Tag Archives: jewish influence

nose-moustache-glasses

Cabal Theories

In JournoList: Inside the echo chamber, at Politico, Michael Calderone writes (my emphasis):

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?

Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.

“I’m very lazy about writing when I’m not getting paid,” Alterman said. “So if I take the trouble to write something in any detail on the list, I tend to cannibalize it. It doesn’t surprise me when I see things on the list on people’s blogs.”

Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.

But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.

POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList’s off-the-record rule “makes it seems secretive.” But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to “ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.”

One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.

A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, a nonmember, may be the only professional writer to have referred to it “in print” more than once — albeit dismissively, as the “Klein Klub.”

While members may talk freely about JList at, say, a Columbia Heights house party, there’s a “Fight Club”-style code of silence when it comes to discussing it for publication.

But a handful of JList members agreed to talk for this story — if only to push back against the perception that the group is some sort of secret, left-wing cabal.

Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.

“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin.

Toobin joined JList about a year ago, and he said that he had to get a new e-mail address just for JList in order to keep up with the sheer volume of commentary that appears there every day. The frequent disputes among members, he said, are “what’s most entertaining on the list.”

John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.

“There is probably general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP,” he said. “But beyond that, I would say there is wide disagreement on trade, Israel, how exactly we got into this recession/depression and how to get out of it, the brilliance of various punk bands that I have never heard of, and on whether, at any given moment, the Obama administration is doing the right thing.”

But aren’t there enough forums for arguing about domestic and foreign policy — or even for partaking in the more idiosyncratic JList debates about the merits of Bruce Springsteen and whether The New Republic is liberal enough? And do those debates really have to happen behind a veil of secrecy?

“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”

Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts.

Yglesias, who writes an eponymous blog hosted by the Center for American Progress, noted that “the combined membership has tentacles of knowledge that reach everywhere,” adding that “you can toss out a question about Japan or whatever and get some different points of view.”

Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.

“For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up-to-the-minute political minutia,” he said. “This list allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important.”

POLITICO’s Mike Allen, Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer are on the list. “The roster includes some of the savviest authorities on everything from behavioral economics to Ben’s Chili Bowl,” Allen said. “It’s a window into a world of passionate experts — an hourly graduate education.”

Said another JLister: “I don’t know any other place where working journalists, policy wonks and academics who write about current politics and political history routinely communicate with one another.”

But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?

That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.

Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.

Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.

“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”

Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”

“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.

But Time’s Joe Klein, who acknowledged being on JList and several other listservs, said in an e-mail that “they’re valuable in the way that candid conversations with colleagues and experts always are.” Defending the off-the-record rule, Klein said that “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.”

And then Klein — speaking like the JLister he is — said there wasn’t “anything more that I can or want to say about the subject.”

Nearly every name in this article is jewish, even the outsiders, Kaus and Goldfarb. A preponderance of the signers of the aforementioned open letter to ABC are jewish as well.

Are the JournoList “liberals” embarassed with the lack of diversity in their cabal? Are they concerned how their ethnic networking appears to “liberal” anti-racists?

Not likely. Diversity is a weapon of ethnic warfare intended for use solely against Whites. Likewise anti-racism. If these jewish journalists were White, “liberals” would viciously attack their cabal as a form of racist “white privilege“. Jews however are treated to a different standard.

Keep in mind now, the existence of this cabal in no way substantiates crazy conspiracy theories and old canards about jewish media influence. It is nothing special. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of cabals just like this one, all full of influential jews who disagree widely about what’s best for jews, how to defend israel, whether Bernie Madoff deserves life in prison or death, who to pin the financial meltdown on, which holocaust movie deserves the Oscar, etc.

obama-israeli-flag

Whose Country Is This Anyway?

If the Israel Lobby is a myth, then why is obsequience to israel a bipartisan litmus test for US officials? “Are you now, or have you ever been, a critic of israel?”

On 5 March 2009 the Washington Times reported Foreign ties of nominee questioned:

The director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, last Thursday named Mr. [Chas W.] Freeman, a veteran former diplomat, to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, known inside the government as the NIC. In that job, Mr. Freeman will have access to some of America’s most closely guarded secrets and be charged with overseeing the drafting of the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies.

His selection was praised by some who noted his articulateness and experience as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior envoy to China and other nations. But it sparked concerns among some members of Congress from both parties, who asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s inspector general, Edward McGuire, to investigate Mr. Freeman’s potential conflicts of interest.

Why didn’t these kind of questions sink Rahm Emanuel? After all:

Mr. Emanuel is arguably the second most powerful man in the country and, just a few days into his tenure, already one of the highest-profile chiefs of staff in recent memory.

Renowned as a fierce partisan, he has been an ardent ambassador to Republicans, including Mr. Obama’s defeated rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. He has exerted influence on countless decisions; in meetings, administration officials say, Mr. Obama often allows him to speak first and last.

“You can see how he listens and reacts to Rahm,” said Ron Klain, the chief of staff to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “You can see that his opinion is being shaped.”

Emanuel has strong foreign ties. Haaretz writes U.S. Jews laud Obama pick of Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff:

“Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools,” Daroff concluded.

Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), echoed Daroff’s approval, saying in a statement Thursday that “Obama made an outstanding selection. Emanuel has been a forceful and effective leader within the Democratic Party. His voting record and leadership in support of the U.S.-Israel relationship are outstanding.”

“Emanuel has deep Jewish roots and strong ties to the Jewish community. Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, has a proven commitment to Israel’s security and served as civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf War of 1991,” the statement continued.

“Good irgun stock” means his jewish “faith” is very strong. His middle name is Israel.

On 10 March 2009 Foreign Policy blog The Cable posted a letter from Freeman explaining his withdrawal from the position, Freeman speaks out on his exit (my emphasis):

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

Later that same day Ben Smith at Politico posted Freeman hits ‘Israel lobby’ on way out:

Charles W. Freeman Jr.’s abrupt withdrawal from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council came after he drew fire on a number of fronts – including questions about his financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia.

But the most heated opposition came from supporters of Israel – and Freeman’s departure shows Obama’s reluctance to signal a dramatic change to a U.S. policy in the Middle East that centers on standing beside Israel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama jettisoned aides and backed off statements that appeared to imply a change in the Bush Administration’s firm support for hawkish Israeli governments.

On 12 March the Jerusalem Post, in Freeman blames ‘Israel lobby’ for ouster from NIC, wrote (my emphasis):

Critics of the selection of the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia – among them members of Congress – cited statements he had made harshly criticizing Israel, praising Saudi Arabia and seeming to side with the Chinese government over democracy advocates, as well as business and financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia, in calling for Freeman to be denied the position overseeing the compilation of the US intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimates.

In his statement, Freeman also said, “The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues.”

Those questions, which rebounded through the blogosphere Wednesday, have led some to argue that Israel advocates who believe they helped their cause by seeing Freeman shut out have only scored a Pyrrhic victory.

“The perception, almost universally held, that he was brought down because he is a strong and vocal opponent of Israel’s West Bank and settlement policies, is not good for the Jewish community and the pro-Israel community in particular,” M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, wrote on his blog, pointing out that criticism of Freeman first surfaced in the pro-Israel community.

He told The Jerusalem Post that the community has been trying to argue that its alleged power is a myth, yet it will now be perceived as “bringing down” a top government appointee.

Prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan, not known to be a harsh Israel critic, called Freeman’s “cardinal sin” his willingness to blame Israel for the situation it finds itself in in the Middle East.

This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington,” he wrote. “I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive.”

Even some mainstream media outlets have picked up on this theme. Reuters called the controversy a “a test case for the strength of Washington’s right-wing pro-Israel lobby” since remarks critical of Israel have previously been “virtually taboo in official Washington, whose elected leaders – or those running for office – tend to stress unflagging support for the Jewish state.”

