Michael Parenti _ Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy_ Information Clearing House_ ICH

8/6/2019 Michael Parenti _ Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy_ Information Clearing House_ ICH

1/35

7/5/11 9:Michael Parenti : Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy: Information Clearing House: ICH

Page 1le:///Users/michaelprior/Desktop/Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House:%20ICH.webarchive

Making the World Safe for

Hypocrisy

By Michael Parenti

June 28, 2011 "Information Clearing House" --Why has

the United States government supported counterinsurgency in

Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, and many other places

around the world, at such a loss of human life to the

populations of those nations? Why did it invade tiny Grenada

and then Panama? Why did it support mercenary wars agains

progressive governments in Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola

Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, East Timor, Western Sahar

South Yemen, and elsewhere?

Is it because our leaders want to save democracy? Are they

concerned about the well-being of these defenseless peoples?

Is our national security threatened? I shall try to show that the

arguments given to justify U.S. policies are false ones.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4b75742d76f1531dhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/


2/35



But this does not mean the policies themselves are senseless.

American intervention may seem "wrongheaded" but, in fact,

it is fairly consistent and horribly successful.

The history of the United States has been one of territorial aneconomic expansionism, with the benefits going mostly to the

U.S. business class in the form of growing investments and

markets, access to rich natural resources and cheap labor, and

the accumulation of enormous profits.

The American people have had to pay the costs of empire,supporting a huge military establishment with their taxes,

while suffering the loss of jobs, the neglect of domestic

services, and the loss of tens of thousands of American lives

overseas military ventures.

The greatest costs, of course, have been borne by the peoplesof the Third World who have endured poverty, pillage,

disease, dispossession, exploitation, illiteracy, and the

widespread destruction of their lands, cultures, and lives.

As a relative latecomer to the practice of colonialism, the

United States could not match the older European powers inthe acquisition of overseas territories. But the United States

was the earliest and most consummate practitioner of

neoimperialism or neocolonialism, the process of dominating

the politico-economic life of a nation without benefit of direc


3/35



possession.

Almost half a century before the British thought to give a

colonized land its nominal independence, as in India-while

continuing to exploit its labor and resources, and dominate itsmarkets and trade-the United States had perfected this practic

in Cuba and elsewhere.

In places like the Philippines, Haiti, and Nicaragua, and when

dealing with Native American nations, U.S. imperialism

proved itself as brutal as the French in Indochina, the Belgianin the Congo, the Spaniards in South America, the Portuguese

in Angola, the Italians in Libya, the Germans in Southwest

Africa, and the British almost everywhere else. Not long ago,

U.S. military forces delivered a destruction upon Vietnam,

Laos, and Cambodia that surpassed anything perpetuated by

the older colonizers. And today, the U.S. counterinsurgencyapparatus and surrogate security forces in Latin America and

elsewhere sustain a system of political assassination, torture,

and repression unequaled in technological sophistication and

ruthlessness.

All this is common knowledge to progressive critics of U.Spolicy, but most Americans would be astonished to hear of it.

They have been taught that, unlike other nations, their country

has escaped the sins of empire and has been a champion of

peace and justice among nations. This enormous gap between


4/35



what the United States does in the world and what Americans

think their nation is doing is one of the great propaganda

accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.

It should be noted, though, that despite the endless propagandbarrage emanating from official sources and the corporate-

owned major media, large sectors of the public have

throughout U.S. history displayed an anti-interventionist

sentiment, an unwillingness to commit U.S. troops to oversea

actions-a sentiment facilely labeled "isolationism" by the

interventionists.

The Rational Function of Policy Myths

Within U.S. ruling circles there are differences of opinion

regarding interventionist policy. There are conservatives who

complain that U.S. policy is plagued by weakness and lackstoughness and guts and all the other John Wayne virtues. And

there are liberals who say U.S. policy is foolish and relies too

heavily on military solutions and should be more flexible and

co-optive when protecting and advancing the interests of the

United States (with such interests usually left unspecified).

A closer look reveals that U.S. foreign policy is neither weak

nor foolish, but on the contrary is rational and remarkably

successful in reproducing the conditions for the continued

international expropriation of wealth, and that while it has


5/35



suffered occasional setbacks, the people who run the foreign

policy establishment in Washington know what they are doin

and why they are doing it.

If the mythology they offer as justification for their policiesseems irrational, this does not mean that the policies

themselves are irrational from the standpoint of the class

interests of those who pursue such policies. This is true of

domestic myths and policies as well as those pertaining to

foreign policy.

