Tarpley's latest. book.

OBAMA: The Postmocern Coup. The Making of a Manchurian Candidate.
As usual, reading it is a challenge. Its not yet comparable to his Unauthorized Biography of Bush.
But then I am only on about page 55.

what do you read? Do you read books on psychology, or psychoanalysis, or psychiatry? Auto manuals?
Maybe you have not gotten out of your physics books, or math books. Maybe you feel you are above being hooked on conspiracy myths. Where are you located mentally, - with those who deny the existence of the poor because this is to engage in thinking in terms of groups? It is helpful to articulate your thoughts beyond silent grunts.

I read several reviews for Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate a while back and thought "who would read this!?" So upon seeing its mention in your post, I was astounded to see someone whose readings include this of Tarpley works. I do not want to discuss its content. I was just surprised to see anyone would undertake the task of analyzing such.

Tarpley is anti-oligarchs. With 90% of the wealth of the country owned by 1% of the population its time to give the matter some thought. I am wading through his 'Book' Surviving the Cataclysm copywrite 1999. Its on a floppy, 970 pages. Fortitude to me is interest in following his line of argument and philosophy. Hereditary is still being used to assert the supremacy of Princely ruled societies. Can you guess my sociological background? thanks for comment.

quoting:
"Obama, with his 2004 call for the bombing of Iran and Pakistan, his refusal to vote for the Kerry amendment calling for an immediate departure of US forces from Iraq, and his July 2007 call for the bombing of Pakistan, has represented by far the most aggressive, bellicose, and adventurous voice in the entire Democratic field, although his deluded followers appear ironically incapable of grasping this plain fact. Indeed, Obama has shown himself to be more aggressive and adventurous than Bush himself. In military affairs, Obama in no way criticizes Bush from a pacifist or antiwar point of view. Quite the contrary: Obama attacks Bush from the right, from a more militant and activist standpoint of imperialist barbarity. Obama attacks Bush as Nietzsche might criticize Schopenhauer -- as a fanatical fascist idealist might attack a cynical right wing reactionary war profiteer.

Behind the Iran-Contra Affair published by EIR, 1987. The style of the book required patience to get through exasperation at some repetitiousness, which usually had some additional tidbit of suggestive further leads. He never uses the 'according to government sources' as authority, he simply makes the assertion, sometimes giving a newspaper source. The book has no index. It reminds me of the style of political writing in the book: American Aurora. It is dated, it was written in February; he saw Mrs. Clinton as the only possible choice. His analysis of the probable electoral college votes I cannot judge. It is open to the charge of conspiracy orientation in his elevation of Brzezinski to prominence.
A possible lead to pursue is: "The scandal of the rogue B-52 broke on September 5, and a stand-down and nuclear census of the entire USAF soon followed. According to all indications, the B-52 was under the extra-legal control of the Cheney faction, which evidently planned to fly it to the Middle East and quite possibly use one or more of the nuclear cruise missiles in an attack on Iran and/or Syria, probably in cooperation or coordination with the Israeli air attack on Syria which occurred on September 6. The fact that the B-52 was blocked may have represented the last gasp of the Bush-Cheney-neocon faction, and the beginning of the hegemony of a different and far more dangerous group, namely the Brzezinski-Trilateral faction. page 195