MR.Kitty55
2008-10-15, 20:26
I read it last year and its really hard not to believe him considering he is the direct source...Of course there is probably some misconstrued information but overall I think its relatively objective...
If you don't know about John Perkins, the author, his job as an "Economic Hitman" was essentially to convince foreign leaders with exploitable resources (geopolitical positions) to take out huge loans from specific companies (i.e. IMF and World Bank) as a result the leaders would become rich with the company and the people of the country would suffer....However, if a leader of one of these third world countries refused to surrender their resources over to the company and use them to help the country (see Panama) they either would be overthrown or killed by the CIA or a CIA backed coup and the new leader, learning from the last, would conform to the companies wishes...This isn't hidden information btw...Just spun differently...
I've never really talked to anyone about it before and if you look at what he says, do your own research its really hard not to believe him...His own boss even said this:
Perkins's first boss at Chas. T. Main, Einar Greve, initially declared to journalists that "basically [Perkins's] story is true" and that "what John's book says is, there was a conspiracy to put all these countries on the hook, and that happened. Whether or not it was some sinister plot or not is up to interpretation..." [1] Subsequently, he denied Perkins's allegation that he ever worked as a liaison with the NSA and contradicted other claims made in Perkins's book, stating that Perkins "has convinced himself that a lot of this stuff is true."[1] Perkins comments on Greve's change of heart in the "Epilogue" of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." He points out that Greve initially supported the truth of the book, only to switch his opinion several months later. Perkins suggests that Greve was pressured by outside forces to denounce the book as false.
So what does everyone think about this idea as true or false or somewhere in between? I would have to say its mostly true...He appears in the second Zeitgeist movie so I thought I would bring Perkins up on his own b.c. people (like myself) saw the last Zeitgeist (which was bullshit) and fail to realize the second one was mostly true....
If you don't know about John Perkins, the author, his job as an "Economic Hitman" was essentially to convince foreign leaders with exploitable resources (geopolitical positions) to take out huge loans from specific companies (i.e. IMF and World Bank) as a result the leaders would become rich with the company and the people of the country would suffer....However, if a leader of one of these third world countries refused to surrender their resources over to the company and use them to help the country (see Panama) they either would be overthrown or killed by the CIA or a CIA backed coup and the new leader, learning from the last, would conform to the companies wishes...This isn't hidden information btw...Just spun differently...
I've never really talked to anyone about it before and if you look at what he says, do your own research its really hard not to believe him...His own boss even said this:
Perkins's first boss at Chas. T. Main, Einar Greve, initially declared to journalists that "basically [Perkins's] story is true" and that "what John's book says is, there was a conspiracy to put all these countries on the hook, and that happened. Whether or not it was some sinister plot or not is up to interpretation..." [1] Subsequently, he denied Perkins's allegation that he ever worked as a liaison with the NSA and contradicted other claims made in Perkins's book, stating that Perkins "has convinced himself that a lot of this stuff is true."[1] Perkins comments on Greve's change of heart in the "Epilogue" of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." He points out that Greve initially supported the truth of the book, only to switch his opinion several months later. Perkins suggests that Greve was pressured by outside forces to denounce the book as false.
So what does everyone think about this idea as true or false or somewhere in between? I would have to say its mostly true...He appears in the second Zeitgeist movie so I thought I would bring Perkins up on his own b.c. people (like myself) saw the last Zeitgeist (which was bullshit) and fail to realize the second one was mostly true....