“Michael Parenti is a towering prophetic voice in American life. We need him now more than ever.”

[seemslikeadream]

— Cornel West

http://www.michaelparenti.org/

“Here at home and throughout the world people are fighting back against the forces of wealth, privilege, and militarism — some because they have no choice, others because they would choose no other course but the one that leads to peace and justice.” — Michael Parenti




Michael Parenti, JFK and 9/11 Truth
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/0314parentijfkone.mp3

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/0321parentijfktwo.mp3

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+parenti

[babylonsister]

1. I'm impressed with anything/one Cornel West is impressed with.

Thanks for the links.

[seemslikeadream]

2. Michael Parenti on "The Culture Struggle"

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/08/1328254


MICHAEL PARENTI: The war has destroyed Iraq, and the war has already created a bloodbath. Bush said we can't leave because there will be a bloodbath. The bloodbath is now. It’s going on now. I heard the same thing for ten years about Vietnam. “We can't leave. There's going to be a bloodbath.” Well, in fact, when we left Vietnam, the bombings stopped, the Agent Orange spraying stopped, the napalming and killing people stopped, the Phoenix CIA assassination program stopped, the bloodletting stopped. And I think the same thing would happen in Iraq. That's my assessment.

AMY GOODMAN: What ended the Vietnam War?

MICHAEL PARENTI: US withdrawal and -- you mean, why they withdrew? It just became so untenable and unpopular in the US. It seemed endless. There seemed no out. And I think that's the same thing that's happening here. You’ve seen within the last six or seven months in Congress, it's amazing, and in the country, where before they were hesitant to say, “Oh, I’m not sure we want to get out.” They're all now saying it, and they realize most of the American public wants to get out. Bush no longer uses the term “stay the course.” They discovered that “stay the course," the American public was rejecting it, because it had kind of an endless quality. There was no exit to it, you know, this “stay the course.” So they’ve dropped it. They never use it anymore. They know they, themselves, are in a dead end here.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about how culture fits into this story? You’ve just written a new book, one of your many. This is called The Culture Struggle. Why focus on culture now?

MICHAEL PARENTI: I’ve found that culture is a highly contested area. There are immense and important struggles going on all over the world in regard to culture. And what we're taught is an enlightened view, that in reaction to cultural supremacism and cultural imperialism, we're taught that we shouldn't really judge cultures. And yet, every single culture, including our own, needs to be judged, because cultures are not neutral things. Some people benefit and other people can be victimized by culture.

One of the greatest victims, universal victims, of just about all cultures in the world are women, for instance. And the more I went into this, the more I realized how that was true. And by “victimize,” I don't mean job opportunities only or life roles or this, but in sheer physical survival. The amount of harm and abuse and violence that is delivered upon women in all cultures is really horrifying, and it seems to me -- I mean, there are some village cultures in Central Asia and the Middle East and some parts elsewhere, other places in the world, where if a young woman is raped, her father then kills her to restore the honor of his family. I mean, this is what we're facing. And even in our own culture, the violence against women in this culture is pandemic. And I think much of feminism, which is so focused on lifestyle issues, personal expression, personal development issues, which are all important and good issues -- I think maybe much more militant attention should be directed to this issue.

[peacetalksforall]

5. I agree.

[Drum]

22. My first impression as well. nt

[PDJane]

3. Parenti is another favourite of mine.......

and I have seen his speaking engagements on video, as well. He has lots to say, and it's important stuff.

[seemslikeadream]

4. It's Called Democracy September 30, 1998

http://www.radioproject.org/transcript/1998/9839.html

Michael Parenti: I have been studying the Roman republic, and have been struck by how it resembles our own republic...in the sense that it wasn't very democratic, there was a multiplicity of legislatures, a whole elaborate veto system, auspices and everything else, a senate oligarchy that really ran most things. The poor were left out of most things. There was a tremendous gap between the rich and poor. There was a relationship between the great prevalence of wealth with the great prevalence of poverty. Knowing that but wealth and poverty were not just juxtaposed with each other, there's a causal link, and that's been true all through history. That the way you get a small group of people to be very rich is by getting a lot of other people to be very poor. Imposing poverty on them, getting them to work very hard, very long, to create what the Marxist call surplus value, that is, to create more value than they consume. And that value is expropriated by you, the slave owner, by you, the feudal lord, or by you, the private capitalist investor. And you accumulate that. And after a lifetime, your workers are left poor. After a lifetime of working hard, they're left poor, with maybe a little pension, which you're trying to get out of their hands now also. And you have enormous wealth all your life. That's the system.