Still, pro-Israel groups who opposed Freeman’s appointment openly welcomed the news that he would not be taking the post.

Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said that Freeman’s comments blaming the Israel lobby only proved that he was ill-suited for the job.

“I understand someone being upset if people oppose an appointment, but to lash out at what appeared to be a conspiracy in his mind was not the type of temperament one would hope for in someone in such a position,” he said.

Obviously Freeman’s foreign ties weren’t the real problem, it was his criticism of israel. And this was true before he wrote this letter about the Israel Lobby. Rahm Emanuel wasn’t subjected to a different standard. It was the same standard: “what’s good for the jewish community?”, as M.J. Rosenberg would put it.

Ira Forman, who was quoted praising Emanuel above, here gleefully spells out the fate of anyone who notices that what’s good for the jewish community isn’t necessarily good for their own. If you speak out, you’ll be punished. If you object to that, you’ll be smeared as “crazy”. Jewish power is a myth. If you doubt that, an invisible, imaginary, non-existent jewish conspiracy will crush you.

In related news, on 11 March 2009 AP published Officials: Iran does not have key nuclear material (my emphasis):

Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium – which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.

Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel’s top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.

The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.

Maples said the United States and Israel are interpreting the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions.

“The Israelis are far more concerned about it,” Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Blair also stood firm behind former U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman, his pick for a top analysis job, despite strong congressional criticism.

Freeman, who was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war, had harshly criticized the Israeli government, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism in general.

A policy council Freeman headed also has been criticized for some ties to foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia and China. Blair’s inspector general is investigating those ties while Freeman works with ethics advisers to scrub his personal finances for potential conflicts of interest.

Blair and Maples will very soon be following Freeman. Then Rahm Emanuel can tap Ira Forman or someone else Ira Forman approves of as National Intelligence Director. Then Obomba will get the “correct” intel. Then he can bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran. And then jews everywhere will live happily ever after.

American Goy notes the relative silence of the media and other curious details in Irony overload- the strange case of Charles W. “Chas” Freeman.

UPDATE 12 March 2009: On 11 March 2009 American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris issued the following statement:

Apparently, Chas Freeman can dish it out but can’t take it.

Like all appointments to key national security positions, Freeman’s merited public scrutiny. His views on “Abdullah the Great,” on Israel, on September 11, and on Tiananmen Square were a matter of public record, and respected officials on both sides of the aisle raised legitimate concerns about them.

Ambassador Freeman could have defended those beliefs in an open debate. Instead, he chose to fire off nasty emails scapegoating the “Israel Lobby” for his own decision to withdraw.

The only “libels” and “smears” here are Freeman’s tired cliches about a nefarious “Israel Lobby” that stifles debate. In truth, it’s Freeman, a charter member of the Saudi Fan Club, who wanted the debate to be silenced – since he found himself on the losing side once it started.

If Freeman’s conspiratorial rant reflects the quality of his analysis and his temperament under pressure, it’s just further evidence that he wasn’t the right man for this critical job.

This statement, and especially the last sentence, sounds just like Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, already quoted above. It’s as if they’re conspiring or something. But that’s just conspiratorial talk.

Scapegoating, in my dictionary, means blaming someone who isn’t responsible. When criticism is aimed at any other powerful entity it’s called “speaking truth to power”. When jewish power is criticized many jews insinuate the critic is insane, others revel in crushing the critic’s windpipe, and a few “self-hating jews” affirm his criticism.

On 6 March 2009 Richard Silverstein wrote Chas. Freeman: Aipac Smells Blood in the Water (links in original):

Admiral Dennis Blair’s appointment of Chas. Freeman as chair of the National Intelligence Council becomes more troubled by the day. Not because of any real taint on Ambassador Freeman’s record, but because Aipac and its Congressional water carriers are upping the ante day by day in a campaign to oust him due to his strongly critical views about the Israeli Occupation.

His critics veil their criticism in an attack on Freeman’s close ties to Chinese and Saudi business and government interests, but make no mistake–Freeman’s sin is his outspokenness on Israel and his sympathies for Palestinian suffering.

This coordinated attack fits Aipac’s modus operandi to a tee. First, you will probably not hear the group’s name directly associated with the assault. The phone calls go from Aipac headquarters to their mostly Republican minions on the Hill. But it’s entirely possible that unlike the Manchurian Candidate, Aipac doesn’t even need to activate their operatives. They’ve been so indoctrinated that the Congress members know what is expected of them and they start the campaign themselves.

And by the by, Jim Lobe notes notes that most of the seven Congress members who signed a letter asking for an investigation of Freeman were heavy recipients of pro-Israel campaign donations closely affiliated with Aipac.

Even Chuck Schumer, now New York’s leading pro-Israel political leader after Hillary’s promotion to State, is getting in on the act. He picked up the phone to call his good friend and fellow pro-Israel Dem., Rahm Emanuel, to rail about Freeman. What’s especially significant about Schumer’s involvement is that until now the opposition was led by straight neo-con Republican forces and the pro-Israel right: Steve Rosen, Michael Goldfarb, the Republican Jewish Coalition, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mark Kirk, Marty Peretz, Jonathan Tobin, etc. Schumer is the first Democratic leader to get into the tussle.

AJC, NJDC, AIPAC, Schumer, Emanuel, … how many more nonentities of the mythical Israel Lobby are involved here?

Read more about AIPAC at Secrecy News. Among other things you might be interested to find out more about Steve Rosen, Freeman critic and alleged spy for israel:

AIPAC Case Lingers On | Secrecy News
AIPAC Appeals Court Rules Against Prosecutors | Secrecy News
The Jewish Chronicle – Classifieds, News, Business, and Events

American Goy sums up why spying for israel isn’t considered wrong:

You see, the defense team can point out to the 2008 AIPAC meeting, and show a few short films showing Obama, Clinton, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner all saying the same thing – that Israel is America’s greatest friend.

Well then, since Israel is America’s greatest friend, giving our greatest friend and ally, the best thing to happen to the world since sliced bread was invented, a few measly “top secret” documents stolen from the Pentagon, is not treason, nor can it be proven to cause injury to the United States.

Because Israel is our greatest friend and ally.

Because American and Israeli interests and goals are the same.

Steve Rosen’s response posted 10 March 2009, Chas Freeman withdraws from NIC nomination:

Democratic Representative Steve Israel said that he spoke of his concerns last week to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and later sent him materials about the former ambassador’s statements and associations. Israel, a member of the House Appropriations Committee’s Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said in a phone interview, “As I was leaving the White House this afternoon, they told me of Blair’s statement” of Freeman’s withdrawal. “I think Blair’s defense of Freeman was indefensible, and people in the White House realized that.”

Freeman is indefensible in the sense that at this point anyone who defends him will just as surely be drummed out of government by the same mythical conspiracy.

A powerful US politician whose middle name is Israel, and another whose last name is Israel, join together with a collection of well-funded, well-organized pro-Israel organizations to snuff the appointment of a critic of Israel, while a gaggle of jews waves their hands, Jedi-style, saying “it was his conspiratorial temperament”.

What can I say? This is absolutely mindnumbing. The scandal is already over-the-top and the ADL and SPLC haven’t even piped up to claim that it’s just another example of how the poor powerless jews get scapegoated by “old canards” of “the anti-semites”.

freeland_zuckerman

Moral Hazard

View From the Top – Part 1, January 29 2009:

Mort Zuckerman, co-founder and chairman of Boston Properties, talks to Chrystia Freeland, US managing editor, and the economic crisis, the credit crunch and what government intervention should look like.

At about 3:20:

Zuckerman: …some how or another the federal govt is going to have to join in some way with guaranteeing bank loans. Not the full amount but let’s just say that commercial banks would make loans for 10 or 15 or 20…

Freeland: Guarantee new loans?