Once we grasp this, we can see how notions and arrangement

that are harmful, wasteful, indeed, destructive of human and

social values-and irrational from a human and social

viewpoint-are not irrational for global finance capital because

the latter has no dedication to human and social values.

Capitalism has no loyalty to anything but itself, to theaccumulation of wealth. Once we understand that, we can see

the cruel rationality of the seemingly irrational myths that

Washington policy makers peddle. Some times what we see a

irrational is really the discrepancy between what the myth

wants us to believe and what is true.

But again this does not mean the interests served are stupid o

irrational, as the liberals like to complain. There is a differenc

between confusion and deception, a difference between

stupidity and subterfuge. Once we understand the underlying


6/35



class interests of the ruling circles, we will be less mystified

by their myths.

A myth is not an idle tale or a fanciful story but a powerful

cultural force used to legitimate existing social relations. Theinterventionist mythology does just that, by emphasizing a

community of interests between interventionists in

Washington and the American people when in fact there is

none, and by blurring over the question of who pays and who

profits from U.S. global interventionism.

The mythology has been with us for so long and much of it

sufficiently internalized by the public as to be considered part

of the political culture. The interventionist mythology, like all

other cultural beliefs, does not just float about in space. It

must be mediated through a social structure. The national

media play a crucial role in making sure that no fundamentallcritical views of the rationales underlying and justifying U.S.

policy gain national exposure. A similar role is played by the

various institutes and policy centers linked to academia and, o

course, by political lead ers themselves.

Saving Democracy with Tyranny

Our leaders would have us believe we intervened in

Nicaragua, for instance, because the Sandinista government

was opposed to democracy. The U.S.-supported invasion by


7/35



right-wing Nicaraguan mercenaries was an "effort to bring

them to elections." Putting aside the fact that the Sandinistas

had already conducted fair and open elections in 1984, we

might wonder why U.S. leaders voiced no such urgent deman

for free elections and Western-style parliamentarism duringthe fifty years that the Somoza dictatorship-installed and

supported by the United States-plundered and brutalized the

Nicaraguan nation.

Nor today does Washington show any great concern for

democracy in any of the U.S.-backed dictatorships around theworld (unless one believes that the electoral charade in a

country like El Salvador qualifies as "democracy").

If anything, successive U.S. administrations have worked har

to subvert constitutional and popularly accepted governments

that pursued policies of social reform favorable to thedowntrodden and working poor. Thus the U.S. national

security state was instrumental in the overthrow of popular

reformist leaders such as Arbenz in Guatemala, Jagan in

Guyana, Mossadegh in Iran, Bosch in the Dominican

Republic, Sukarno in Indonesia, Goulart in Brazil, and

Allende in Chile.

And let us not forget how the United States assisted the

militarists in overthrowing democratic governments in Greece

Uruguay, Bolivia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Turkey. Given this


8/35



record, it is hard to believe that the CIA trained, armed, and

financed an expeditionary force of Somocista thugs and

mercenaries out of a newly acquired concern for Western-sty

electoral politics in Nicaragua.

In defense of the undemocratic way U.S. leaders go about

"saving democracy," our policy makers offer this kind of

sophistry: "We cannot always pick and choose our allies.

Sometimes we must support unsavory right-wing authoritaria

regimes in order to prevent the spread of far more repressive

totalitarian communist ones."

But surely, the degree of repression cannot be the criterion

guiding White House policy, for the United States has

supported some of the worst butchers in the world: Batista in

Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua, the Shah in Iran, Salazar in

Portugal, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, Zia inPakistan, Evren in Turkey, and even Pol Pot in Cambodia.

In the 1965 Indonesian coup, the military slaughtered 500,00

people, according to the Indonesian chief of security (New

York Times, 12/21/77; some estimates run twice as high), but

this did not deter U.S. leaders from assisting in that takeoveror from maintaining cozy relations with the same Jakarta

regime that subsequently perpetuated a campaign of repressio

and mass extermination in East Timor.


9/35



U.S. leaders and the business-owned mainstream press

describe "Marxist rebels" in countries like El Salvador as

motivated by a lust for conquest. Our leaders would have us

believe that revolutionaries do not seek power in order to

eliminate hunger; they simply hunger for power. But even ifthis were true, why would that be cause for opposing them?

Washington policy makers have never been bothered by the

power appetites of the "moderate" right-wing authoritarian

executionists, torturers, and militarists.

In any case, it is not true that leftist governments are more

repressive than fascist ones. The political repression under the

Sandinistas in Nicaragua was far less than what went on unde

Somoza. The political repression in Castro's Cuba is mild

compared to the butchery perpetrated by the free-market

Batista regime. And the revolutionary government in Angolatreats its people much more gently than did the Portuguese

colonizers.