Nobody believes in surplus value. Nobody talks about it, and all. And in standard economics, wealth is created by exchange, supposedly. You know, I have this and I buy that and I get a little more here, and I can sell that for a little more here. And wealth just comes kind of mysteriously. In fact, wealth is created by natural resources. The value of those natural resources and the labor that then goes into them to create them into exchange value and use value. And that's where you get wealth. And nobody believes that about surplus value. There's only two groups in America who believe that there is surplus value, and that's the Marxists, which I just mentioned, and the capitalists. The capitalists, they do believe in it. They do honestly believe in it. In fact, they do call it something very much like surplus value. They call it added value. And you read the Wall Street Journal, and if you read Fortune Magazine, all the other rags, where they talk to each other. If you want to read radical subversive publications, read the capitalist publications where they're talking to each other. And they will say things like: "a better labor market, a higher added value rate. The dollar you invest in Ohio, you only get back two and a half dollars. But if you invest it in Alabama you will only get three and a half. Invest it in Mexico you can get five. Invest it in Indonesia you can get seven dollars. Wowee! I mean, they know what they're saying. They call that added value, or the value added, by the term.

And 80 percent of the stock in this nation is owned by one percent of the population. It's really not one percent. You know, one percent of the populations is 2.4 million people. You can get up into the one percent by earning $300,000. That's not the very rich. I mean $300,000 are very tidy earnings per year, but that's not very rich. That's not people who own the wealth. It's really a fraction of one percent. It's a fraction that's so stratified, so small, it's about less that a fourth of one percent of the people really own the lion's share of the wealth in this country. Not that quintile, the top quintile that you always see reported by the various public interest groups, the Center for Policy Analysis in Washington. Every few years they come out with the top 20 percent...own so much more. The top 20 percent in the last 20 years have increased their income by $27,000. The spread is now 14 to one. The top 20 percent are not the people who own America. There are people in this room who are in the top 20 percent who would be called "the rich". They're call the rich own. They've increased their income by, what, $27,000 in 20 years? That wouldn't even cover inflation for most of those incomes that those people have. If you make 50,000 a year, you're in the top 20 percent. Certainly 60,000. It's not the top 20 percent. The census bureau doesn't sample the very rich. They can't get 'em, they're so few that they don't show up on samples. It's not the top quintile, the top 20 percent. It's the Morgans and the Mellons and the Murdochs. It's the Huntingtons, the Harrimans, and the Hunts. It's the Rockefellers and the Duponts. They own America and the world and most of the markets and the resources, and they will do anything to keep it that way. And the only thing they want to own now is still more. That's the only thing. There's only one thing that the ruling class is ever wanted, and that's everything.

[malaise]

8. There's only one thing that the ruling class ever wanted,

and that's everything.
Profound.

[slipslidingaway]

6. K&R thanks n/t

[malaise]

7. I loved him from I read the first edition of

Democracy for the Few.

[seemslikeadream]

10. "Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6573660441809242121&q=Michael+Parenti&total=107&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[malaise]

24. Thanks n/t

[shance]

9. Heard him on KPFK the other day. Captivating.

n/t

[cui bono]

11. kick for Parenti. He's fantastic. n/t

[IndyOp]

12. Listening now & bookmarking. I've not listened to him before. This is a treat! Thx. (n/t)

[glitch]

16. You want some more?

http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=search&nav=&session=&searchtext=parenti&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=submit

[IndyOp]

13. It is possible two persons, independently, attempted to shoot the President at the very same time!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:puke:

:cry:

From a Washington Post Editorial after the release of the House Select Assassination Review Committee (1978) reported there was more than one assassin shooting Kennedy - there was a conspiracy --

Could it have been some other malcontent that Oswald met casually?

Could not as many as 3 or 4 societal outcasts, with no ties to any one organization, have developed, in some spontaneous way, a common determination to express their alienation in the killing of President Kennedy.

It is possible that two perrsons, acting independently, attempted to shoot the President at the very same time.

:rofl: :cry: :rofl: :cry: :rofl: :cry: :rofl: :cry: :rofl:

Here: http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/0314parentijfkone.mp3

[seemslikeadream]

14. stochastic stuff

:hi: :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

21. You're kidding, right -- ???? What -- ??? !!!!!

Talk about coincidence theory -- !!!!

