Honest question, has Michael Parenti ever been wrong about anything?

Honest question, has Michael Parenti ever been wrong about anything?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Attached: height.576.no_border.width.1024.jpg (1024x576, 39.29K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Pg9xgJc2efc
youtu.be/05tz0V9IBi0
bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html
theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/11/castro-oswald-could-not-have-been-the-one-who-killed-kennedy/281674/
jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/
jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx
rense.com/general44/exec.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

No

'no'

Attached: Michael Parenti - Race Gender and Class Struggle.mp4 (320x240, 3.49M)

He's based

He's probably one of the most uncontroversialy best socialist thinkers of the modern day. I hope to meet him someday but i doubt I'll be able to considering his age

reason I asked is cause I've always been disappointed in leftists thinkers and wanted to get it out of the way.

seems like he's the real deal

No

Attached: No. meme.png (500x200, 46.27K)

hes a generic ☭TANKIE☭
when SU fell he became a slightly unhinged generic ☭TANKIE☭
also hes boring

He is not. Michael Parenti is very not sectarian, he even defended Tito's Yugoslavia

Haven’t read anything by him, but Blackshirts and Reds is on my list for a paper I’m writing. What position does he take on the Moscow Trials? What about the Hungarian uprising in 1956?

What is Blackshirts and Reds about? Seems like an interesting book.

Not at all.

Liberal detected

Im reading Blackshirts and Reds right now and so far its basically about the differences in how fascists and communists come to power, and as i get further into it its also about how fascist government functioned.
Pretty much about dispelling the myth of the fascist "revolution"

from a Marxist perspective obviously

Oh my goodness, what a compliment.

Attached: 1346509171299.jpg (896x792, 401.36K)

Seems pretty interesting, might wanna check it out.

...

Yes.

His weird defense of conspiracy theories and the whole conspiracy culture. Maybe in the 1990s it seemed like there was some potential in conspiracy theories to help raise class consciousness, but I think now it should be very obvious to everyone that they're a very right-wing phenomenon that, in anything, protects false consciousness.

t.CIA

He was probably wrong about these this.

Attached: 32653022_200610237222342_1869308082346000384_n.jpg (741x960, 108.91K)

Proper "conspiracy theories" rarely revolve around the CIA at this point. They're about various shadowy cabals who want to subvert our nation and its precious values and morals and RULE DA WORLD.

What conspiracy theories has he defended? I haven't heard this before

He just sort of defended them in general.
youtube.com/watch?v=Pg9xgJc2efc

Ill check it out later
lot of hammer and sickle posters in this thread huh

yes.

...

So is Black Shirts and Reds a good jumping on book? Are there any other good ones anyone can recommend?
I saw The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome in a bookstore nearby. Probably still there. (I know I know. Someday I'll be reading off a screen)


Hmm. I guess we'll never know for sure.

How is this controversial to you?

This is a dumb way of looking at it. Parenti is only defending the existence of real conspiracies. It's an objective fact that the bourgeoisie do conspire among each other to expand their power.

no, he's rad as fuck

Attached: thumby wumby.jpg (798x809, 48.16K)

agreed and same


this. before anything else he is against capitalism and defends all socialists from slander. a true leftist hero.

Attached: jzPFMK071kr_3zVKyPr-p7grngZpI3q4mBK93CdNyRQ.jpg (640x314, 45.88K)

I've heard that this book gets a lot of facts wrong, which is a shame because it looks really interesting.

That's awfully vague.

He's easily one of the best leftist authors alive. Everyone should read Blackshirts and Reds

seriously? The guy who unironically thinks the army and medicare make American socialist?

Where?

Attached: heresy.jpg (400x400, 26.37K)

I think during this lecture. He talks about good things of Yugoslavia and how Yugo car had market share in USA and now it's all gone.

youtu.be/05tz0V9IBi0

Not a ☭TANKIE☭, but holy shit neck yourself contrarian shitposter

Yeah, nice try

This. Still love him though.

What's so questionable about his position on conspiracies?

He's hinted at believing 9/11 was a false flag attack and that the CIA killed JFK.

Attached: 1478545690134.png (640x360, 229.64K)

"america is communist"
t. parenti

And what's the problem with that?

How can it be that you don't think 9/11 was a false flag? If you actually look into it, it's pretty much irrefutable the CIA and Mossad involvement that occurred. Don't know much about the JFK's assasination to say it was the CIA though, so if anyone can refute this it'd be appreciated.

this is how Jordan Peterson fanboys write. go fuck yourself.

vietcong flag btfo

No he’s not dude wtf

Nice argument nigger.

are you a molyneux fan too? have a dollar.

This anti-conspiracy circlejerk on Zig Forums is fucking weird.

It seems strange to me that Zig Forums is generally clever enough to tell when we're lied to regarding events such as the gas attacks in Syria, but we're completely unable to maintain that skepticism when discussing similar matters that occurred longer ago

Shut the fuck up.

I sincerely hope you guys don’t do this.

Attached: 8520138D-5B7A-4C7A-86CB-C8F585AE1435.jpeg (209x209, 22.21K)

If the CIA killed JFK than that would be the only good thing they have ever done.

This. Remember that Kennedy was a Trump-tier failson who openly praised Hitler in his private journals and was a fervent anti-communist. He deserved it.

Attached: 1533266764074.jpg (563x675, 89.69K)

The syria sarin incident also had a lot of people banned in here and a considerable part of Zig Forums went full-on "animal assad" mode so idk.

You know the null hypothesis is suppose to be zero not one.

What?