Z: New loans, not old loans. Because we must find a way to start credit flowing in the economy again or else we stand a chance of a real bust. So some how or another we have to get the government involved.

F: Wouldn’t that impose a risk of moral hazard? Isn’t that sort of Fanny Freddization all over again…

Z: Moral hazard, ideology, these are the things we can no longer think about – when you’re talking about saving the system. I wouldn’t care if we save the system by violating concerns about moral hazard or ideology.

F: If the govt has to intervene even more deeply in the financial system how much extra money do you think it’s going to end up spending on that?

Z: Well I saw where Larry Summers estimated that it would take somewhere between a trillion and a half dollars and three trillion dollars just in a sense to refloat the financial system. I think that’s a very good range. If anything I would come out near the top end of the range.

F: Of government money?

Z: Or government credit.

F: And do you think the American people, the American political system, is prepared to sign off on that amount of money?

Z: I think when they see what the alternatives are I think they’ll be prepared to do that.

At about 6:45:

Z: …because without that confidence nothing will work. No matter what this is a consumer led economy. 72% of our economy is based on consumption. If the consumer holds back and pulls back – which he or she can do – people can live very well with alot of what they already have other than food and drink and fuel.

F: No one needs to buy a new a car this year, no one needs to buy a new TV set.

Z: Right. A lot of people can live – it’s the TV programming that needs to be changed not the TV set. And I’ll tell ya, this is going to be an extraordinary year in American public life no matter who is in the Congress and who is in the White House.

View From the Top – Part 2, January 29 2009 begins:

F: You’re also a publisher. How is the print publishing business doing?

Z: Well the print publishing business is an oxymoron. It is no longer a business. It is an advertising driven business and the advertisers have driven elsewhere.

Zuckerman goes on to claim that almost every major newspaper is losing money, but that he didn’t get into the business to make money, he’s just addicted to journalism.

At about 8:05:

F: Has the Madoff affair had a particular impact on the American jewish community?

Z: Well I suppose on some level it is, the fact is that what he did was completely against jewish values, against not only the way jews contribute to a community in human terms but in financial terms – he robbed alot of charities of the funds which they are contributing to…

F: Specifically actually jewish charities that he was involved in.

Z: Yeah, alot of jewish charities, yes. My charity isn’t specifically a jewish charity – I mean I support cancer research, and scholarships, and things like that, but having said that, but you know as I said Ponzi, last time I checked, was an Italian and he was the person who gave the name to this kind of thing and it doesn’t mean that all Italians are involved in this. So the fact that he happens to be jewish, he’s also a sociopath, and that was the dominant feature of this man, who was willing to damage all sorts of people almost without remorse.

Freeland would seem to disagree. She’s concerned about the particular impact on jews, and specifically actually jewish charities.

It’s easy to imagine Madoff, at least up until December 2008, was thinking about his private pyramid scheme along the same lines Zuckerman is still thinking about the larger consumer-based economy: moral hazard, ideology, these are the things we can no longer think about – when you’re talking about saving the system.

Jewish charities. Keep people spending. Save the system. This is how jews really contribute to a community in financial terms.

Ponzi, last time I checked, was a piker compared to Madoff. From here on Madoff should be the person who gives the name to this kind of thing. As Zuckerman should readily agree, nobody will think that means all jews are involved.

how_to_be_happy_dammit

how to be HAPPY, dammit

I was going through a box of books separating the wheat from the chaff when I came upon how to he HAPPY, dammit – a cynic’s guide to spiritual happiness. It was a gift and I never had any interest in reading it. Wincing once more at the garish cover I was about to toss it in the trash when on a whim instead I cracked it open, just to see what kind of wisdom about happiness I was about to forgo…

Life Lesson #15

You must unlearn.

To get what you want, you must be open not only to learning – but un-learning. You must sign up for un-lessons – where you un-learn learned fear, guilt, anger, jealousy, insecurity – and that’s just for starters.

Hmm. This is interesting. I know I’ve got a lifetime of guilt-tripping to un-learn. Eagerly I turned the page…

In other words, before you write your to-do list of what you want, you have to write your un-do list and to-don’t list. So you get a piece of paper and you write down the following six categories: money, love, sex, family, power, happiness. Next to each of these categories you write down your negative views – your fears, your guilts, your insecurities – that you must un-learn and un-feel.

Hmm. Well, those aren’t necessarily the categories or priorities I would pick, but let’s see where this is going…

For instance, you ask yourself what negative views you have about money. Like: Do you believe all rich people are superficial jerks – hence if you become rich you too might become a superficial jerk? Do you suffer from Keeping Down with the Joneses syndrome? Do you feel guilty about surpassing your friends – and/or parents – in wealth? If so, you must un-learn and un-feel these negative ideas and negative emotions…And you find that when you trade in these negative beliefs and emotions for positive ones, you start getting more in harmony with receiving money. You start seeing money everywhere.

Even in the word harmony, which suddenly now looks to you like harmoney.

Wait a minute…what kind of spiritualist wrote this materialist crap?

karen salmansohn

Oh.

04-24-04

A Censorious Debate

In a post at Oz Conservative titled A curious debate, Mark Richardson writes:

Should the liberal state permit the existence of non-liberal communities? There has been a debate amongst academics in recent years on this issue.

One curious feature of this debate is the concept that the liberal academics have of themselves. They usually take themselves to be free, autonomous individuals leading self-directing and self-chosen lives in contrast to the unreflective, non-liberal individuals in traditional communities.

He quotes an academic named Jacob Levy who questions our right to exist.

Seeking to engage in the debate I used a response from Lawrence Auster as a launching point:

Auster writes:

The signs are gathering that the Western societies are heading into an age of civil wars. Not between white and nonwhite, not between Christian and Muslim, but between liberal whites and non-liberal whites. That’s shaping up as the major divide of our time.

That’s right. Our biggest problem is not muslims. It’s the “liberal whites” who prepared the ground and opened the gates, who enabled the muslims and the rest of the non-White world to invade and rape the West. The “liberal whites” are raping it too.

Western societies have been in an age of treason since the French revolution ended and jewish emancipation began. Here was the first ill-fated deployment of liberal egalitarianism – the recognition of jews and Europeans as equals. This egalitarianism led directly to the emancipation of negroes and the emancipation of women. In 1965 egalitarianism became equalitarianism, which produced civil rights and open borders. This mutated into “non-discrimination”, an Animal Farm-like regime where some groups are more equal than others. We see it today in the elevation and celebration of homosexuals and illegal aliens. Big Lies abound. They come for the jobs! Diversity is our greatest strength! Islam is a religion of peace! But anyone with eyes can see what’s going on. Under the neo-liberal regime all that is deviant, non-White, non-Christian, or non-European is sacrosanct and held in the highest esteem, while all that is traditional, White, Christian, or European is suspect, tainted, held up for scorn and ridicule.

Indeed, the major divide of our time is between neo-liberal “whites” and non-liberal Whites. It’s not so much a civil war as it is a race war. On the one side are the bolshevist, totalitarian, anti-liberal, anti-White “liberal whites”. The hippies, cosmopolitans, plutocrats and globalists who dominate all sides of politics, finance, media, law, and academia. They’re revolutionaries, left and right, whose highest calling is to erase all borders, “mobilize” labor, and “harmonize” the world’s laws. They want world government. One system. Death or the gulag for their critics.

In their way are Whites – the ordinary, unassuming natives of Europe and the descendants of European pioneers elsewhere. We occupy the center politically, divided against each other. We are the middle class economically, our resources outmatched by our corporate- and endowment-funded enemies. We share Main Street, family-oriented values. We’re skeptical of change and wish to be left alone to live, think, speak and worship in peace. Many of us see what the “liberal whites” have been up to and are aghast, appalled, or apoplectic. Some of us see how the “liberals” have now moved beyond pathologizing and gagging us, that they intend to exterminate us via immigration.

