Jeff Sachs, an academic with a spine

[Matthew Koch]

@W. Niederhut @James DiEugenio

Instead of taking Bens thread off course further, why don't you continue your JFK Liberal discussion here.. because that is the point I am making that JFK is liberal by the Blue Definition and that he wasn't a Progressive. 

 

Jeffery Sachs and Aaron Good = Progressive Liberals by the definition red definition (Which Good would probably be offended by because he considers himself a Radical) 

JFK while liberal for the time is now Conservative by the shift in Overton Window to the left. 

So if someone could please let Jim know since he's playing duck and cover on this thread, I would appreciate it💯

 

Edited June 9 by Matthew Koch

[Matthew Koch]

I started reading Jeffery Sachs book 

P. 9 Kennedy believed that he could untangle the dangerous conflicts with the Soviet Union. And, as Churchill urged, Kennedy would aim to solve these problems from a position of U.S. military strength and without relinquishing vital Western Interests. (Which is what I said earlier)

P.13 unfortunately for the prospects of U.S. Soviet Cooperation, and contrary to the approach of incremental cooperation, Kennedy came out swinging. He did this in three provocative ways. First, despite the fact that the United States was far ahead in nuclear weapons, Kennedy ordered a major buildup of both nuclear and conventional arms. The total number of U.S. nuclear warheads would soar from 20K in 1960 to 29K in 1963, at a time when the Soviet Union had a small fraction of that number (1,600 in 1960 and 4200 in 1963) Conventional forces were also greatly augmented, as Kennedy adopted a new model "flexible response". He was highly critical of Eisenhower's nuclear policy of "massive retaliation" to meet Soviet threats, which purportedly relied on U.S. Nuclear weapons to deter Soviet provocations. Kennedy Wanted more non-nuclear options. 

Secondly, Kennedy approved a CIA plan for an invasion of Cuba, which would become the biggest blunder of his presidency. 

Third, he went ahead with a confrontational move that had been approved by his predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower. In 1958 Eisenhower had decided to strengthen the U.S. nuclear arsenal by posting intermediate-range nuclear missiles under U.S. control in Italy and Turkey. The placements of these Jupiter missiles were implemented in June 1960 in Italy and October 1961 (the first year of The Kennedy administration) in Turkey. The Soviet Union now faced the threat not only of America's strategic bombers but also of nearby missiles that could reach the Soviet Union in minutes. This was a new and terrifying prospect that pipped the psychological and strategic balance toward the United States and constituted a major motivation for Khrushchev's later attempt to put similar missiles in Cuba. (Sounds like what I said earlier) 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I decided to do a substack piece on Jeff Sachs.

Man this guy has guts.  He has sacrificed a lot to be so outspoken.

https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/publish/post/145599361

Edited June 13 by James DiEugenio

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I decided to do a substack piece of Jeff Sachs.

Man this guy has guts.  He has sacrificed a lot to be so outspoken.

https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/publish/post/145599361

Sachs works for the Vatican, Columbia/Harvard Noam Chompsky world government institution circuit and BRICS 

He is Anti American, what has he scarified? 

Edited June 13 by Matthew Koch

[Matt Cloud]

On 6/9/2024 at 6:48 PM, Matthew Koch said:

@W. Niederhut @James DiEugenio

Instead of taking Bens thread off course further, why don't you continue your JFK Liberal discussion here.. because that is the point I am making that JFK is liberal by the Blue Definition and that he wasn't a Progressive. 

 

Jeffery Sachs and Aaron Good = Progressive Liberals by the definition red definition (Which Good would probably be offended by because he considers himself a Radical) 

JFK while liberal for the time is now Conservative by the shift in Overton Window to the left. 

So if someone could please let Jim know since he's playing duck and cover on this thread, I would appreciate it💯

 

A valid and supportable analysis.

I'll quote McGeorge Bundy writing to Moynihan, November 1973, incidentally supporting the possibility of Moynihan as Deep Throat as the letter suggests that Moynihan was in the US during the early days of November, when the last alleged Garage Meeting took place with Woodward -- the one in which the "deliberate erasures" on the tapes were discussed.

 

The Ford Foundation

November 12, 1973

 

Dear Pat:

The marvelously efficient mails have just brought me the copy of yours of October 15 to Pat Buchanan.  It is a wonderful letter in all sorts of ways, and you were kind indeed to take the time to detail the number of ways in which this place has acted differently from what Buchanan might have assumed.   But the best part of all is your exposition of the problem we all have of finding good conservatives in the marketplace.  This is the heart of the problem, and I have wrestled with it for years in many different situations.  The only full-scale politician who ever understood it was himself a genuine conservative, although he was too smart to admit it publicly -- namely JFK.  But he had an absolutely Moynihanian distaste for orthodox liberals, and an intelligent man's contempt for the willful mindlessness of politicians who call themselves conservatives.  Your letter shows the same temper, and it makes me wonder wether this whole point of view has somehow been passed from that unlikely Irishman, Edmund Burke to the rest of you.  Andrew Greeley fits somewhere in this mold too.

