Show #56: Confessions of an Economic Hitman - Interview with John Perkins

[Nienna]

I have to say that I agree with what Joe said about if he can see what has happened in Ukraine, why does Perkins say that because he is not involved, he can't say anything about what is going on in Ukraine. Also, Perkins saying that Russia in Crimea is the same as how the U.S. was in Panama. I'm kind of disappointed with Perkins. I think that his idea of changing the way we think about other countries, but it's like Perkins is not aware of psychopaths and that you can't really change how psychopaths think.

 

[Cosmos]

I have to say that I agree with what Joe said about if he can see what has happened in Ukraine, why does Perkins say that because he is not involved, he can't say anything about what is going on in Ukraine. Also, Perkins saying that Russia in Crimea is the same as how the U.S. was in Panama. I'm kind of disappointed with Perkins. I think that his idea of changing the way we think about other countries, but it's like Perkins is not aware of psychopaths and that you can't really change how psychopaths think.

Yep.

Saying that he he "doesn't support an invasion of russia in ukraine" is saying something about the situation
and not "I have not researched it deeply, so I'm not in a position to comment on it" IMO.

 

[Voyageur]

I have to say that I agree with what Joe said about if he can see what has happened in Ukraine, why does Perkins say that because he is not involved, he can't say anything about what is going on in Ukraine. Also, Perkins saying that Russia in Crimea is the same as how the U.S. was in Panama. I'm kind of disappointed with Perkins. I think that his idea of changing the way we think about other countries, but it's like Perkins is not aware of psychopaths and that you can't really change how psychopaths think.

This is the feeling I was getting, too.

Thanks for the show Sott crew!

 

[Gawan]

I have to say that I agree with what Joe said about if he can see what has happened in Ukraine, why does Perkins say that because he is not involved, he can't say anything about what is going on in Ukraine. Also, Perkins saying that Russia in Crimea is the same as how the U.S. was in Panama. I'm kind of disappointed with Perkins. I think that his idea of changing the way we think about other countries, but it's like Perkins is not aware of psychopaths and that you can't really change how psychopaths think.

I thought so too. But as I understood it he also got threatened and maybe acted out of fear that way and could be an explanation.

 

[mkrnhr]

I have the impression that the Ukrainian coup d'état is a new dividing line after 911. When I see people who didn't fall for the official narrative of 911 fall for the present state of propaganda, I wonder if there is not someting more profound about the collective human psyche going on.

 

[Voyageur]

I thought so too. But as I understood it he also got threatened and maybe acted out of fear that way and could be an explanation.

Yes, he did seem rather uncomfortable in speculating deeply, looking at the footprints of the west; especially as it actually fits in exactly (more or less) with what he writes about.

I have the impression that the Ukrainian coup d'état is a new dividing line after 911. When I see people who didn't fall for the official narrative of 911 fall for the present state of propaganda, I wonder if there is not someting more profound about the collective human psyche going on.

It certainly does seems amplified. Here at home and with friends, and their friends, there seems to be a fair amount of discussion going on against the "official" line. Yet some who have not sided with the MSN in the past, feel strongly about democracy, as did Mr. Perkins and the official narrative seems to fit. Now I wonder if this (with older people especially), is a result of growing up in the west under the Iron Curtain threat and western propaganda?

 

[Meg]

I have to say that I agree with what Joe said about if he can see what has happened in Ukraine, why does Perkins say that because he is not involved, he can't say anything about what is going on in Ukraine. Also, Perkins saying that Russia in Crimea is the same as how the U.S. was in Panama. I'm kind of disappointed with Perkins. I think that his idea of changing the way we think about other countries, but it's like Perkins is not aware of psychopaths and that you can't really change how psychopaths think.

I thought so too. But as I understood it he also got threatened and maybe acted out of fear that way and could be an explanation.

I agree. I also thought that when you have a career like his you don't really leave. Or it doesn't leave you rather. He may still be watched or made to think he is. Who knows? All it would take is a phone call suggesting talking about Ukraine was not an option; a hint of a threat against his granddaughter. Who knows.

You guys did a great job with the interview regardless.

 

[Aithin Tusa Fein]

Interesting interview. I found it a bit curious that Mr. Perkins stated that he thinks that shenanigans, such as looking out for one's interests, lobbying, or taking over another's job is human nature, but he also thinks that as a nation we can be more principled than that. But how then can he expect a nation, which is comprised of those humans endowed with the human nature he described, to behave any different from which it is made of?

He also seems to be a bit ideologically set in his views, such as going green, world peace, etc., and that the US should defend democracy and sovereignty (really? when has that ever worked?), including that of the Ukraine from Russia. But when he was given the information concerning the situation in Ukraine, even using the methodology in his book, he couldn't make the connection. Seems a bit odd to me. Diplomatic response? Maybe.