Furthermore, in a number of countries successful social

revolutionary movements have brought a net increase in

individual freedom and well-being by advancing theconditions for health and human life, by providing jobs and

education for the unemployed and illiterate, by using

economic resources for social development rather than for

corporate profit, and by overthrowing brutal reactionary


10/35


Page 10le:///Users/michaelprior/Desktop/Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A00%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House:%20ICH.webarchive

regimes, ending foreign exploitation, and involving large

sectors of the populace in the task of rebuilding their

countries. Revolutions can extend a number of real freedoms

without destroying those freedoms that never existed under

prior reactionary regimes.

Who Threatens Whom?

Our policy makers also argue that right-wing governments, fo

all their deficiencies, are friendly toward the United States,

while communist ones are belligerent and therefore a threat toU.S. security. But, in truth, every Marxist or left-leaning

country, from a great power like the Soviet Union to a small

power like Vietnam or Nicaragua to a minipower like Grenad

under the New Jewel Movement, sought friendly diplomatic

and economic relations with the United States.

These governments did so not necessarily out of love and

affection for the United States, but because of something

firmer-their own self-interest. As they themselves admitted,

their economic development and political security would have

been much better served if they could have enjoyed good

relations with Washington.

If U.S. Ieaders justify their hostility toward leftist governmen

on the grounds that such nations are hostile toward us, what

becomes the justification when these countries try to be


11/35



friendly? When a newly established revolutionary or

otherwise dissident regime threatens U.S. hegemonic

globalists with friendly relations, this does pose a problem.

The solution is to (1) launch a well-orchestrated campaign ofdisinformation that heaps criticism on the new government fo

imprisoning the butchers, assassins, and torturers of the old

regime and for failing to institute Western electoral party

politics; (2) denounce the new government as a threat to our

peace and security; (3) harass and destabilize it and impose

economic sanctions; and (4) attack it withcounterrevolutionary surrogate forces or, if necessary, U.S.

troops. Long before the invasion, the targeted country

responds with angry denunciations of U.S. policy.

It moves closer to other "outlawed" nations and attempts to

build up its military defenses in anticipation of a U.S.-sponsored attack. These moves are eagerly seized upon by

U.S. officials and media as evidence of the other country's

antagonism toward the United States, and as justification for

the policies that evoked such responses.

Yet it is difficult to demonstrate that small countries likeGrenada and Nicaragua are a threat to U.S. security. We

remember the cry of the hawk during the Vietnam war: "If w

don't fight the Vietcong in the jungles of Indochina, we will

have to fight them on the beaches of California."


12/35



The image of the Vietnamese getting into their PT boats and

crossing the Pacific to invade California was, as Walter

Lippmann noted at the time, a grievous insult to the U.S.

Navy. The image of a tiny ill-equipped Nicaraguan armydriving up through Mexico and across the Rio Grande in orde

to lay waste to our land is equally ludicrous.

The truth is, the Vietnamese, Cubans, Grenadians, and

Nicaraguans have never invaded the United States; it is the

United States that has invaded Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, andNicaragua, and it is our government that continues to try to

isolate, destabilize, and in other ways threaten any country th

tries to drop out of the global capitalist system or even assert

an economic nationalism within it.

Remember the Red Menace

For many decades of cold war, when all other arguments

failed, there was always the Russian bear. According to our

cold warriors, small leftist countries and insurgencies

threatened our security because they were extensions of Sovi

power. Behind the little Reds there supposedly stood the Gian

Red Menace.

Evidence to support this global menace thesis was sometimes

farfetched. President Carter and National Security Advisor


13/35



Brezinski suddenly discovered a "Soviet combat brigade" in

Cuba in 1979- which turned out to be a noncombat unit that

had been there since 1962. This did not stop President Reagan

from announcing to a joint session of Congress several years

later: "Cuba is host to a Soviet combat brigade...."

In 1983, in a nationally televised speech, Reagan pointed to

satellite photos that revealed the menace of three Soviet

helicopters in Nicaragua. Sandinista officials subsequently

noted that the helicopters could be seen by anyone arriving at

Managua airport and, in any case, posed no military threat tothe United States. Equally ingenious was the way Reagan

transformed a Grenadian airport, built to accommodate direct

tourist flights, into a killer-attack Soviet forward base, and a

twenty-foot-deep Grenadian inlet into a potential Soviet

submarine base.