I am annoyed to see that you were in Washington and did not make time for your friends in New York, but because I am not a grudge-bearing type, I am moving from this dictation directly into a session devoted to planning a February expedition to South Asia.  We had quite a formal and cordial visit from Subramaniam the other day, and Dave Bell brings back a reinforcing impression that the Indians want continued cordial relations and perhaps a closer cooperation than we have had in recent years.  I gather that you have been talking to the great lady, and we are grateful.

As ever,

 

 

McGeorge Bundy

 

The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan

The Ambassador of the United States of america

New Delhi, India

[Matthew Koch]

16 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

A valid and supportable analysis.

I'll quote McGeorge Bundy writing to Moynihan, November 1973, incidentally supporting the possibility of Moynihan as Deep Throat as the letter suggests that Moynihan was in the US during the early days of November, when the last alleged Garage Meeting took place with Woodward -- the one in which the "deliberate erasures" on the tapes were discussed.

 

The Ford Foundation

November 12, 1973

 

Dear Pat:

The marvelously efficient mails have just brought me the copy of yours of October 15 to Pat Buchanan.  It is a wonderful letter in all sorts of ways, and you were kind indeed to take the time to detail the number of ways in which this place has acted differently from what Buchanan might have assumed.   But the best part of all is your exposition of the problem we all have of finding good conservatives in the marketplace.  This is the heart of the problem, and I have wrestled with it for years in many different situations.  The only full-scale politician who ever understood it was himself a genuine conservative, although he was too smart to admit it publicly -- namely JFK.  But he had an absolutely Moynihanian distaste for orthodox liberals, and an intelligent man's contempt for the willful mindlessness of politicians who call themselves conservatives.  Your letter shows the same temper, and it makes me wonder wether this whole point of view has somehow been passed from that unlikely Irishman, Edmund Burke to the rest of you.  Andrew Greeley fits somewhere in this mold too.

I am annoyed to see that you were in Washington and did not make time for your friends in New York, but because I am not a grudge-bearing type, I am moving from this dictation directly into a session devoted to planning a February expedition to South Asia.  We had quite a formal and cordial visit from Subramaniam the other day, and Dave Bell brings back a reinforcing impression that the Indians want continued cordial relations and perhaps a closer cooperation than we have had in recent years.  I gather that you have been talking to the great lady, and we are grateful.

As ever,

 

 

McGeorge Bundy

 

The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan

The Ambassador of the United States of america

New Delhi, India

Matt, while I was suspended you started here as a member and have a thesis that includes Daniel Moynihan. I wasn't reading the forum doing that time and need some further elaboration to your angle. Can you bring me up to speed and sort give me the cliff notes and a brief Synopsys of what it is and Moynihan's role in American Para Politics and Deep Events? 

Thanks

[Matt Cloud]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Matt, while I was suspended you started here as a member and have a thesis that includes Daniel Moynihan. I wasn't reading the forum doing that time and need some further elaboration to your angle. Can you bring me up to speed and sort give me the cliff notes and a brief Synopsys of what it is and Moynihan's role in American Para Politics and Deep Events? 

Thanks

You might as well have said "I've been in a coma for 75 years -- what'd I miss?"  

 

Thanks for the question.  Two main points, albeit the second is subsidiary to the first:

The Kennedy Assassination was designed to protect the identity of the legendary or infamous or mythical "Big Mole," the "Fourth Man," or more accurately still, our "KGB interlocutor" designed to essentially manage the Cold War from circa 1951 on.  This KGB interlocutor was Pat Moynihan who, along with essentially the entire US government, used the assassination as a means to introduce and combine what you might call left-leaning ideas into American politics, in ways that might not have been achievable otherwise.   The essential goal was to protect, well, the world, from extremes of either left or right, by fusing, by converging (see "convergence theory", CF. Golitsyn), right and left domestically and right and left internationally.  It might be analogous to a "controlled burn" in fire-fighting.  That's sort of the big picture philosophy of this Hegelian understanding.  The second, subsidiary point, is that Moynihan was Deep Throat, having essentially set-up the mechanism by which to bring Nixon down and with it the quieting for 45 years of say The Silent Majority.  Now, as you point out, various factors have contributed to essentially a reversal or an undoing in ways of all of this, today.  That's basically the big picture.  There are religious implications as well.  And I could go far more granular or also somewhat higher if needed.

 

[James DiEugenio]

This thread is not about any wild  Ira Stoll neocon interpretation of the Overton Window.

Its not about  the rather bizarre conclusion of Moynihan as Deep Throat either.

Its about the guts and honesty of Jeff Sachs on the Kennedy case.  A man who gets some visibility, and is on our side.

I do not appreciate the attempts by K and C to hijack the thread.

Edited June 13 by James DiEugenio

[Matthew Koch]

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This thread is not about any wild  Ira Stoll neocon interpretation of the Overton Window.

Its not about  and rather bizarre conclusion of Moynihan as Deep Throat either.