 

[Niall]

Saying that he he "doesn't support an invasion of russia in ukraine" is saying something about the situation and not "I have not researched it deeply, so I'm not in a position to comment on it" IMO.

Yeh, he was dissimulating there. He also said he could not speak of that situation because he had not personally been involved or visited the country... and yet he did publicly voice his view here: http://www.johnperkins.org/leave-ukraine-alone-russia-learn-the-lesson-u-s/

I thought "Well, maybe he wants to believe that such things don't happen under Obama?"... but we know he knows otherwise because he has very much gone against the official line by calling out the CIA's role in ousting Zelaya from Honduras one year pre-term in 2009.

 

[loreta]

He also seems to be a bit ideologically set in his views, such as going green, world peace, etc., and that the US should defend democracy and sovereignty (really? when has that ever worked?), including that of the Ukraine from Russia. But when he was given the information concerning the situation in Ukraine, even using the methodology in his book, he couldn't make the connection. Seems a bit odd to me. Diplomatic response? Maybe.

It was this side of him, at the end of his so popular book that I did not like. In fact, when I think about it, the last part of his book put in jeopardy all his book. Because he gives this message of Pax Americana, and his "green" road, the salvation for him and for the planet. Maybe for him. I don't know. Maybe he is naive. I don't think so. Idealistic? I am idealistic but concerning the Empire and the situation of this planet... I am pessimistic. He knows how this world is working. He was part of the system, right in the center of the mouth of the dragon. Working for the dragon, in the name of it. Maybe he can not talk? But why did he wrote his book?

Strange but not surprised at all.

 

[angelburst29]

I have the impression that the Ukrainian coup d'état is a new dividing line after 911. When I see people who didn't fall for the official narrative of 911 fall for the present state of propaganda, I wonder if there is not someting more profound about the collective human psyche going on.

"I wonder if there is not someting more profound about the collective human psyche going on" may reflect a "flashback" of sorts, like forceful energy hitting a solid wall and being dispursed back into the fold. Those who were behind and manipulated the 911 events for their own purposes of World Domination and have used the same mechanisms with additional strategies to attack other Countries and bring them into their sphere of manipulation - have suddenly and unexpectedly - met a brick wall of equal, if not more prominent force in Russia's Putin.

Up to this point, the same general tactics of subversion and infiltration's, divide and conquer while gaining and taking control of the Countries private wealth and commodities have been repeated primarily under the same dictates, in repeated warfare against a host Country - to the point - several Countries are in different stages of a complete take over by the PTB at the present moment.

In the background, an equal, if not more powerful force has been gaining a foothold in opposite energy (one of rightful sovereignty and Free-Will objectives towards Unity) within the heartland of Russia and have clashed in Ukraine, respectfully, in Crimea. I don't see it as much a "dividing line" as maybe "opposite forces" coming into direct contact. Suddenly, the game has changed and the PTB are faced with dealing with an enemy who is powerful in it's own right, possesses first hand knowledge of the rules of the game through experience and can now match them in equal footing in their own game, point for point. The PTB and it's lackeys have met up with the formidable Russian Bear and Putin.

Opposite of the EU/NATO/IMF - One World Goverment of complete control and assimulation, Putin has constructed and put into a working hypothesis a plan refered to as BRICS - where Countries and Nation-States retain their own individual sovereignty, religious and ethnic backgrounds while sharing Unity within an economic system that strives to accent the positives and build on moral obligations to enhance living conditions for the greater good of the whole. Crimea would be joined with BRICS to improve it's economic future while retaining it sovereignty bordering Russia.

Below is another blog featuring the economy including the current affairs in Ukraine
_http://investmentwatchblog.com/greg-mannarino-the-ukraine-crisis-will-be-a-gamechanger/

Wall St for Main St interviewed former Bear Sterns trader and financial commentator Greg Mannarino. In this podcast, we discussed the Russian/Ukraine conflict and how it could potentially shift the economic power back to the East. Also, We asked Greg on the possibility that the Feds could increase QE if Russia decide to dump their U.S. treasury holding.

 

[Pierre]

It was this side of him, at the end of his so popular book that I did not like. In fact, when I think about it, the last part of his book put in jeopardy all his book. Because he gives this message of Pax Americana, and his "green" road, the salvation for him and for the planet. Maybe for him. I don't know. Maybe he is naive. I don't think so. Idealistic? I am idealistic but concerning the Empire and the situation of this planet... I am pessimistic. He knows how this world is working. He was part of the system, right in the center of the mouth of the dragon. Working for the dragon, in the name of it. Maybe he can not talk? But why did he wrote his book?