What “liberal white” Jacob Levy wrote is just a couched way of saying what “liberal white” Jeremy Hardy put more explicitly:

On the 9th of September, 2004, the Marxist comedian, Jeremy Hardy, said this on the Radio 4 show Speaks to the Nation:

“In some areas of the country the British National Party has been doing quite well electorally…

The BNP are Nazis…

If you just took everyone from the BNP, and everyone who votes for them, and shot them in the back of the head, there would be a brighter future for us all.”

Hardy was not vilified, warned, cautioned or threatened with prosecution for making these remarks.

Or what “liberal white” Susan Sontag (born Rosenblatt) expressed more generally:

Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Balanchine ballets, et al. don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history.

Or what “liberal white” Noel Ignatiev put more bluntly:

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed–not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

“Liberal whites” who think like this have been in control of the West since WWII ended. They’ve been sending ever louder signals for some time that their “tolerance” for our existence has reached its end. It’s high time we recognized the war they’ve been waging against us and respond.

When I checked back my comment was gone. Mark Richardson explained why:

Taanstafl, I eventually decided to delete your comment, even though there were parts of it written to a high standard.

Your initial description of the political divide was interesting. You wrote that on one side there were:

“The hippies, cosmopolitans, plutocrats and globalists who dominate all sides of politics, finance, media, law, and academia. They’re revolutionaries, left and right, whose highest calling is to erase all borders, “mobilize” labor, and “harmonize” the world’s laws. They want world government. One system.”

But:

“In their way are Whites – the ordinary, unassuming natives of Europe and the descendants of European pioneers elsewhere. We occupy the center politically, divided against each other. We are the middle class economically, our resources outmatched by our corporate- and endowment-funded enemies. We share Main Street, family-oriented values. We’re skeptical of change and wish to be left alone to live, think, speak and worship in peace. Many of us see what the “liberal whites” have been up to and are aghast, appalled, or apoplectic.”

The problem for me is that you then left this larger view of things for a more reductionist one, by suggesting that it is specifically Jews who control the West and that it is they who are no longer willing to tolerate the existence of Christian whites.

I’m ruling this out of bounds for this site. I’m willing to recognise that Jews have been disproportionately represented in the radical movements. However, when nearly the entire political class shares a liberal orthodoxy, I don’t think it’s right, or helpful, to blame one group alone.

Auster responded like so:

On another subject, I note that the comment by Tanstaafl that Mr. Richardson has deleted is very mild compared to his usual anti-Semitic outpourings. Tanstaafl has written, “Jews are my enemy,” and criticized me for, among other things, not directing “all” my criticisms against Jews. The basic Tanstaafl position (and the Darwinian anti-Semitic position) is that everything that Jews or people of Jewish background do and say (including everything that I have ever written) is directed at undermining white gentiles in the interests of Jewish power. The only good Jew, in the anti-Semites’ book, is one who agrees with the anti-Semites’ position that I’ve just summarized.

I am about to post the following. I’m curious to see if it is also considered reductionist, or has some other defect:

Mark, this is your blog and you can delete what you want. If you’d prefer I not post here at all just say the word and I won’t.

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you deleted my previous comment. Obviously it will be harder now for others to judge whether your characterization of it is fair. I was actually trying to expand Auster’s one-dimensional vague assertion about “civil wars” into a deeper view, rooted in history going back generations, and to provide an interpretation linking many of the themes you discuss in isolation elsewhere in your blog. In that respect what I wrote is a synthesis into a more complex whole, not a reduction into simpler parts.

As for Auster, I trust readers will note his very “liberal” smear tactics. If there’s a reductionist view here it is his own – with every problem springing either from “liberals” or “anti-semites”. Like “liberal whites” he believes certain people should not be permitted to express our opinions. Like Jacob Levy he’s capable of rationalizing all sorts of reasons. Unlike Levy, Auster claims to oppose liberalism, so when he gets censorious there’s really only one explanation that makes sense. He resents that I see it and point it out. For example, notice that he’s not nearly as willing to shun and silence “liberals” or to delve into their motives as he is with “anti-semites”.

Prior to his civil war comment above Auster has been describing our predicament as “suicidal white guilt”, as if it is our idea to destroy ourselves, and it sprang from thin air. I consider this an unacceptable libel against my people, offered in bad faith in the interest of protecting his own.

I was trying to contribute to the discussion here and don’t wish to derail it. I’ll gladly continue to debate any of this at my own blog.

The image above is from The Censorious Race.

friedman_genocidal_immigrationist

Genocidal Immigrationists

Or immigration genocidalists. Either phrase captures the meaning of the point I’m going to make here.

Several items in the news recently provide strong indications that our hostile, illegitimate rulers are preparing to once again foist amnesty and more aliens upon us. Whether they succeed or not hardly matters in the long term. The West is already brimming with aliens. Many are illegal and most are producing babies at a faster rate than the natives. Even so, legitimizing those aliens and inviting more is one of the highest priorities of our ruling class. After being rebuffed in their last treacherous attempt in the US in 2007 the housing bubble burst. Obviously then, at least to bubblists, a big part of getting the Holy Global Economy back on track is to jack up the already unprecedented migration of human herds to ever more unprecedented levels.

I wrote about one of the signs of this preparation in my last post, Now the NYT Wants to Talk About Immigration. Below are several more.

- – -

In October 2008 the Sunday Express article titled Secret plot to let 50million African workers into EU revealed:

A controversial taxpayer-funded “job centre” opened in Mali this week is just the first step towards promoting “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”.

Brussels economists claim Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe. 

The report, by the EU statistical agency Eurostat, warns that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population.

It states: “Countries with low fertility rates could require a significant number of immigrants over the coming dec­ades if they want to maintain the existing number of people of working age. 

“Having sufficient people of working age is vital for the economy and for tax revenue.” 

The report, by French MEP Francoise Castex, calls for immigrants to be given legal rights and access to social welfare provision such as benefits. 

Ms Castex said: “It is urgent that member states have a calm approach to immigration. To say ‘yes’, we need immigration … it is not a new development, we must accept it.”

No. We do not need immigration, we know this treachery is not new, and no we don’t have to accept it. And by “we” I mean as in “We the People”, as opposed to the royal “we” bureaucratic servants of the plutocrats are wont to use.

The proposals include the creation of a “blue card” system, based on the American green card, that provides full working and welfare rights.

Blue card holders would be entitled to move freely across the EU, setting up home in any of the 27 member states.

This is how a bait-and-switch works. First they create the EU, telling everyone what an advantage it will be for Europeans to visit each other. Then they make Africa part of the EU. Et voila, métissage EU-wide! Instead of co-opting the elected leaders of 27 countries all the immigrationists had to do was co-opt one. They may be genocidal, but they’re not stupid.

The proposals – part of the Africa-EU Partnership signed in Portugal last December – also warns of the negative effects of mass immigration and calls for “better integration of African migrants”.

It calls too for a compassionate approach to the eight million illegal immigrants already living in the EU.

It states: “Irregular migrants must not be treated like criminals. Many risk their lives seeking freedom or the means of subsistence in Europe. As long as the EU has a higher standard of living than those countries to its south and east, the temptation to come will exist – especially if there are jobs to be had.”

Eight million invaders and umpteen million guest aliens isn’t genocidal enough for the immigrationists.

If our leaders were not hostile toward us then this concern they constantly express for the well-being of “migrants”, “irregular” and otherwise, would instead be directed at least once in a while toward the natives. In the past this “there are jobs to be had” line was a dishonest way of saying “there are wages to be lowered”. Today, with jobs evaporating, it’s a dishonest way of saying “jobs, schmobs, all we care about is getting more africans into Europe”.