True but after the Bay of Pigs he was reconsidering the imperialist course the US was taking and was hoping for detente with the USSR. He was even privately contemplating recognizing Cuba and withdrawing from Vietnam iirc. Obviously Kennedy was still a porky and agent of capital, but if the CIA did kill him then they clearly did so because they didn’t think he was imperialist enough. If that’s the case I fail to see how his death was a good thing, especially since we got Johnson immediately after.

I wouldn’t have held my breath.

This is the crux of this conspiracy, that he was JUST about to not be an incredibly typical American president like he had been right up to the fucking day he was assassinated. I think it might have something to do with liberalism seeping into our politics making us want to be sad about JFK. The right have their own variant of this, where JFK was RIGHT ABOUT to expose the ebil Jewish Illuminati Mason NEW World Order in the banking system.

Except that is borne out by historical evidence. The missile crisis had a huge impact on him, and it’s known that he was planning on withdrawing from Vietnam. His commitment to toppling Cuba was itself apparently lukewarm. The Bay is Pigs was thought up by Eisenhower, and while it was underway Kennedy repeatedly refused to launch direct US air support for the expats, much to the rage of the generals and CIA. Again, not suggesting that he wasn’t an imperialist, but he clearly wasn’t as aggressively hawkish as other presidents, which would explain why the CIA would want him dead.

What is the evidence for this? He massively increased troop levels in Vietnam.

MacNamara as well as other insiders in Kennedy’s cabinet have asserted that he had made the decision to withdraw but had yet to make it official or public. This was as little as a month before he was assassinated, and so he never had the opportunity to put it into effect. This was following a report from a fact finding mission which basically said the war was unwinnable, which Kennedy explicitly said he agreed with.

bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam

Yugoslav "socialism" was even more revisionist than Soviet Union but it was still better than what happened afterwards and is thus worth defending
the same goes for the USSR, before anyone gets mad

Great article, thanks. As an aside the discussion of a potential nuclear attack on the USSR during that period is very interesting. Krushchev's willingness to back down in the Cuban Missile Crisis becomes incredible when you realise that those missiles in Cuba were really the USSR's only credible nuclear threat to the American homeland at that time.

1) Oswald profusely denied hisinvolvemnt in JFK's murder
ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

2) Fidel Castro also stated that the murder could not have been Oswalds work, stated several times in this interview
theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/11/castro-oswald-could-not-have-been-the-one-who-killed-kennedy/281674/

3) What is a given is that the CIA was involved since they refuse to open files on these keyh subjects that would easily reveal wether or not he was involved.
jfkfacts.org/top-6-jfk-files-the-cia-still-keeps-secret/

4) The reason JFK, his brother and his son were killed off was BECAUSE of their more moderate approach to the USSR. Even Khruschev with his revisionism was not stupid enough to want the destruction of the USSR and communism and Brezhnev kept the USSR in control and a good example of communism. JFK warned about a secret society in America and tried to take the monetary power of america away from the private Fed;

His speech on the secret societies,
jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx

His executive order № 11110
rense.com/general44/exec.htm

Lastly Oswald was killed before he went to trial, by a man supposedly in rage that JFK was killed (totally a CIA stooge). And Robert was killed too.

What do you think of the possibility of the mafia being connected with the assassination? They lost millions in Cuba and were counting on Kennedy to restore their investments with the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy was also behind a major federal crackdown on organized crime, and his family had mafia connections going back decades. Also iirc Jack Ruby had mob connections as well.

It is a possibility, but considering that the CIA also had no qualsm in working with gangs and mafias after JFK's assassination, those two aren't far apart either.

To echo, they may have the motive, but they don't have the resources to cover all that up the way the Pentagon does.

What actually happened is nearly impossible to speculate about. The endless drama among feds is a classic example of the power struggles inherent to the ruling class's functioning arm, and they are often more concerned with covering their own asses than that of the government itself. Plausible deniability was literally coined by spooks, so it's entire possible that, for example, Oswald actually did off Kennedy, but releasing the relevant files would happen to be inconvenient for quite a few people's careers, due to the feds' general disbelief that the law applies to them.

No, it is completely impossible for him to have killed Kennedy.
They've been doctoring photos and ignoring the film that plainly shows him getting shot from the front, and releasing phony ass autopsy photos for decades now.

Attached: On the Trail of the Assassins - Garrison.jpg (432x648, 149.05K)

Didn't say they "deserved" it
but the forces of disintegration were partly a result of Titoism

I'd like to clarify that "thinking in conspiracies" (should I say "belief in intelligent design"?) in general is considered to be a Right-wing mindset.

For example, instead of thinking that systematic problems (ex. objective conditions of Capitalism force Capitalist to exploit workers) are caused by the qualities of the system (force of nature, basically), it is much more comfortable intellectually (it's simple) and emotionally (there is someone to blame) for Right-wingers to think that there is some sort of enemy, malevolent intent that is behind bad things (Jewish/Masonic/Illuminati/Post-Modern Neo-Marxist conspiracy).


That's not particularly tinfoil. He is talking about specific events and US has a long history of being politically creative.

I mean, who the fuck tests bio-weapons on their own cities or creates whole underground networks of terrorists to carry out false-flag acts of terror?

Moreover, alphabet soup was always blaze about democracy and civil rights. It's hardly impossible for them to transition from killing political leaders in foreign nations to killing political leaders in their own nation (which they were already doing, albeit on a lower level for wrong kind of political leaders). Or up the ante a bit with their false-flag terrorism.

BASED.

Pretty fair point. But accusing Parenti of favouring conspiracy theories over class struggle and histmat misses the mark so hard it's basically slander.