In 1967 Secretary of State Dean Rusk argued that U.S.

national security was at stake in Vietnam because the

Vietnamese were puppets of "Red China" and if China won in

Vietnam, it would overrun all of Asia and this supposedly

would be the beginning of the end for all of us. Later we wer

told that the Salvadoran rebels were puppets of the Sandinistain Nicaragua who were puppets of the Cubans who were

puppets of the Russians.

In truth, there was no evidence that Third World peoples took


14/35



up arms and embarked upon costly revolutionary struggles

because some sinister ringmaster in Moscow or Peking

cracked the whip. Revolutions are not push-button affairs;

rather, they evolve only if there exits a reservoir of hope and

grievance that can be galvanized into popular action.Revolutions are made when large segments of the population

take courage from each other and stand up to an insufferable

social order.

People are inclined to endure great abuses before risking thei

lives in confrontations with vastly superior armed forces.There is no such thing as a frivolous revolution, or a

revolution initiated and orchestrated by a manipulative cabal

residing in a foreign capital.

Nor is there evidence that once the revolution succeeded, the

new leaders placed the interests of their country at the disposof Peking or Moscow. Instead of becoming the willing

puppets of "Red China," as our policy makers predicted,

Vietnam found itself locked in combat with its neighbor to th

north. And, as noted earlier, almost every Third World

revolutionary country has tried to keep its options open and

has sought friendly diplomatic and economic relations withthe United States.

Why then do U.S. Ieaders intervene in every region and

almost every nation in the world, either overtly with U.S.


15/35



military force or covertly with surrogate mercenary forces,

death squads, aid, bribes, manipulated media, and rigged

elections? Is all this intervention just an outgrowth of a deepl

conditioned anticommunist ideology? Are U.S. Ieaders

responding to the public's longstanding phobia about the RedMenace?

Certainly many Americans are anticommunist, but this

sentiment does not translate into a demand for overseas

interventionism. Quite the contrary. Opinion polls over the la

half-century have shown repeatedly that the U.S. public is nousually supportive of com mitting U.S. forces in overseas

engagements and prefers friendly relations with other nations

including communist ones. Far from galvanizing our leaders

into interventionist actions, popular opinion has been one of

the few restraining influences.

There is no denying, however, that opinion can sometimes be

successfully manipulated by jingoist ventures. The invasion o

Grenada and the slaughter perpetrated against Iraq are cases i

point. The quick, easy, low-cost wins reaffirmed for some

Americans the feeling that we were not weak and indecisive,

not sitting ducks to some foreign prey.

But even in these cases, it took an intensive and sustained

propaganda barrage of half-truths and lies by the national

security state and its faithful lackeys in the national media to


16/35



muster some public support for military actions against

Grenada and Iraq.

In sum, various leftist states do not pose a military threat to

U.S. security; instead, they want to trade and live in peacewith us, and are much less abusive and more helpful toward

their people than the reactionary regimes they replaced.

In addition, U.S. Ieaders have shown little concern for

freedom in the Third World and have helped subvert

democracy in a number of nations. And popular opiniongenerally opposes interventionism by lopsided majorities.

What then motivates U.S. policy and how can we think it is

not confused and contradictory?

The answer is that Marxist and other leftist or revolutionary

states do pose a real threat, not to the United States as anational entity and not to the American people as such, but to

the corporate and financial interests of our country, to Exxon

and Mobil, Chase Manhattan and First National, Ford and

General Motors, Anaconda and U.S. Steel, and to capitalism

as a world system.

The problem is not that revolutionaries accumulate power but

that they use power to pursue substantive policies that are

unacceptable to U.S. ruling circles. What bothers our politica

leaders (and generals, investment bankers, and corporate


17/35



heads) is not the supposed lack of political democracy in thes

countries but their attempts to construct economic democracy

to depart from the impoverishing rigors of the international

free market, to use capital and labor in a way that is inimical

to the interests of multinational corporatism.

A New York Times editorial (3/30183) referred to "the

undesirable and offensive Managua regime" and the danger o

seeing "Marxist power ensconced in Managua." But what

specifically is so dangerous about "Marxist power ?"

What was undesirable and offensive about the Sandinista

government in Managua? What did it do to us? What did it do

to its own people? Was it the literacy campaign?

The health care and housing programs? The land reform and

development of farm cooperatives? The attempt at rebuildingManagua, at increasing production or achieving a more

equitable distribution of taxes, services, and food?

In large part, yes. Such reforms, even if not openly denounced

by our government, do make a country suspect because they

are symptomatic of an effort to erect a new and competingeconomic order in which the prerogatives of wealth and

corporate investment are no longer secure, and the land, labor

and resources are no longer used primarily for the

accumulation of corporate profits.