The declaration calls on the EU to assist African governments to set up migration information centres “to better manage labour mobility bet­ween Africa and the EU”.

One of the “negative effects of mass immigration” is that it lowers the quality of living of the natives and depresses their rate of reproduction. In consciously pursuing a policy that assists non-European “migration” and “labour mobility” the EU is perpetrating genocide on Europe’s native people.

- – -

Today in Tom Friedman disses Mexicans Steve Sailer links Friedman’s The Open-Door Bailout:

“All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans.”

While his tongue was slightly in cheek, Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: “Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn’t through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.”

How very slick of him to attribute the idea, and the backlash, to Gupta. Note however that Friedman quotes his own imagination in the second paragraph. The hooey about creative destruction and dead capital might smell less fragrant if it weren’t being spouted in the wake of a trillion dollar save-the-financiers bailout, a trillion dollar printing frenzy by the Fed, and a multi-trillion dollar save-the-financiers stimulation. And that’s in just the last six months. Imagine what kind of wage-slave-funded prizes the coming months hold for our wealthiest risk-takers.

In truth what fuels the “open economy”, and what the financiers really want, is much closer to what Gupta describes. Billions of little worker bees, working their little hearts out for the profit of rootless cosmopolitan bankers who have no scruples whatsoever about saying whatever they have to to keep the whole rotten scheme rolling. Gupta isn’t trying to sell his idea to the American public. He’s selling it to our hostile rulers. Through propaganda like Friedman’s (stir and repeat) nearly everyone is convinced that America is a big multicult corporation, and “wealth” is the only measure of what is good and right.

Friedman goes on to complain about restrictions on using bailout money to hire H-1B visa holders:

In an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriers against such brainpower — anywhere? That’s called “Old Europe.” That’s spelled: S-T-U-P-I-D.

There’s a part of “Old Europe” these immigrationists seem very eager to reproduce across the entire West. It’s spelled: B-A-L-K-A-N-S.

The fantasy Friedman has for America already exists in San Diego. As recently as 25 years ago San Diego and it’s suburbs were populated mostly by conservative Whites with small town values. The blacks and latinos lived in enclaves. Today it’s one giant sprawl. The Whites who remain are mostly liberals who live in gated enclaves. The older communities have fractured and shrank faster than new ones could be built. Whites have been fleeing this dystopia for years but with the bubble bursting and a bankrupt government in denial the trend will accelerate. Replacing us is a tossed salad of aliens flowing in from every corner of the planet who want their piece of America.

The latinos dominate numerically, and once they’re legalized they’ll dominate politically too, as they already do in Lost Angeles. Lunch time at the food court in Sorrento Valley (home of Qualcomm and other high-tech employers) is a thoroughly multicult experience. A glimpse of what Friedman desires. It consists of predominantly latino food servers and custodians, supervised predominantly by middle easterners, serving a wide variety of foreign cuisine to a geeky clientele whose racial ratio is roughly 7-3-2-1 indians/pakis-”white”-chinese-other. By my inexpert eye a large fraction of the “whites” are related to Friedman.

“If you do this [H-1B hiring restriction], it will be one of the best things for India and one of the worst for Americans, [because] Indians will be forced to innovate at home,” said Subhash B. Dhar, a member of the executive council that runs Infosys, the well-known Indian technology company that sends Indian workers to the U.S. to support a wide range of firms. “We protected our jobs for many years and look where it got us. Do you know that for an Indian company, it is still easier to do business with a company in the U.S. than it is to do business today with another Indian state?”

Each Indian state tries to protect its little economy with its own rules. America should not be trying to copy that. “Your attitude,” said Dhar, should be “ ‘whoever can make us competitive and dominant, let’s bring them in.’ ”

This indian technocrat wants us to think he wants us to do something bad for his relatives. Hire them. Keep them from enriching india. Uh huh. Right. Remember this pitch isn’t aimed at the typical American, it’s aimed at our treacherous ruling class. “If you don’t hire us we’re going to compete with you!” That isn’t a threat, it’s a lame attempt to take American jobs without competing and to move into our nice society without having to create one of their own. They have the internet in india. They can do these “knowledge economy” jobs there. The cost of living is much cheaper. But who could blame them for not wanting to live in Mumbai? Of course they want to live in the kind of society Whites produce. Everyone does. They prove it every time they scream in our faces over the prospect that we might keep them out. The big problem for all of us is that wherever enough mexicans, indians, or chinese collect you get mexico, india, or china. Where they mix you get something like San Diego circa 2009. The weather is nice, but it’s not America.

Message to Tom Friedman, the NYT, and all the rest of you genocidal freaks: It doesn’t matter to me whether you think importing latinos, indians, chinese, or koreans is “profitable”. It’s destroying my society. I’d rather be poor, unemployed, and starving – and keep my society.

One last thing. Notice how Friedman appeals to “competitive advantage” and Dhar appeals to “competitive and dominant”. It echoes the “competition” rhetoric Obama occasionally used on the campaign trail. The weird thing about these globalists is they never explain who “us” is or who “we” are competing against. In fact most of the time they’re saying competition is a bad thing, “we” are all the same, and “we” don’t need borders.

- – -

The last item is Progress by Pesach:

Progress by Pesach is endorsed nationally by American Jewish Committee (AJC), Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B’nai B’rith International, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish Reconstructionist Federation (JRF), National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), The Rabbinical Assembly, Union for Reform Judaism, and Uri l’Tzedek: The Orthodox Social Justice Movement . Progress by Pesach is endorsed locally by Am Kolel Jewish Renewal Center (Rockville/Beallsville, MD), Jewish Community Action (St. Paul, MN), Jewish Community Relations Council of Southern Arizona (Tucson, AZ), Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (Rockville, MD), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (Chicago, IL), Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (New York, NY), Jews United for Justice (Washington, DC), MIKLAT! A Jewish Response to Displacement (Milwaukee, WI), and the Progressive Jewish Alliance (Los Angeles, CA).

Progress by Pesach is the national Jewish campaign to encourage the new administration and congress to choose humanitarian immigration reform over the failed policy of exclusively relying on raids and enforcement tactics as a means of controlling immigration.

Passover is a time when we celebrate our freedom from bondage and remember when we were strangers in a strange land. Connecting our history to the struggles of immigrants today is the inspiration behind Progress by Pesach.

From Patrick Cleburne comes The Kvetcher: Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Kvetcher’s post is titled Jewish Far-Leftist Boasts Goal of ‘Progress By Pesach’ is to Thwart the Will of the Majority Population! He writes:

I would love to declare that people like Rosenthal do not represent the mainstream Jewish organizations. But how can I reasonably claim that? Look at their “partners” list. These aren’t only radical and consistently shrill organizations…there are also mainstream Jewish organization that have signed on as well.

Who the hell do these Jews think they are?

Cleburne writes:

The Kvetcher’s Blog is inwardly directed to the Jewish community. In that respect, it could be very valuable. I appeal to VDARE.com’s unjewish friends not to intervene. The Kvetcher has his hands more than full.

No intervention here. I’d just like to echo Kvetcher’s question. I’ll take it one step farther and say I’d really like to live in an ethnostate with a big concrete wall around it. And I’d like it by Easter. Got that Obama? Short of that I’d like to encourage these oh-so-self-righteous Pesachers to choose to progress themselves over to israel and take up their important humanitarian immigration reform work there. After all, israel is a nation of immigrants. They should be looking for whoever can make them competitive and dominant. Stir and repeat, stir and repeat.

- – -

The comment I left on Sailer’s post regarding Friedman reads:

Being a world-class progressivist-globalist economist is simple. There’s only one principle to remember. It holds under all circumstances – boom, crash, or in between.

“We need more immigrants.”

Of course we need more immigrants like we need more gangs, more shortages, more diseases, more crowding, more deficits, more taxes, more slums, more distrust, and more violence.

