Jeffrey Sachs talks about the CIA, JFKA and the Church Committee

[Kirk Gallaway]

This coming from Jeff, who once warned if Hilary Clinton was to get elected President, she would order a Nuclear first strike on both Russia and China while such a window was still open! Though he never specified what the window was.

For Jeff, there will be no change in lifestyle because he's probably been living in a bunker ever since.

He also claimed to have an inside track on Putin and proclaimed confidently after Putin's buildup on  the Ukraine border that Putin will positively not invade!

So stock up on supplies!

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Good luck with your research. I would suggest downloading the materials now, as the internet might be spotty while we all cower in our personal bunkers. Word on the street has approval for long-range missile strikes directly into Russia coming on Friday, while Israel has apparently received the green-light for full-scale incursion into Lebanon which may begin on the weekend as well. But in the aftermath there should be plenty of time to argue whether Nuland was a manipulative warmonger or a misguided idealist.

Hello, Jeff!  How have you been?

I was beginning to think that you had lost internet contact in your bunker.

In any case, I hope that your latest intel about a long-range missile strike into Russia is wrong.

What are those yahoos trying to do-- start a nuclear holocaust?

Gospodi pomilui!

IMO, we need a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine and Russia--not escalation.

Edited September 11 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Rigby]

UKRAINIAN Professor Exposes Lies About Maidan. Massacre Was Inside Job. | Prof. Ivan Katchanovski

Download for free his new book, a synthesis of his remarkable work on this classic false flag, here:

The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine

The Mass Killing that Changed the World

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0

[Paul Rigby]

On 9/5/2024 at 5:18 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Speaking of the history of “shock" transformation to free-market policies, one example of interest is in the 1980s in New Zealand with the David Lange Labour Party government. I was in New Zealand twice for a total of eight months in 1987-1989 so saw this firsthand, in utter amazement.

The amazement was not simply the lightning speed with which the Labour Finance minister, Roger Douglas, implemented privatization of New Zealand's formerly state-owned and run major enterprises, but that this was done by New Zealand's major left party, the Labour Party. It was not done by the major center-right party, the National Party, which usually was in power.

David Lange was the popular Labour prime minister--razor-sharp wit, charismatic--elected on a widely-supported platform to make New Zealand the first nuclear-free zone country in the world. (Actually it would be the second, Denmark already was, but that was OK because that was worked out confidentially with the U.S. without being publicly advertised. The US was infuriated at New Zealand going to just have the nerve to do this on their own, and publicly.) That is, no nuclear armed ships allowed in New Zealand's harbors any more than New York City would allow nuclear armed ships in its harbor.

Lange got elected, and the Labour Finance minister Roger Douglas started a shock free-market divestment of government enterprises. To imagine how bizarre this was, imagine if Bernie Sanders had been elected president on a wave of popularity and then the left-platformed Democratic Party Sanders administration implemented a shock doctrine with libertarian economists moving farther and faster than Reaganomics toward free-market policies and rolling back the role of government in the economy. The bizarreness was that this was coming from the left Labour Party (roughly analogous to the left wing of the US Democratic Party), not the more conservative National Party (roughly analogous to the traditional US Republican Party).

In the US the libertarian mantra was always "government cannot run things efficiently". That mantra was shown nonsense in the case example of New Zealand Air, the government-owned and run airline of New Zealand, year after year after year regarded the world over as the most excellent flight travel experience of any airline in the world. I flew on New Zealand Air. Real china and silverware and excellent meals during the flight, quality service and comfort, amenities, absolute best way to fly, and every tourist booking agency in the world knew it. And when I price-shopped (budget mattered to me) the fare rates were no different for New Zealand Air than market fares for the other airlines. It was a no-brainer to go New Zealand Air. But, but, but... (fuse blown in libertarian mantra brain circuits) ... how could that be? ... it was GOVERNMENT run! And governments cannot run anything well, so the libertarian doctrine went. 

Finance minister Roger Douglas sold off New Zealand Air. Then among other shock announcements which seemed to be in the newspapers every day it was announced Roger Douglas was going to sell off New Zealand Steel, the major steel company in New Zealand which up to then had been run by the government, a major employer in New Zealand. Then, it was announced a buyer had been found for New Zealand Steel, but the identity of the buyer for some unclear reasons was being kept secret.