Its about the guts and honesty of Jeff Sachs on the Kennedy case.  A man who gets some visibility, and is on our side.

I do not appreciate the attempts by K and C to hijack the thread.

I do not agree with the premise of the thread and have made the case why I don't (which you ran away from and are now using buzz words out of context of how I used them). Sachs and Kennedy are not the same kind of Liberals. That's the point! 

If the thread is to just Venerate Jeffery Sachs and his Radical Leftist Politics that don't Align with JFK and his New Frontier which had republicans in it then I guess the Mods should move the thread to political discussions 

Edited June 13 by Matthew Koch

[James DiEugenio]

As noted above, Jeff Sachs has admitted that he used to get invites to be on the MSM.  As he should have since he is a prominent academic from the Ivy League who was involved in international politics.

Now he does not get so many invites.  And so I had to take my article from his columns at Common Dreams, and his appearances on Napolitano, and Carlson.

I came to the deduction that the two reasons he has been sidelined are 1.) His opposition to certain stances in the Democratic Party which has become sort of Neoconnish and 2.) His outspoken stance today on the JFK case.  I mean he is really kind of coming out kinds of guns blazing. He calls it a rogue CIA operation, and lends credence to Landis. Says the country has not been the same and that a cover up ensued instantly to conceal a high level plot.

No wonder Rachel Maddow does not want him on anymore.

I mean whew.  Yippee!

[Matt Cloud]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

As noted above, Jeff Sachs has admitted that he used to get invites to be on the MSM.  As he should have since he is a prominent academic from the Ivy League who was involved in international politics.

Now he does not get so many invites.  And so I had to take my article from his columns at Common Dreams, and his appearances on Napolitano, and Carlson.

I came to the deduction that the two reasons he has been sidelined are 1.) His opposition to certain stances in the Democratic Party which has become sort of Neoconnish and 2.) His outspoken stance today on the JFK case.  I mean he is really kind of coming out kinds of guns blazing. He calls it a rogue CIA operation, and lends credence to Landis. Says the country has not been the same and that a cover up ensued instantly to conceal a high level plot.

No wonder Rachel Maddow does not want him on anymore.

I mean whew.  Yippee!

1.  "His opposition to certain stances in the Democratic Party which has become sort of Neoconnish."  Sounds like you agree -- whether you like it or not is a different matter -- with a "wild Ira Stoll neocon interpretation of the Overton Window."

2.  "He calls it a rogue CIA operation."  He's wrong -- nothing "rogue" about it.  The "MSM" knows this.  Has known it.  Or knows enough to stay away.  Soon, it will be explained.  "MSM" does not want to add more wrong now, lest they risk ruining their reputations even further.   Having proclaimed Russian Collusion the Ultimate SIn, and the CIA  the only the only thing "protecting democracy" (TM), when it comes out that there has been Russian Collusion all along for 75 years and more, that will be a head-twister for most.  

Viewers of Tucker Carlson -- which will touch the subject -- are now aligned with the liberals of the '60s in their distrust of the "National Security State" -- this is the genius of the political reversal that is now occurring.  Why common cause isn't reached more across these groups is a worthy subject of inquiry.  

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I decided to do a substack piece on Jeff Sachs.

Man this guy has guts.  He has sacrificed a lot to be so outspoken.

https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/publish/post/145599361

Sachs has his points, but too often he seems an apologist for Putin, Hamas and Xi. Even Houthis. 

The Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were horrible, vastly inhumane blunders. The US intel state likely murdered JFK and RFK1. I hope I have few illusions. 

And it was a mistake to not embrace Putin when he wanted into NATO. A little ego-flattering is never a bad thing. 

But, IMHO, I draw the line. Putin, Hamas, Xi are much worse than present-day Western liberal democracies. 

Remember, JFK also wrote the book, "While England Slept" and fought in WWII against the Imperial (and incredibly cruel) Japanese. JFK was an ardent supporter of Israel, as was RFK1.

For me, JFK was brilliant, on the right track. But also a realist, and he recognized evil. 

Sadly, evil is never quite vanquished.  

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

I guess the Mods should move the thread to political discussions 

There are other alternatives.  One of which I've not used yet and hope to avoid.

[James DiEugenio]

This is not a political discussion.

Its about an Ivy League professor with a large reputation going all out to declare the JFK case a conspiracy.

And doing it in public with hundreds of thousands of people hearing it.

Here is a guy who actually is sacrificing something to tell the truth about the JFK case.

And he is going to end up like Oliver Stone, ostracized from the MSM.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is not a political discussion.

Its about an Ivy League professor with a large reputation going all out to declare the JFK case a conspiracy.

And doing it in public with hundreds of thousands of people hearing it.

Here is a guy who actually is sacrificing something to tell the truth about the JFK case.

And he is going to end up like Oliver Stone, ostracized from the MSM.

JD-

Yes, I should credit that aspect of Sachs.  He is willing to speak the truth about the JFK and RFK1A. 

Few enough people are.