We need immigrants like we need more houses and less farmland, woods, marsh, and wildlife. The rationale, such as it is, was described by Sailer in The circular logic of the bubble economy, 2002-2007:

Hire illegal aliens to build new houses in the exurbs for people wanting to get their kids out of school districts overwhelmed by the children of illegal aliens.

Except the circular logic didn’t stop in 2007 and it isn’t restricted to illegals. It transcends bubbles. It transcends parties. It’s hard to imagine anything that would stop it – unless enough people recognize it for what it is: a crime of monstrous proportions.

It’s difficult for that to happen because the media aids and abets the crime by downplaying its importance and pathologizing the opposition.

The crime is a pyramid scheme motivated in part by greed and in part by malice. Those who believe in limitless growth, regardless of the costs, are frauds. Those who believe in limitless immigration, regardless of the consequences and over the objections of the natives it is displacing and dispossessing, are genocidal maniacs.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Auster Projecting, Again

In an entry titled Why do the anti-Semites always deny their own openly stated positions? Lawrence Auster writes (his emphasis):

Wheeler thus exhibits the classic dishonesty of the anti-Israelites which I’ve discussed many times. They ceaselessly grumble about the fact that they are called anti-Semites and excluded from discussion forums because they “don’t subscribe” to Israel, or because they “don’t genuflect” to Israel, or because they “don’t jump on the Zionist bandwagon,” and other similar phrases, as though anyone were asking them to subscribe or genuflect or jump on a bandwagon! These people never have the simple honesty and manhood to say something like, “Auster excluded me because I said that of all the nations on earth Israel alone is cursed and deserves to be the target of terrorism forever.”

Why do the anti-Semites, who make such a deal about their own courage, nobility, and honesty in the face of a hostile and hypocritical society, always try to conceal their actual beliefs and the actual reasons that other people reject them? Why do they keep telling such transparent lies? Why don’t they take proud responsibility for their avowed principles that get them excluded? Why do they declare a war of perpetual terrorism against Jews, and then claim to have been treated unfairly when Jews simply refuse to talk to them?

In other words, apart from their sick and evil beliefs about the Jews, what is wrong with these people?

We begin by observing that in this post, as he so often does, Auster is projecting his own guilty mind onto others. It is Auster himself who does a daily dance of pretense. He has provided more than enough evidence (which I have pointed out before and will cite and add to below) that he is not clearly and openly expressing his true motives or priorities. He never has the simple honesty and manhood to say something like, “I called for these people to be excluded because my highest priority is to do what I think is good for jews”. He’s always grumbling that others should take responsibility for their avowed principles even while he distorts what those principles are and regularly violates his own.

For one thing, note how illogical and sloppy Auster’s argument above is. Auster leaps from criticizing Wheeler, to all anti-israelites, to all anti-semites. He takes a single brief comment of Wheeler’s, the general sentiment of which Wheeler has openly expressed on several occasions in several forms and forums, searches out the longer more specific exchange with himself to which Wheeler referred, interprets the differences between the two as a sign of maliciousness, absurdly asserts that Wheeler is trying to mislead others about what he really believes, and then extends this smear to a broad, amorphous group of other people, claiming that it exemplifies their “sick and evil” beliefs. Auster’s thinking here is not only irrational. It is based on precisely the kind of leaps of logic and idiotic generalizations he himself decries when he thinks such tactics are being used against jews.

Auster often misrepresents his own previously stated positions. Here he implies that he believes the only punishment for those he labels “anti-semite” is and should be that jews simply not talk to them. The fact is that he has provided a vast corpus detailing how he really feels about and wants done to anyone “to his right” on jews or israel. In reading this corpus it is clear he hates “anti-semites” and “anti-israelites” with a passion deeper, more emphatically expressed, and less convincingly justified than he puts into anything else he writes about.

Consider the specific example provided by In which circle of hell do the anti-Semites reside? in which he unselfconsciously peddles and projects the “one truth” about which anti-anti-semites like himself obsess (Auster repeats it like a mantra):

Imagine going through life having that one obsessive thought, and believing that this one thought is the truth, the great truth that explains everything, the great truth that will save the world, the great truth that the world is forever suppressing. Having given over their whole being to the idee fixe that the Jews are the source of all evil, the anti-Semites are souls in hell, and, as in Dante’s Hell, they don’t know that they’re in hell, but keep repeating for eternity the same sin that consigned them to hell.

Auster, who so often indulges in guilt-by-association and calls for anyone he labels anti-semite to be censored, is apparently quite willing to associate with and even to provide a forum for Ken Hechtman. This is likely the “Ken H” who comments in the hell thread linked above. There “Ken H” insults Christians as unthinking “true believers” and compares this caricature to Auster’s caricature of anti-semites. This really disturbed Auster. Not because it was an insult to Christians, but because he didn’t want his condemnation of anti-semites to be diminished in any way. “Ken H” agrees that “[a]nti-Semites are certainly outside the pale of normal civil discourse” after which Auster has nothing to say about his slur against Christians.

Months later Auster focused directly on Ken Hechtman. From Hechtman’s thoughts alone Auster’s readers judged him to be a liberal jew. Concerning Hechtman and his thoughts Auster wrote:

You’re beyond the left. You’re off in some fantasy land of your own.
. . .
his agenda is not to preserve our existing society, but to advance Muslim power and influence in Canada and America as step toward building One World
. . .
It may seem, as I said earlier, that Ken Hechtman’s views are so extreme that they cannot be seen as representative of even the usual (i.e. the radical) pro-large-scale immigration, pro-open-borders position, such as that of the people who supported the Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
. . .
You want to destroy Canada, the U.S. and Europe. You want to destroy everything the West and the Western peoples have been.
. . .
KH’s ideas are simply a formula to destroy everything that we are, and should be identified as such.
. . .
These leftists live in an unreal world and are hyper-alienated from anyone who doesn’t share their unreality.

After all that Auster didn’t dehumanize Hechtman or other hyper-alienated pro-open-borders leftists who want to destroy the West by saying they are sick, evil, or have consigned themselves to hell. He never called for any of them, or Hechtman himself, to be censored. Instead he wrote:

I hope Mr. Hechtman doesn’t feel he’s being ganged up on here

Ever since this exchange Mr. Hechtman has been an occasional guest of Mr. Auster’s. Auster meticulously copies and pastes Hechtman’s comments onto his blog just like any other he hand selects for inclusion. Without any mention of his hyper-alienation and anti-West sentiments. Why is that?

Here’s another example. In Anti-Semites: the evil and stupid party Auster writes:

The central assertion of the anti-Semites who have been posting at the American Renaissance website for the last week is that “Zionist Jews” (as distinct from non-Zionist Jews) are the main threat to Western culture. This idea is so moronic that anyone who says it should be excluded from a discussion forum on that basis alone.

By the way, one of the absolute proofs that someone is an anti-Semite is that he describes anti-Semites as people who are merely “asking questions” about the Jews, or who are merely “criticizing” Jews, and therefore it’s terribly unfair to call them anti-Semites. This is the parody of rationality I’ve often mentioned. When I talk about the difference between rational criticism of Jews and anti-Semitism, I’m talking about something real. When the anti-Semites try to do the same thing, they are merely playing their endless game of trying to get themselves legitimized.

Now sit back for a moment and try to imagine the frustration of these anti-Semites. They are in possession of the one truth that explains all the ills of the world (the Jews are doing it) and that would cure all the ills of the world (kill all Jews in the world), but no one will listen to them! Instead, they are despised, called names, excluded, utterly shunned. Which only proves to them that the Jews are not only destroying the world, but are successfully repressing the only people who can save the world. Which shows how demonically evil and powerful the Jews really are.