When you think about it there is no groundbreaking revelations in confession of an EHM, that was published in 2004. The involvment of CIA and the USA in coups and assassinations has been documented for decades. See Prouty or William Blum (2003) for example. Neocolonialism and the destructive effects of IMF and World Bank were also known. See: Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (2000), Asad Ism (2003) or Greg Pallast (2001).

So in 2004, the cat was already out of the bag and people were more and more aware of what was really going. At this point a "gatekeeper" can catch the attention and the trust of those people who start to open their eyes, since he confirms what they have discovered and eventually adds a few juicy details (the insider streak in Perkin's case). Thanks to this trust the gatekeeper can channel the anger / impulse / desire for change towards a dead end: go green, save the Amazonian forest in this case.

It can be considered as damage control. I suppose that the gatekeeper doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious agent. Though in Perkins case, the ties he and some of his family members have or had with the NSA, Bechtel, The Department of State can raise some suspicions.

The modus operandi is quite similar to what Judy Wood did. When she released her book many people already had strong doubts about the official 9/11 story. She provided very good material, added some exclusive details (that didn't change the global picture though) and once she had acquired the trust of the reader, at the very end of her book she channels him towards a lie (directed energy, Tesla, Hutchinson effect...)

 

[theos]

Good show y'all.

I was a bit disappointed that Perkins didn't have much to say on the Ukraine. But as Joe mentioned maybe Perkins just wants to move on. I'd agree. I got the impression that after doing all that he did in Latin America, and the fact that he made several references to that part of the world and what he did there, he just doesn't want to be bothered with anything new on the topic anymore. Maybe he's just being diplomatic or maybe he's just really occupied with "going green" at this point. After all there is money to be made in the green movement just as there was money to be made when he became an economic hitman.

It's been quite a while since I read his Confessions book ...but maybe there was more to it besides just his conscience bothering him that made him drop out. I don't know how old he was when he quit but maybe he was just really fatigued on top of it all and wanted to move into a new arena. He took the first bribe, started a company and made some money, wrote a book and made some money and there you go. He did say that money was what motivated him in the first place.

Of course, this is all speculation on my part.

 

[eleusis]

Thank you Pierre for your analysis. After reading what you wrote I realized how my emotions and certain assumptions were clouding my thinking. I would like to say they were not, and that I'm way too smart for that, but honestly I just ain't, even after reading every analysis put forth on these pages over the years. Pretty much still a rube so it's a darn good thing you folks are here.

Now, I'm not going to guess here as to Mr. Perkins motivations. I don't know them. For me what happened was I started to sympathize with Mr. Perkins even before the interview began. I was thinking something like, 'here is this man coming on this show and putting his life in danger and isn't he very brave and needs to be supported because his life is in danger.' Then I pulled myself in emotionally further when I heard about his family and was thinking about how their lives were in jeopardy by all the things he was talking about. Part of me was also thinking how people who tell the truth, whistle blowers or sincere activists are treated and it kicks in a certain protective emotional stance in me for them. Now, I've done no objective analysis, nothing. Haven't looked at my own childhood programming, malfunctioning adaptive survival mechanisms or simply considered that someone could be sneaky, underhanded and dastardly. What was governing my thinking was the emotional state I described above and maybe even some pity along the line of 'that poor man look at all he's going through.'

It's very good that you and the other administrators and moderators point out over and over as necessary how what he revealed isn't exactly startling new information. I know that but how is it I forgot that? Maybe the forgetting happens when all that emotional stuff takes over, wants to save the day and subsequently blots out sage, reasonable and objective data not to mention plain common sense. So, thanks a million for the show and your hard work.

 

[Voyageur]

Yes, thanks Pierre, good commentary to pick up on. Smedley Butler, and many others, talked about these political and economic shenanigans years ago.

In a similar, slightly divergent line, the whole NSA biz, leaks etc., well it is nothing really new, insofar as people have realized this for a long long time, and were talking about it openly, talking about what the state technology capabilities were and how it was used then, and would eventually inundate our personal worlds to monitor same. At those times, great concern for civil liberates and privacy was called for; all watered down now, erased essentially today. In the NSA type "information collection" biz these days, which we have suddenly, it seems, awoken to the stark reality, as if in some type of bad dream that never before existed. The "gatekeepers" whoever they are, come racing into the picture and affect the direction of where it needs to be steered (not sure what that will resemble). Meanwhile, stirred people who have awoken to the revaluations of the NSA types and deeds, might eventually become sedated again, as in years past, and forget it was ever a problem. It tires in the press and public, as new sights our found to focus upon. In years past, some of the possible maneuvers to quite down the western people were to focus their attention on things like the Cold War and Iron Curtain, Vietnam, revolutionaries and economic shocks - different then, yet not so very much, osit.