The press was up in arms--who was the secret buyer of New Zealand's national steel company? Why the secrecy? 

Well, I was in Auckland the day I, and everyone else in New Zealand, learned who and why. It came out immediately after Tianmanen Square, the Chinese government's violent suppression of demonstrators. The world saw it on TV. The Chinese government had let demonstrations go on for a bit, then cracked down hard and bloodily, and that was the end of that reform movement in China, or rather, it was forced to go underground after that.

Anyway, lo and behold ... wonders of the glorious free market at work! ... the secret buyer Roger Douglas's finance ministry team had lined up to buy New Zealand Steel turned out to be the government of Communist China! If it had not been for Tianmanen Square, and if it had not been stopped for some other reason from going forward (in the news it was presented as a "done deal" which was going to be done), that would have happened. 

Well, if you're a libertarian, I suppose that's the logical consequence, if a freely-consenting foreign communist government wants to buy something from a freely-consenting finance minister who thinks unfettered free market is the way to go.

Obviously, as bad as China looked with Tianmanen Square, as soon as the news broke on that, and that New Zealand Steel was about to be sold to China, the deal was dead in the water, called off (it was announced the Chinese buyers had withdrawn, is how it was publicly worded). I believe New Zealand Steel's selloff went forward with a different corporate buyer which was New Zealand based, China out of the picture. But I remember when that all played out in the news.

What became of Roger Douglas? Belatedly, prime minister Lange decided to fire him. Roger Douglas then formed his own minor party, which continues today in New Zealand and is very far to the right. (The reason Roger Douglas had credibility in the Labour Party to begin with is his father was a famous union leader and Labour leader. Roger Douglas went to the US, learned free market ideology from some US economists, and returned to New Zealand to implement it through a Labour government as finance minister.)

For anyone interested in this trivia note to history on the shock doctrine issue as it played out in different countries, here is an article from New Zealand a few days ago which refers and reflects back on those days: https://thestandard.org.nz/roger-douglas-has-a-lesson-for-the-left/#comments. 

To understand why Kiwis lost faith in Air New Zealand in particular, and the dominant model of "public ownership" it represented, the crash of sight-seeing Flight 901 into Antarctic's Mount Erebus in late November 1979 is crucial. Ask any Kiwi over a certain age about the phrase "an orchestrated litany of lies" and they'll know exactly what you're talking about. There are a number of very useful documentaries available on Youtube, and this is the opener in one such series, a nine-parter:

https://youtu.be/2CsBbA9peGY?si=2-kNyMTb1LE_0ikv

Justice Peter Mahon's enquiry is well-covered here:

 

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

To understand why Kiwis lost faith in Air New Zealand in particular, and the dominant model of "public ownership" it represented, the crash of sight-seeing Flight 901 into Antarctic's Mount Erebus in late November 1979 is crucial. 

Thanks for this information on that crash. But was there a significant impact on public opinion in favor of privatization of New Zealand Air? 

It’s a long time ago but my memory of 1987-1989 was New Zealand Air’s reputation was top-tier, and it’s privatization was because of being caught up in a broad sweep of privatization as general policy and ideology of Finance Minister Douglas, the policy of the Labor government until Lange and Labor decided no on what was called Rogernomics. 

Also, subtle point but my understanding is the criticisms of public ownership would be on economic efficiency grounds. For example, the US social security administration is extremely, extremely efficient as a large-scale enterprise, Tens of millions of people get checks on time every month, year after year, never a major scandal internal to the bureaucratic administration, delivering retirement insurance pass-through of money to intended purposes at an incredibly efficient 99% with only 1% for costs of administration. Compare that to ca 85% at best in private sector insurance companies (15% of insurance premiums go to costs of administration and profits not to beneficiaries), and maybe only ca 50% of funds go to purpose of the funds in nonprofit charities. Nobody touches the publicly-run Social Security for that kind of efficiency with the funds they are given to administer. BUT the funding and actuarial viability and congressional “borrowing” cough cough from the Social Security Trust Fund, outside the control of the bureaucracy itself which runs its actual operations so efficiently, is a different matter, lots of back and forth and ideological and economic and politicized arguments on that. That’s a distinct issue. 

Edited September 13 by Greg Doudna

[Sean Coleman]

FWIW, flight 901 crashed due to a change in coordinates the day before. The pilots were unaware of the change and blameless. New Zealand Air hid this and put the blame on human error. 

