WHAT? John Perkins in the NY Times!

[middleworld]

I've been wondering why good 'ol John Perkins got the sideways slap from Jeff a few weeks ago in that post on shapeshifting. As far as I can tell Perkins is one of the only insiders (to some small degree an insider) to live AND tell the tale. Perhaps this interesting article in today's Times <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/business/yourmoney/19confess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">www.nytimes.com/2006/02/1...ref=slogin</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>lowers his credibility even further with Jeff, but I'm amazed, all the main talking points are there. Either the PTB are so confident they allowed this one to slip out, the NYT is trying some phony balance, there is a double agent aspect to MR. Perkins OR OR! it's just an innocent article about a reformed man on the bestseller list with a book about secret societies, conspiracies, murder and (not mentioned in the article or book) the OCCULT! A trifecta for all you RI fans. Get on over and check it out.<br><br>You jealous, Jeff?<br><br>By the way, I just read a very good interview with Michael Harner in Shaman's Drum magazine (no website!) that explains in basic terms the structure of non-ordinary reality, from a shamanic perspective, that was helpul to me in coalescing the RI angle and my own beliefs. Harner has always seemed too commercial and mainstream to me, so I never read any of his books. But the dude has some serious credentials, and 50 years in the field of magic. When I find it on the net I'll post it-<br><br>peace<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Gouda]

From the NYT article: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>For Mr. Perkins, a fundamentally optimistic man who has written self-help books about using shamanic techniques to get ahead in life, there has been no such renunciation. On the contrary, he has been traveling the country over the last 18 months, preaching his message to packed audiences at bookstores, universities and foreign-policy groups. With his innocent smile and a message of personal renewal, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Mr. Perkins, who is 61, comes across more as a wizened yoga teacher than as a hit man</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Dressed in jeans and a shabby sweater, he will urge members of his audience to close their eyes, breathe deeply and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>picture the world as a great octopus spraying a salubrious ink of natural resources and compassion to all on the planet.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Ah, my entire conception of octopi has changed for the better. Om. <p></p><i></i>

[CyberChrist]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>picture the world as a great octopus spraying a salubrious ink of natural resources and compassion to all on the planet.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Considering that the massive network between governments, military intelligence, and corporations is often described as "The Octopus", that's a bit of a strange image for Perkins to use on his audience. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Dunno about Perkins - haven't read his book. But this was a hit piece. According to the NYT, Perkins' allegations are "fantastic". Seriously, if this journalist finds the idea of intelligence agencies teaming up with corporate interests to manipulate foreign governments "fantastic", what rock has he been living under for the last 60 years?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>if this journalist finds the idea of intelligence agencies teaming up with corporate interests to manipulate foreign governments "fantastic", what rock has he been living under for the last 60 years?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>If he knows what's good for his career, I'd say a Prudential one.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[ewastud]

I agree with Qutb. The article was pretty much a hit piece on Perkins. The journalist really does come off as awfully naive in my book, too. <p></p><i></i>

[BajaSur]

Here is Harner's website:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.shamanism.org/">www.shamanism.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Hmmm. He is going to do a intensive course in advanced shamanism this march in SF.Looks interesting.I am going to find out how much this is.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Gouda]

Thomas Jr's piece spews the usual NYT-cultivated disdain for both mainstream americans and anti-establishment critics. This is nice: <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>THE idea that corporate interests have undue influence over White House administrations has long been a staple of anti-establishment politics...<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Right, that's just uncritical politicking - and worse, it's only an idea, a notion, that extremists are habituated to, like pasta to an italian or corn to an iowan. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>...But during the Bush administration, some recent events have dragged this notion further into the mainstream.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Damn the Bush administration for being in place during these recent events! Isolated administration, isolated events, dragging these cranky notions - hoarded jealously by radicals - kicking and screaming into the Walmart arena. <br><br>Everything is beneath this guy: anti-establishment politics, mainstream trends, people in general. <br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>While the larger issue of America's role in emerging economies is debated by many people, the book's popularity seems driven more by the mix of cloak-and-dagger atmospherics and Mr. Perkins's Damascene conversion from tool of American corporate interests to champion of the world's poor.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Ok, we get the picture. I also see the review as attempting to drive many a wedge. One, between people of all classes and education; and two, between those who value an authentic skeptical approach, be they genuine journalists, independent researchers etc... The last sentence. He paints the audience as a bunch of uncritical, unskeptical conspiracy simpletons. Only the NYT is licensed to engage in skepticism. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Its</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> skepticism. <br><br>But is this a hit piece on Perkins (and his audience) or on para-politics & anti-establishment critique? I mean, does this "hit-piece" serve not only to discredit Perkins, but also independent rigorous critique in general (of Bush, of the NYT, of the establishment, of Perkins himself)? <br><br>Following from that, what purpose does this review serve here? Is this public perception damage control for a book that was gaining momentum without the sanction of the mighty NYT? Is it reverse-disinfo somehow promoting Perkins to a wider audience? One thing is for sure: a review by the NYT certainly does not minimize exposure to a wider audience. This can have unintended consequences, though they are probably pretty sure we fall into fairly predictable behavior patterns - which unfortunately may be more true than we want to admit - however, those unintended consequences of popularizing such information...you never know who's gonna take it in the right directions. <br><br>Maybe this is the point: to dissuade educated, smug urban liberals and affected suburbanites (they are the corporatocracy’s primary co-optation class) from touching this, since it is presented as flaky increasingly-mainstream fodder. <br><br>Alternatively, some have suggested Perkins is limited hang-out anyway, so the NYT is smart to promote it, while still retaining that good old NYT flair for judging and channeling appropriate discourse. <br><br>I have not read Perkins either, but if he really said that thing about the Octopus (assuming Thomas Jr. was not distorting his words, which he really could have) then I think it would be wise to learn more about Perkins while studying his book. Thomas Jr., however, might not realize, or believe, that he is equally subject to rigorous skepticism. <br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br>on edit: some sloppy grammar tidying & one sentence removed due to its failure to stand the test of time (10 minutes or so) </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 2/20/06 6:00 am<br></i>

[wordspeak]

So I haven't read "Confessions," but I have skimmed a couple of his bizarre "shapeshifting" books, and I've heard him on the radio multiple times. He's the epitome of modern limited hangout.<br>Here's a supposed "former" "economic hitman" - what people used to know as CIA agents. He sheds light on, as far as I can tell from interviews and synopses of the book, pretty much what all lefties, greens, anti-corporatists already know, that the U.S. (really, it's not just the U.S.) does economic dirty business all around the world. But he avoids the gory details of the international drug trade, doesn't he? He avoids dark psy-ops. He's not a leftist. He purports that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are now meaningless- a favorite contemporary meme of the PTB. He is, in fact, anti-socialist. He's written all these books on "shapeshifting." He doesn't, in the end, seem to "expose" much of anything in the big-picture. While his book may have pushed a few liberals over a bit more into anti-corporate-globalization understanding, its more significant effect, I bet, has been to *limit* understand and *distract* people who want-to-know from the numerous truly illiminating, if you will, stories that are circuiting the underground press.<br>And his book trots to number one on the NYT bestseller list- imagine that- and he gives talks to packed audiences all over the world with no noticeable effort to discredit him, never mind kill him, and then the Times runs a book review mildly dismissing him, but it's all smoke and mirrors.... <p></p><i></i>