According to certain Eastern teachings, the souls of persons who have died suddenly, “before their time,” remain in this world, not knowing that they have died, and so continually seeking the satisfaction of the same desires that they had in life. But they cannot satisfy these desires because they no longer have physical bodies with which to pursue and experience them. The anti-Semites are like that. They have ceased to live as human beings, and all they have left is the single obsessive desire, never satisfied, to get themselves recognized by normal people as legitimate participants in the discussion, and to have the chance–at last!–to prove that the Jews really are the source of all the ills of the West.

There he goes again dehumanizing “anti-semites”.

Against all reason let’s take Auster’s description of the explicitly constrained criticism of jews at AR at face value. How then is the idea that zionism is the main threat to Western culture “moronic”? How can anyone decide what threatens them, or how much, unless all sides of the argument can be openly and fully voiced? Nobody can come to an informed view if discussion is declared “moronic” and forbidden. His correspondents have called Auster’s attention to Whiteness Studies, but he has never called that moronic, nor has he called for its proponents to be excluded from anything.

Auster discusses threats. He even criticizes jews. In How Jews can end the fatal contradiction between supporting Israel and supporting Muslim immigration into the West he acknowledges that zionist jews do pose a threat:

If you address your questions to pro-Israel Jewish neocons and liberals, you will not get an answer. They will go into a fog-like state or change the subject. They cannot acknowledge that through the non-discriminatory immigration policy that they support like a religion, indeed, that they support as the very definition of Jewishness, America has brought the Jews’ mortal enemies into this country.

This is all about the threat jews pose to themselves. Auster cares a great deal about muslim immigration, because they are the mortal enemies of jews. As always his criticism of jews is based on what he believes is good for jews. It is not based on what is good for Whites or the West in general, but it’s easy to see from his words how someone might think so. It certainly isn’t difficult to believe that the immigration jews “support like a religion” is more of a threat to Whites. The non-muslim aliens flooding into the West are just as effectively genociding indigenous Whites as the muslim immigrants are.

It is self-serving and arrogant beyond words that in Auster’s view the more anyone he labels an “anti-semite” struggles to reject censorship and make rational arguments, the more they only prove themselves irrational and worthy of silencing. His logic is circular. His arguments are made in bad faith. His ridicule and scorn boomerangs back on himself.

It is indeed frustrating witnessing Auster so casually project his twisted mentality onto myself and others. The man who simplistically and disingenuously blames virtually every ill on “liberals” and “liberalism” (when he’s not blaming “anti-semites”) imagines his cartoonish “anti-semites” are stupid and evil because he thinks they believe themselves to be “in possession of the one truth that explains all the ills of the world (the Jews are doing it) and that would cure all the ills of the world (kill all Jews in the world)”. In none of the posts I have read has he quoted anyone professing anything close to this, much less claiming that these twin beliefs are their “one truth”.

I call Auster and those who behave as he does anti-anti-semites because they concern themselves so strongly with defining, ferreting out, and attacking anti-semites. For them anti-semitism is not only the extreme claim that jews are the cause of all the problems in the world or that one wishes to kill them. For some anti-anti-semites it is the belief that jews deserve any portion of blame at all. Or any criticism of jews not made in their best interests. The simple act of discriminating Whites from jews or reversing the liberal norms of capitalizing proper nouns can be grounds enough for condemnation.

Labeling someone an anti-semite justifies all further demeaning, dehumanizing, and demonizing of them, and the explicit purpose is to discredit and silence them. Anti-anti-semites do not argue that jews alone should not talk to “the anti-semites”, as Auster claims, they call on anyone who wouldn’t like to suffer the same treatment as them to treat them just as anti-anti-semites do. To the chagrin of anti-anti-semites this doesn’t always happen, but surely they desire it and try hard to make it so.

This “one truth” mantra is one of a handful of pat formulas Auster and other anti-anti-semites use to caricaturize anyone who criticizes jews or israel. They treat even the mildest critcism as a foot in the door, the camel’s nose in the tent as their semitic cousins might say, and assume the source is a single-minded focus on jews. This is a reflection of their own views. They know everything bad that happens to jews is preceeded by criticism of jews. They know everyone knows this is true. Therefore anyone who criticizes jews must want bad things to happen to jews. In every conflict between jews and non-jews these jew-obsessed minds (those of anti-anti-semites that is) place the blame entirely on the non-jews. They claim jews are forever the blameless victims and non-jews are forever the evil victimizers, filled with a hate for jews which springs from nowhere. It afflicts all non-jews (and a few “self-hating” jews) like some cosmic constant across time and space. In their view it is not being attacked, ridiculed, silenced, and then accused of being a hate-addled and insane aggressor that drives non-jews mad with righteous indignation. It is because the non-jews are simply morally and mentally flawed to begin with, prone to scapegoating jews for being successful, envious of jewish superiority.

Or at least that’s how many anti-anti-semites rationalize their bigotry.

Most jews believe it’s wrong to make generalizations about groups. Most are also perfectly comfortable generalizing about the anti-semitism of anti-semites. Some jews even believe that philo-semites are anti-semites who like jews. Talk about one truth.

What demonstrates to me how “powerful the jews really are” is how they have imparted their one-sided views on anti-semitism to Whites. That and their overrepresentation in media, academia, politics, law, and finance, and how effectively and consistently they have used their wealth and positions of authority and control to squelch any criticism of themselves or their power. Many use their verbal dexterity first to deny, then to make blatantly disingenuous arguments about their small absolute numbers, or cite their positive contributions, as a group, knowing full well that the point is their disproportion, as a group, in key positions and the deleterious effect this has empirically had on “the majority” (ie. Whites) for whom most also know full well they harbor animosity. If and when these ploys and pretenses fail, and sometimes before, more than enough jews are willing to punish the critic, or call for others to punish them, using the economic, political, and legal power they claim not to have.

A few days ago, in The anti-Semites and me, Auster criticized Majority Rights. He deems the discussions there unfairly hostile to jews and especially himself:

Overall it is the usual whacked-out anti-Semitic take on me that is seen in those quarters, namely that my real purpose is not to defend the white race and its civilization, the very existence of which is threatened by the West’s continuing openness to mass non-Western immigration, but to undermine the white race in order to protect and empower the Jews. According to the anti-Semites, my entire work–everything I’ve written about immigration, race, culture, liberalism, and neoconservatism–has been motivated by, and is a cover for, my concern for the Jews. From the anti-Semitic perspective, it couldn’t be otherwise. Since I am of Jewish origin, everything I do must be determined by, and focused on advancing, the Jewish agenda.

Auster is concerned with protecting jews. He demonstrates it every time he takes time away from his criticizing of liberals, muslims, and blacks to condemn as “sick and evil” a subset of non-liberal Whites who largely agree with him on immigration, muslims, and blacks. He criticizes them all for the same reason: a perceived threat to jews. This priority overrides any defense he makes of Whites or our civilization. For example, he correctly identifies mass non-Western immigration as an existential threat to the West, but as noted above he does so primarily because he believes it is a threat to jews. When an argument is made that immigration and the many other ways in which jewish efforts to do what they believe to be good for themselves or “minorities” in general (eg. economic and cultural Marxism, Freudian psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, feminism, civil rights, anti-White anti-racism) have undermined and harmed the West in general, and specifically Whites, Auster declares such thoughts “moronic”, “stupid”, “sick”, or “evil”. He refuses to acknowledge the common roots of these jewish-led movements, the common anti-White anti-WASP anti-Christian and anti-Western motives driving them. Instead he attempts to pathologize and silence any such criticism, not because it is mistaken, but because it could harm jews.

Clearly if someone calls himself an X it is perfectly normal for him to also claim to be and act as if he is pro-X. I am White. I am explicitly pro-White. I think and say and do what I do because I am pro-White, not because I hate jews or any other group of non-Whites. I criticize them to the extent I perceive them to have harmed or are harming the interests of myself and my extended family. I understand and respect those who are openly pro-jewish or pro-israel.