[Roger Odisio]

8 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

UKRAINIAN Professor Exposes Lies About Maidan. Massacre Was Inside Job. | Prof. Ivan Katchanovski

Download for free his new book, a synthesis of his remarkable work on this classic false flag, here:

The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine

The Mass Killing that Changed the World

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0

Thanks for this, Paul.  It puts to rest the false claim that Yanukovych was behind the massacre. It explains the use of the false flag operation as a pretext for the overthrowing him.  Katchanovski also says there was an assassination attempt on Yanukovych before he fled Kiev on the 21st.  No one was ever held accountable for the massacre.

The author has made his book open source, free to all to read.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Thanks for this, Paul.  It puts to rest the false claim that Yanukovych was behind the massacre. It explains the use of the false flag operation as a pretext for the overthrowing him.  Katchanovski also says there was an assassination attempt on Yanukovych before he fled Kiev on the 21st.  No one was ever held accountable for the massacre.

The author has made his book open source, free to all to read.

Roger,

      Not so fast.

      IMO, we need to be very cautious about potential disinformazia originating from Putin's Russian Federation.

      Paul Rigby has recently posted disinformazia from Russia Today, Press TV, and even Strategic Culture (on the Political Discussions board.

      As for Maidan, the Berkut special forces in Kyiv were thought to be responsible for the Maidan massacre, and they had a documented pre-Maidan history of anti-Ukrainian activity under Putin's Yanukovych regime.

      IMO, it's inconceivable that the Berkut wasn't actively working for Yanukovych by February of 2014.

      See, for example;

Meet the Ukraine's Brutal Berkut Police Force - Business Insider

January 27, 2014

 

      

      

[Roger Odisio]

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Roger,

      Not so fast.

      IMO, we need to be very cautious about potential disinformazia originating from Putin's Russian Federation.

RO:  The author is a Ukrainian professor living in Canada who did a meticulous job of piecing together all available information about what happened.  The book has nothing to do with Putin, did not originate from the Russian Federation.  Saying something stupid like that, I can only assume you didn't watch the video or read excerpts from the book linked by Paul.  The last chapter summarizing his findings isn't even that long.

      Paul Rigby has recently posted disinformazia from Russia Today, Press TV, and even Strategic Culture (on the Political Discussions board.

RO:  Smearing Paul won't work either.  Nor will merely citing RT or Press TV make the case for disinformation.  I'm assuming many here know that.

      As for Maidan, the Berkut special forces in Kyiv were thought to be responsible for the Maidan massacre, and they had a documented pre-Maidan history of anti-Ukrainian activity under Putin's Yanukovych regime.

      IMO, it's inconceivable that the Berkut wasn't actively working for Yanukovych by February of 2014.

RO:  The author's information indicated that the police were firing above the heads of the demonstrators as a deterrence.  A few police were killed as well as many demonstrators.  All from the snipers' nests scattered around the square.  The victims were killed from behind and the side, not from the front were the police were. 

The author found nothing to link Yanukovych to the massacre.  Shortly after the massacre there was an assassination attempt on Yanukovych.  He then fled Kyev the night of the 21st.   

Again, no one was held accountable for the massacre because those behind it took power.  Just like the JFKA, except for blaming Oswald the patsy.

 

      See, for example;

Meet the Ukraine's Brutal Berkut Police Force - Business Insider

January 27, 2014

 

      

      

 

[W. Niederhut]

What Really Happened in Ukraine in 2014—and Since

A close look at the lies and distortions from Russia apologists and propagandists about the roots of the Ukraine war.

What Really Happened in Ukraine in 2014—and Since Then (thebulwark.com)

April 13, 2022

 

Excerpt

   "Naturally, Kremlin propagandists have pushed “false flag” narratives—endorsed by a few contrarian scholars such as the University of Ottawa political scientist Ivan Katchanovski—which claim that Yanukovych opponents either deliberately provoked the violence or even staged the sniper massacre in order to make events spin out of control and trigger regime change. The fact that no one has ever been convicted in the sniper killings has allowed these conspiracies to fester and made it very difficult to disprove them conclusively; but University of Alberta history professor David Marples contributed a solid debunking in October 2014, and in 2018 a virtual-model reconstruction, based on extensive video footage, by the Center for Human Rights Science at Carnegie Mellon University concluded that the victims were indeed shot by Berkut members."