term originally refers to Scientologists who practice Hubbard's crap or parts thereof outside the official CoS (and are not liked by the CoS). Read here.