18/35



U.S. Ieaders and the corporate-owned press would have us

believe they opposed revolutionary governments because the

latter do not have an opposition press or have not thrown thei

country open to Western style (and Western-financed)elections. U.S. Ieaders come closer to their true complaint

when they condemn such governments for interfering with th

prerogatives of the "free market."

Similarly, Henry Kissinger came close to the truth when he

defended the fascist overthrow of the democratic government

in Chile by noting that when obliged to choose between savin

the economy or saving democracy, we must save the

economy. Had Kissinger said, we must save the capitalist

economy, it would have been the whole truth. For under

Allende, the danger was not that the economy was collapsing

(although the U.S. was doing its utmost to destabilize it); the

real threat was that the economy was moving away from free-

market capitalism and toward a more equitable social

democracy, albeit in limited ways.

U.S. officials say they are for change just as long as it is

peaceful and not violently imposed. Indeed, economic elites

may some times tolerate very limited reforms, learning to giv

a little in order to keep a lot. But judging from Chile,

Guatemala, Indonesia, and a number of other places, they hav

a low tolerance for changes, even peaceful ones, that tamper


19/35



with the existing class structure and threaten the prerogatives

of corporate and landed wealth.

To the rich and powerful it makes little difference if their

interests are undone by a peaceful transformation rather than violent upheaval. The means concern them much less than the

end results. It is not the "violent" in violent revolution they

hate; it is the "revolution." (Third World elites seldom perish

in revolutions. The worst of them usually manage to make it t

Miami, Madrid, Paris, or New York.)

They dread socialism the way the rest of us might dread

poverty and hunger. So, when push comes to shove, the

wealthy classes of Third World countries, with a great deal of

help from the corporate-military-political elites in our country

will use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming they ar

saving democracy from communism.

A socialist Cuba or a socialist North Korea, as such, are not a

threat to the survival of world capitalism. The danger is not

socialism in any one country but a socialism that might spread

to many countries. Multinational corporations, as their name

implies, need the entire world, or a very large part of it, toexploit and to invest and expand in. There can be no such

thing as "capitalism in one country."

The domino theory-the view that if one country falls to the


20/35



revolutionaries, others will follow in quick succession-may n

work as automatically as its more fearful proponents claim,

but there usually is a contagion, a power of example and

inspiration, and sometimes even direct encouragement and

assistance from one revolution to another.

Support the Good Guys?

If revolutions arise from the sincere aspirations of the

populace, then it is time the United States identify itself with

these aspi rations, so liberal critics keep urging. They ask:"Why do we always find ourselves on the wrong side in the

Third World? Why are we always on the side of the

oppressor?"

Too bad the question is treated as a rhetorical one, for it is

deserving of a response. The answer is that right-wingoppressors, however heinous they be, do not tamper with, and

give full support to, private investment and profit, while the

leftists pose a challenge to that system.

There are those who used to say that we had to learn from the

communists, copy their techniques, and thus win the battle fothe hearts and minds of the people. Can we imagine the rulin

interests of the United States abiding by this? The goal is not

to copy communist reforms but to prevent them.


21/35



How would U.S. interventionists try to learn from and outdo

the revolutionaries? Drive out the latifundio owners and

sweatshop bosses? Kick out the plundering corporations and

nationalize their holdings? Imprison the militarists and

torturers? Redistribute the land, use capital investment forhome consumption or hard currency exchange instead of cash

crop exports that profit a rich few?

Install a national health insurance program and construct

hospitals and clinics at public expense? Mobilize the

population for literacy campaigns and for work in publiclyowned enterprises? If U.S. rulers did all this, they would have

done more than defeat the communists and other

revolutionaries, they would have carried out the communists'

programs. They would have prevented revolution only by

bringing about its effects-thereby defeating their own goals.

U.S. policy makers say they cannot afford to pick and choose

the governments they support, but that is exactly what they do

And the pattern of choice is consistent through each

successive administration regardless of the party or personalit

in office. U.S. Ieaders support those governments, be they

autocratic or democratic in form, that are friendly towardcapitalism and oppose those governments, be they autocratic

or democratic, that seek to develop a noncapitalist social

order.


22/35


23/35



stupidity about it. It is incorrect to say, "We have no foreign

policy" or "We have a stupid and confused foreign policy."

Again, it is necessary not to confuse subterfuge with stupidity

The policy is remarkably rational. Its central organizingprinciple is to make the world safe for the multinational

corporations and the free-market capital-accumulation system

However, our rulers cannot ask the U.S. public to sacrifice

their tax dollars and the lives of their sons for Exxon and

Chase Manhattan, for the profit system as such, so they tell u

that the interventions are for freedom and national securityand the protection of unspecified "U.S. interests."