No -- in fact, "Oswald was employed by the CIA working on high level assignments and

probably also for the FBI" --

The Tunnheim Panel confirmed that --

[glitch]

15. Michael Parenti is awesome. Thank you for posting! K & R nt

[defendandprotect]

17. Parenti one of the few who talks about right-wing PROPAGANDA --

I don't mind Noam Chomsky not calling JFK assassination a coup -- or 9/11 a farce --
After all, he has a lot to do -- a lot on his hands.

What I do mind about Noam Chomsky is his SUPPORTING THE WARREN COMMISSION AND SAYING SUPPORTING THE MYTH OF 9/11 -- !!!!

WHY DOES HE DO THAT???

[struggle4progress]

18. Monopoly Media Manipulation (2001)

In a capitalist “democracy” like the United States, the corporate news media faithfully reflect the dominant class ideology both in their reportage and commentary. At the same time, these media leave the impression that they are free and independent, capable of balanced coverage and objective commentary. How they achieve these seemingly contradictory but legitimating goals is a matter worthy of study. ~snip~

Some critics complain that the press is sensationalistic and invasive. In fact, it is more often muted and evasive. More insidious than the sensationalistic hype is the artful avoidance. Truly sensational stories (as opposed to sensationalistic) are downplayed or avoided outright. Sometimes the suppression includes not just vital details but the entire story itself, even ones of major import. Reports that might reflect poorly upon the national security state are least likely to see the light of day. Thus we hear about political repression perpetrated by officially designated “rogue” governments, but information about the brutal murder and torture practiced by U.S.-sponsored surrogate forces in the Third World, and other crimes committed by the U.S. national security state are denied public airing, being suppressed with a consistency that would be called “totalitarian” were it to occur in some other countries. ~snip~

Like all propagandists, mainstream media people seek to prefigure our perception of a subject with a positive or negative label. Some positive ones are: “stability,” “the president’s firm leadership,” “a strong defense,” and “a healthy economy.” Indeed, not many Americans would want instability, wobbly presidential leadership, a weak defense, and a sick economy. The label defines the subject without having to deal with actual particulars that might lead us to a different conclusion. ~snip~

One has to marvel at how the corporate news media can give so much emphasis to surface happenings, to style and process, and so little to the substantive issues at stake. A glaring example is the way elections are covered. The political campaign is reduced to a horse race: Who will run? Who will get the nomination? Who will win the election? News commentators sound like theater critics as they hold forth on how this or that candidate projected a positive image, came across effectively, and had a good rapport with the audience. The actual issues are accorded scant attention, and the democratic dialogue that is supposed to accompany a contest for public office rarely is heard through the surface din. ~snip~

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

[defendandprotect]

19. Was listening to the first one/JFK and it failed after first 12 minutes . ..

I'll try again later --

[G_j]

20. Michael Parenti rocks!

:applause: thanks!



:hi:

[bleever]

23. K&R.

:thumbsup:

[malaise]

25. Parenti on The Stolen Presidential Elections

http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html

[CrispyQ]

26. I've never heard of Parenti before.

So I checked my library & I'm surprised they don't have even one of his many books! I'll be by a used book store this week, I'll check there, too.

Thanks for the great thread & to everyone for all the great links! :thumbsup:

[leftchick]

27. I saw Parenti interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-Span a few years ago

I was blown away. I immediately bought one of his books and checked out his web site. I completely agree with Cornel West.

Thank You SLaD!

:hi:

[Ellen Forradalom]

28. I heard him speak about 15 years ago

He came across as too much of an apologist for the Soviet Union for my taste. That put me off him, so I haven't read his works.

[Octafish]

29. Parenti should be CEO of ABCNNBCBSFauxNoiseNutwork.

Here's some light on the subject of why the LEFT, of all people, poo-poo conspiracy talk when it comes to JFK, let alone everything else that's happened...

From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti
(1996, City Lights Books)
(Pages 172 - 191)

THE JFK ASSASSINATION II:
CONSPIRACY PHOBIA
ON THE LEFT

Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon's downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as "a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery," the greatest financial crime in history.

Conspiracy or Coincidence?

Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.

At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, "Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?" I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that "free-market reforms" are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, "more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies" (New York Times 11/25/95).

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

CONTINUED...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4086438&mesg_id=4118423

The guy is profound. And he'd straighten Corporate McPravda right out.

Thanks 'Dreamy!