Michael Parenti, JFK and 9/11 Truth

Everyone please listen to this stunningly delivered speech by Dr Michael Parenti about the importance of exposing the truth in regards to the JFK Assassination;

Part I
Click Here (MP3)

Part II
Click Here (MP3)

I know at first glance this blog might not seem 9/11 Truth related, but in fact it's incredibly relevant. Even though Parenti seems to have been quite tentative in regards to 9/11 Truth, what he passionately articulates here in this speech is nothing short of what we've all been trying to say about 9/11. He grasps the revelatory nature and positive political potential that the JFK Assassination has to reveal the true "Gangster Nature" of the state. He completely demolishes Noam Chomsky's and Alexander Cockburn's impotent stances and arguments against pursuing the truth of what happened to Kennedy.

By hypothetically switching JFK for 9/11, this already beautifully delivered speech gets banged right up to date and is made even more cutting edge. This is one of those things that needs to be spread far and wide, whilst making the clear relation that it has to current issues like 9/11 Truth. It's another highly potent "Truth Bomb" for the infowar that absolutely needs to be utilized!

Parenti's closing statement (after explaining the excuses given by the "Left Gatekeepers" and Mainstream Media for why they deem the importance of truth in this matter irrelevant) is precisely the same validation as those who seek a real investigation into 9/11;

"I have a different name for our interests, it is not “JFK worship”, it’s not “Camelot yearnings” as the Left critics would say. It’s not “big evils” and “conspiracy titillation” as the Mainstream Media would say. Our interest is born of Democratic Struggle, a desire to know what is going on, a desire to have rulers who are worthy of our name and the name of democracy.”

It was....

when i was searching for the truth on JFK, that i found the truth on 9/11. Yes! It is relavent.

When was this recorded?


Thanks for getting this on

Thanks for getting this on the front-page man! He gave this speech in Berkeley CA on the 30th anniversary of JFK's assassination so that's November 22 1993 I think.


Two years...

After the release of the movie JFK. Apparently, the media took part in a campaign against that movie (much the same way they campaign against us). I was just out of high school, so I don't remember (nor would I have thought to look back then).

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

The MSM attack dogs were unbelievably vicious....

...prior to the film "JFK" coming out, in their defense of the official Lone Gunman fiction....I remember a Time cover story in particular.....

Every 9/11 Truther should have seen, if not own, Stone's director's cut of "JFK".

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

around 1993

I think it's described as being recorded around the time of the 30th anniversary, so around 1993.

Parenti tapes

has many of the Parenti speeches and a lot of other interesting stuff
you can subscribe the DVDs at very low cost - ships first, then you pay
for a while Ralph picked up on 9/11 issues, then 2005 he backed off again
maybe s.o. in the US wants to sent some 9/11 DVDs to him
Ralph Cole / JusticeVision
1425 W. 12th St. #262
Los Angeles, CA


Thanks to Jon Gold for making this recording available. :D

Have you noticed his many references to the great Peter Dale Scott? I wish his work would start getting more attention in the movement. I know Reprehensor promotes his work as do I, but there aren't many others.

Donate To 9/11 First Responders

How could anyone forget LOL?

How could anyone forget LOL?

As Meria Heller said

in her opening address in Chicago, "If you don't understand 11/22/63, you will never understand 9/11/2001." I agree. I have always wondered what this world would be like if JFK and RFK had lived. I am sure it would be quite different than it is today.

why doesnt Parenti come out

why doesnt Parenti come out stronger for 9/11 truth? what has he even said on the subject?

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I don't know, but

I don't know, but I think it's a good bet that someone who would know the answer to this is Barrie Zwicker.
Come to think of it, I wonder if are there any references to Parenti in 'Towers of Deception'.

Parenti wrote the forward

Parenti wrote the forward for it.

I see

Well, there you go then! I wonder, does Parenti reveal anything in that foreword about his views on 9/11?

Michael Parenti, JFK and 9/11 Truth

This was just terrific. It was amazing to hear the same names Chomsky and Cockburn in the same gatekeeper roles. I just finished David Talbot's Brothers, his book on on John and Robert Kennedy. Talbot reveals that Bobby doubted the official story on JFK's assassination from day one. Though he was investigating on his own he felt nothing could really happen until he was president. His taking the California primary put that clearly in sight. That night he was killed. Talbot faced the same MSM barricade in finding out what happened to JFK , RFK and MLK that we face every day since 9/11/01.

Parenti and Chomsky

I'd heard only bits and pieces from Parenti before this, but this was so great that now I'm a big fan. Thanks for posting it!

I've read many criticisms of Chomsky, and they've always been lame, falling into a few categories: ad hominem attack, obviously hadn't ever read a word Chomsky's written, or purposely twisted his words all out of whack. Parenti's criticisms are a completely different thing. He nails Chomsky

The pattern that Parenti describes with Chomsky et al on JFK repeats itself with 9/11. As Parenti says, they don't know a damn thing about the investigative research that's been done, and their tactic is to utter a few dismissive comments about what the experts and commissions say, then to avoid the subject as if it's unimportant. That behavior is not characteristic of Chomsky in general.

Parenti does not accuse Chomsky of being a "gatekeeper," a criticism that I've never found to be plausible. For decades, Chomsky has strongly and consistently spoken out against the status quo, often being viciously attacked for it, from both the Right and the status quo defenders on the Left. His disapproval of Israel as a Jewish State and his defense of the Palestinians show that he's not a Zionist, at least not in the modern sense of a racist mindlessly belligerent Israel-firster. If Chomsky really is a gatekeeper and/or Likudnik, he's been engaging in an incredibly long and effective act of self-sabotage.

Parenti's criticism, that Chomsky makes the conceptual mistake of seeing conspiracy as something exclusive to rather than part of the State, strikes me as right on target. That the State engages in conspiracy is a conclusion that should fall right out of the observation that power corrupts, and the fact that Chomsky has not responded to Parenti's point is perhaps a tacit affirmation that Parenti is right. Chomsky is no dummy. He knows better than to engage in an argument when he's on shaky ground. But why he's on that ground, I don't know.

That Chomsky has not bothered to learn what the 9/11 Truth movement has uncovered also indicates to me that it's a conceptual error rather than a premeditated position. If his aim were to actively promote official 9/11 dogma, he's the sort of guy who would have gathered ammunition through careful study.

Finally, it's ironic that Chomsky has himself described the Bush administration as being gangster-like. He sees it but doesn't follow through with the analogy to the obvious: conspiring to and committing crimes are what gangsters are all about. Assassinations and false flag operations are what we should expect from gangsters of the State. Chomsky says that 9/11 as an inside job is "outlandish." Well of course it is, but so what? Since when are gangsters not outlandish?

Much of this argument is also available here

I've posted this link a few times here when the topic of left gatekeepers comes up:


It's an excerpt on the 'conspiracy phobia' of leftists like Chomsky and Cockburn, from a book by Parenti published in 1996. This webpage also includes a preface, post 9/11 (written, I believe, by Brian Salter) underscoring the relevance of Parenti's analysis of the aversion of such leftists to JFK revisionism to their comparable aversion (if not outright hostility!) to 9/11 revisionism.