Whether policy makers believe their own arguments is not th

key question. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

Sometimes presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Georg

Bush, and Bill Clinton were doing their hypocritical best whetheir voices quavered with staged compassion for this or that

oppressed people who had to be rescued from the communist

or terrorists with U.S. missiles and troops, and sometimes the

were sincere, as when they spoke of their fear and loathing of

communism and revolution and their desire to protect U.S.

investments abroad.

We need not ponder the question of whether our leaders are

motivated by their class interests or by a commitment to anti-

communist ideology, as if these two things were in


24/35



competition with each other instead of mutually reinforcing.

The arguments our leaders proffer may be self-serving and

fabricated, yet also sincerely embraced. It is a creed's

congruity with one's material self-interest that often makes it

so compelling.

In any case, so much of politics is the rational use of irrationa

symbols. The arguments in support of interventionism may

sound and may actually be irrational and nonsensical, but the

serve a rational purpose.

Once we grasp the central consistency of U.S. foreign policy,

we can move from a liberal complaint to a radical analysis,

from criticizing the "foolishness" of our government's

behavior to understanding why the "foolishness" is not random

but persists over time against all contrary arguments and

evidence, always moving in the same elitist, repressivedirection.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and other Eastern

European communist governments, U.S. Ieaders now have a

freer hand in their interventions. A number of left reformist

governments that had relied on the Soviets for economicassistance and political protection against U.S. interference

now have nowhere to turn. The willingness of U.S. Ieaders to

tolerate economic deviations does not grow with their sense o

their growing power.


25/35



Login

David Grayling +6

Quite the contrary. Now even the palest economic

nationalism, as displayed in Iraq by Saddam Hussein over oil

prices, invites the destructive might of the U.S. military. The

goal now, as always, is to obliterate every trace of analternative system, to make it clear that there is no road to tak

except that of the free market, in a world in which the many a

home and abroad will work still harder for less so that the

favored few will accumulate more and more wealth.

That is the vision of the future to which most U.S. Ieaders areimplicitly dedicated. It is a vision taken from the past and

never forgotten by them, a matter of putting the masses of

people at home and abroad back in their place, divested of an

aspirations for a better world because they are struggling too

hard to survive in this one.

by Michael Parenti - from the book Dirty Truths

Comments (27)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity

1 week ago
http://intensedebate.com/postRSS/98678102http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167449306http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167449306&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://dangerouscreation.com/http://%20votecomment%28167449306%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167449306%2C%201%29/http://dangerouscreation.com/


26/35



ReporRe l

Manchego 0

ReporRe l

Jeff +1

There is only one thing that drives American foreign policy: what's in it

for us?

America is surely the most self-centered nation in the world. It does

nothing unless there's a dollar in it or some way to gain more power or

strategic economic and military advantage.

America hides behind a smokescreen of idealist slogans none of which

it believes in. It is seeking domination of the world purely for its own

benefit. It has become the Evil Empire and, as such, must be fought by

all means.

My recent post Reaping Our Whirlwind!

1 reply active 104960 weeks ago

1 week ago

The sins of 'Empire' may or may not initially be altruistic, but whether or

not they start that way, they pretty soon become the simple furtherance

of commerce in one form or another.

Whether it be to enforce the import or export of drugs, or the use of the

local labour as virtual slave to produce cheap commodity for expensive

exploitation, or the extraction of hitherto unappreciated raw materials,

that is what becomes its raison d'etre.

And if they contain gold or diamonds or, now, oil . . . Well, it goes

without saying. And again, now, if they permit the expansion of aterritory particularly precious in the minds of . . . Well, of whom?

2 replies active 1 week ago

1 week ago
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167451845http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167451845&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167450975http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167450975&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.dangerouscreation.com/2011/06/reaping-our-whirlwind/http://%20votecomment%28167451845%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167451845%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167450975%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167450975%29/http://%20votecomment%28167450975%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167450975%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167449306%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167449306%29/


27/35



ReporRe l

Grandom 0

ReporRe l

RICHARD_R_ROEHL +5

It would have been helpful if Parenti had explained why the "Soviet

Union and other Eastern European communist governments" collapsed

like so many houses of cards. He speaks about North Korea as if was a

socialist state that any other country would try and emulate. While much

of what Parenti writes about the history of US counter-insurgency is

true, it is a bit more complicated than how he makes it appear to be.

For many foreign observers, for example, Reagan did not invade

Grenada in 1983 because it was seen as a threat to US interests in the

region but because he had to do something to take the minds of

Americans off the blowing up of the US Marine barracks in Beirut and

his beating a hasty retreat just before that.

3 replies active 104960 weeks ago

1 week ago

Once we grasp the central consistency of U.S. foreign policy we will not

be surprised at what is happening to the United States of America--the

richest pot of workers and infrastructure to exploit in the world. They

live off human life -- remember The Matrix?

1 week ago

Let me state a well known adage here. "You can fool SOME of the

people ALL of the time... and ALL of the people SOME of the time... but

not ALL of the people ALL of the time." Sooner (rather than later) the

violent war mongering Amerikan 'plutocrazy' will implode. When thishappens... the capitalist/fascist ruling class in faster poo-food Amerika

will need to bring all the troop-dupes home... to shoot and kill members

of their own families. The foreign policy of the United $tates of

Perpetual War Profiteering is delusional... extremely violent... and

CRIMINALLY INSANE. It is why 9-11 happened. It is why so many
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167502516http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167502516&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167489703http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167489703&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://intensedebate.com/people/RICHARD_R_ROEHLhttp://%20votecomment%28167502516%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167502516%2C%201%29/http://intensedebate.com/people/RICHARD_R_ROEHLhttp://%20showreply%28167489703%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167489703%29/http://%20votecomment%28167489703%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167489703%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167451845%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167451845%29/


28/35



ReporRe l

PAUX +1

ReporRe l

fascistslovetorture +3

Amerikans are homeless and hungry. Oh say can you see?


1 week ago

He wrote"there is no ..revolution initiated and orchestrated by amanipulative cabal residing in a foreign capital", yet his discription of US

foreign policy is exactly this. Subterfuge, repressive anti democracy

actions for the coffers of the eletists.

1 week ago

"They dread socialism the way the rest of us might dread poverty andhunger. So when push comes to shove, the wealthy classes of Third

World countries, with a great deal of help from the corporate-military-

political elites in our country, will use fascism to preserve capitalism

while claiming they are saving democracy from communism."

So now it's the same here where the well-off and wealthy blindly (or

maybe not) do use fascism to preserve their corrupt and profitable free-market heartless capitalism. Now they give us, right here at home, our

so-called Patriot act, this time to save us from the NEW useful enemy,

terrorism.

They will torture and kill, help steal elections, use disgusting

propaganda and subversion, and stack the country with militarized

police force, privatize our public resources, destabilize our communities,and generally ruin life for most everyone. Just like Libya, Iraq,

Philippines, Nicaraqua, etc etc etc. We are colonized, too, and

democracy and justice and decency are sacrificed for the economy -

THEIR economic heyday is OUR captivity.
http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167574764&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167538000http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167538000&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167506796http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167506796&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/http://%20votecomment%28167538000%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167538000%2C%201%29/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/http://%20showreply%28167506796%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167506796%29/http://%20votecomment%28167506796%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167506796%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167502516%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167502516%29/


29/35



ReporRe l

Larry Carney +3

ReporRe l

decision's valley -1

ReporRe l

Kevin +2

1 week ago

Michael always offers such a sucinct analysis of the situation. If only we

could put all the pieces together and act against what he describes so

well.

1 week ago

Is it possible that rogue tribalism (my tribe is going to beat up your tribe)

is a simple explanation for human history up to this point -- that rogue

tribalism is simply a collective of individuals who have agreed to unite

their individual aspirations to be king/queen of the mountain -- thatchaos will always be the result of failing to recognize the futility of trying

to enthrone ourselves as masters of the universe -- that the potential for

rogue tribalism exists in all human hearts -- that more rogue tribalism

can never cure rogue tribalism?

"And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven: and then

shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the son of mancoming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matt

24:30)


1 week ago

Parenti reminds me of the late Howard Zinn in that he doesn't feel it

necessary to use pompous language and obscure references to prove

his point; he simply tells it as is.

That being said, I think it needs to be stressed that countries like North

Korea are about as "socialist" as America is "free market". If the latter is
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167589490http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167589490&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167580340http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm%23IDCommentIDComment167580340&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&description=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#IDComment167574764http://%20votecomment%28167589490%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167589490%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167580340%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167580340%29/http://%20votecomment%28167580340%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167580340%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167574764%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167574764%29/http://%20votecomment%28167574764%2C%200%29/http://%20votecomment%28167574764%2C%201%29/http://%20showreply%28167538000%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167538000%29/


30/35



ReporRe l

Enter text right here!

Name Email

Submit Comment

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Displayed next to your

comments.

Not displayed publicly.

described as the free exchange of goods and services, and the former

as the people being in control of the means of production, then we have

only seen glimpses of these theoretical systems, at least outside of

hunter-gatherer and other "primitive" societies.

Ironically, sincere "libertarians" and sincere "socialists" may have morein common with each other than with the liberals/conservatives with

whom they most often identify. The problem seems to be confusion over

the concepts of "individualism" and "community"; it is argued that each

is antithetical to the other; only the anarchists seem to have figured out

that community reinforces individual freedom and vice versa.

1 2 Next

Post a new comment

Subscribe to NoneComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other

inappropriate material will be removed from the site.
http://%20idpageload%281%2C%20%27previous%27%29/http://%20idpageload%281%2C%20%27previous%27%29/http://www.addtoany.com/share_savehttp://%20showreply%28167589490%29/http://%20showreportbox%28167589490%29/


31/35



Audio of incident

between Canadiancitizen and US

immigration

officer. (733

comments)

America: The

Grim Truth:

InformationClearing House -

ICH (388

comments)

25,000 Jews live in

Iran : ICH -

Information

Clearing House(246 comments)

The Revolution

Will Not Be

Deactualized :

Information

Clearing House:

(243 comments)

TSA Screener

Accosts 3 Year

Old Child at

Security

Top 10 Posts
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26809.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28347.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26173.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25166.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25495.htm


32/35



Checkpoint : &

(241 comments)

The Imminent

Crash Of The Oil

Supply :

Information

Clearing Hous

(232 comments)

Qaddafi

Unplugged and

Uncensored:

Recollections Of

My Life -

Mu\'ummar

Qaddafi &nbs (222

comments)

: Information

Clearing House:

ICH (215

comments)

: Information

Clearing House:

ICH (213

comments)

Rarely Published

Pictures Of TheBP Disaster : ICH

- Information

Clearing House

(213 comments)

Click on "comments" below to read

or post comments

CommentsComments

Clickhere to learn how to post a comment

.Comments that include profanity or

personal attacks or other inappropriate

material will be removed from the site. Seeour complete Comment Policy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/comment_policy.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/commentshow.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25926.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27036.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28156.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27856.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25306.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26809.htm


33/35



More Comments byIntenseDebate

Audio of incident

between Canadian

citizen and US

immigration

officer. (733

comments)

America: The

Grim Truth:

Information

Clearing House -

ICH (388

comments)

25,000 Jews live in

Iran : ICH -

Information

Clearing House

(246 comments)

The Revolution

Will Not Be

Deactualized :

Information

Clearing House:(243 comments)

TSA Screener

Accosts 3 Year

Old Child at

Security

Top 10 Posts

Sign up for our Daily Email NewsletterGO

Please help SupportInformation Clearing House

One-Time Donation

$

Recurring Monthly Donation

$

Thank you for your support
http://www.constantcontact.com/safesubscribe.jsphttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26809.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28347.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26173.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25166.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25495.htmhttp://www.intensedebate.com/http://addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=xa-4aaa8f567394a42ahttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28423.htm#http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&winname=addthis&pub=unknown&source=tbx-250&lng=en&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.informationclearinghouse.info%2Farticle28423.htm&title=Michael%20Parenti%C2%A0%C2%A0%20%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Making%20the%20World%20Safe%20for%20Hypocrisy%3A%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Information%20Clearing%20House%3A%20ICH&ate=AT-unknown/-/-/4e13bd81174549dc/1&frommenu=1&uid=4e13bd815aa4f9ab&tt=0


34/35



Checkpoint : &

(241 comments)

The Imminent

Crash Of The Oil

Supply :

Information

Clearing Hous

(232 comments)

Qaddafi

Unplugged and

Uncensored:

Recollections Of

My Life -

Mu\'ummar

Qaddafi &nbs (222

comments)

: Information

Clearing House:

ICH (215

comments)

: Information

Clearing House:

ICH (213

comments)

Rarely Published

Pictures Of TheBP Disaster : ICH

- Information

Clearing House

(213 comments)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25926.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27036.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28156.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27856.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25306.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26809.htm


35/35


Comments by

IntenseDebate

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving the included information for research an

educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no

affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is

Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the

originator.)

Search Information Clearing House

Search

HOME

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/fair_use.htmhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.htmlhttp://www.intensedebate.com/

Michael Parenti _ Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy_ Information Clearing House_ ICH

Documents

Transcript of Michael Parenti _ Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy_ Information Clearing House_ ICH