Auster however is a charlatan. A poseur. A dissimulator. He acts superficially as if he is pro-Christian, pro-White, and pro-American, but he focuses much more time and energy seeking out and attacking anti-jewish or anti-israel sentiments than he spends seeking out and fighting anti-Christian, anti-White, or anti-American sentiments. He conflates the interests of jews with “whites” and America. He refuses to distinguish these interests and he attacks those who do.

I don’t think any regular writer here or at MR believes Auster is trying to “undermine the White race”. Such can only be a deliberate error coming from someone who so often preens about how carefully he parses others’ thoughts and phrases his own. Why does Auster distort the true criticism? Why is he unable to state it accurately much less answer it, even when he points right at it?

Prozium has made the criticism clearly enough. He notes how and why Auster dodges it.

Auster is more pro-jew than he is pro-White. I’ve said this before and Auster’s predictable response was to call it an “anti-semitic attack”. He got angry at Gates of Vienna for not censoring me when he said they should.

Auster is pro-”white”, subject to constant caveats and reservations. He views jews and Whites as one inseparable “white”, except of course when he’s expressing his concerns for the wholly separate and special interests of jews. He scoffs at the suggestion he is duplicitous, even as he constantly projects his own deceit and ill-will onto others. When my writing first came to his attention he responded with I am attacked for not being an anti-Semite, a title which misrepresented my criticism of him in a way that actually reflected his pro-jewish priority:

Now, a person who is not an anti-Semite and who disapproves of anti-Semitism would want to explain clearly that he is not an anti-Semite. A person who declares that he’s indifferent to whether people call him an anti-Semite is announcing either that he is an anti-Semite, or that he has no problem with anti-Semitism.

Auster thinks I should be concerned about the smears he and others direct at me. He deliberately mistakes my clearly stated distain for indifference and assumes his misinterpretation substantiates his smears.

I reject Auster’s tautological idiocy, but since it’s his I certainly think it’s fair enough to apply it to himself. Therefore his scoffing should be interpreted as an announcement that his real purpose is not to defend the white race and its civilization but to undermine it. That everything he’s written about is a cover for his concern for jews. If he had a problem with this understanding he would have said as much rather than just repeating it with such indifference.

His post Should Auster be ostracized? contains a similar announcement. Here he reproduces part of a comment I wrote at Hesperado (the [sic] business reflects, once again, his priority in opposing even the slightest slight he perceives as anti-jewish):

I would prefer Auster aim all his criticism and advice at the jewish [sic] community he obviously cares so much for, and stop issuing commands and attacking “the majority” that he obviously values only to the extent we serve jewish [sic] interests.

Once again this was aimed directly at Auster but he referred to it as “anti-semitism”. He then took “both Hesperado and Mangan to task for allowing a loony anti-Semite to post at their sites” (just as he did at GoV). Rather than claiming he does this because he hates Whites I think it’s because he loves jews. It’s simply ironic that he left off the first and especially relevant half of my comment, the whole of which was made in response to an Auster fan:

Lawrence Auster is a shining example of an astute mind, one unencumbered by the malaise of political correctness. His contribution to traditional conservative values, and conservatism in general, is invaluable, in my estimation.

Oh yes, I particularly cherish the traditional conservative value of denouncing people as anti-semites and insisting they be shunned and censored.

I would prefer Auster aim all his criticism and advice at the jewish community he obviously cares so much for, and stop issuing commands and attacking “the majority” that he obviously values only to the extent we serve jewish interests.

Auster did not explain clearly that he objects to my description of his motivations. Thus he announces his agreement.

In Reply to Gottfried Auster plays the innocent victim, complaining a fellow jew is attacking him, and resorting to a series of dishonest rationalizations that provide a window into his mind (his emphasis):

According to Gottfried, I am such a monster that I call people anti-Semites, the most damaging thing you can say about someone, simply for disagreeing with me. In reality, I call people anti-Semites who express and invoke hatred against the Jewish people, who with an evil indifference to truth demonize Jews as Jews, who see Jews as the enemy of mankind, who see the Jews as the source of all ills. In fact, I’m so precise in my use of the word anti-Semitic that I don’t even describe outright enemies of Israel as anti-Semitic, unless there is specific proof of the latter. For example, as I’ve explained many times, though Patrick Buchanan is an inveterate bigot against Israel, I’ve never called him anti-Semitic, because he has never attacked Jews as Jews. Similarly, prior to today, I didn’t call Taki anti-Semitic, I called him an Israel-hater, which he undeniably is. But today I called him an anti-Semite, when he turned Bernard Madoff into a symbol of Jewish perfidy and wrote:
Israel can now safely be called the Bernie Madoff of countries, at it has lied to the world about its intentions, stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948, and managed to do all this with American tax payer’s money. Every American taxpayer, starting with George W. Bush, has Palestinian blood on their hands thanks to the butchers that run Israel.

Nobody called Auster a monster. And of course he doesn’t call people anti-semites simply for disagreeing with him. He generally reserves that label for those who disagree with him about jews. He acknowledges the power of the label, “the most damaging thing you can say about someone”, preens again about how precisely he chooses his words, then very precisely dances around the fact that he does apply the label to people, like myself, who do not fit the criteria for anti-semitism that he so precisely states here.

Auster plays even more precise word games with people like Buchanan. In Are neoconservatives “Trotskyites”? Auster writes (my emphasis):

In my view, anti-Semitism must involve an attack on Jews as Jews, or an invocation of hostility against Jews as Jews. Buchanan, as I’ve said before, is self-evidently an anti-Israel bigot. He always puts Israel and Israeli self-defense in the worst light, wants to see Israel destroyed, and takes the side of terrorists. His motives for this may well be an animosity against Jews; I personally believe that he probably does have such an animosity and such a motive.

How magnanimous of Auster. He didn’t once call Buchanan an “anti-semite”. He doesn’t do it again in Buchanan’s White Whale, an article Auster filled with all sorts of mind-reading tricks. Criticizing Buchanan for “protesting too much” against anti-semitism, for hating israel, and worst of all, turning “anti-Semitism into a matter of opinion”. (That must be why there so many standards! It’s all Pat Buchanan’s fault.)

Auster’s treatment of Steve Sailer is another example of bizarre denial. Auster regularly pats himself on the back for not calling Sailer an anti-semite. Sure he assumes Sailer is revealing a secret desire to see israel destroyed whenever he makes flippant baseball analogies, just like I do by spelling israel with a small i. I wrote a bit about this in Suicide vs. Competition. Here’s how Auster explains himself:

I did not say that Sailer is a bigot against Jews. I said that he is a bigot against Israel and Jewish neocons.

Now, many people today consider someone who is a bigot against Israel to be an anti-Semite by definition. I’ve argued at length why I think that’s incorrect.

Auster thinks anti-semitism is a matter of opinion. In his expert opinion neither Buchanan nor Sailer is an anti-semite. Buchanan hates jews because he said – er, well, he didn’t actually say anything of the sort, but Auster claims he thinks it. What Buchanan did say – er, well, he didn’t say this either, but Auster claims he thinks this too – is that anti-semitism is a matter of opinion. What Buchanan actually did complain about is how critics of israel are often smeared as anti-semites. Obviously this is the kind of delusion only an israel-hating imagination could conceive.

Clear as mud, isn’t it? How could anybody believe Auster is a hypocrite who changes his positions and isn’t being honest about his priorities? I mean, sure, here’s yet another example, this one highlighting Auster’s smearing of WASPs and then editing it out.

I could go on and on, but this post is already too long.

madoff_web

The Jewish Bond

We start with some facts as recovered from many sources sprinkled across the philo-semitic media. My emphasis.

‘All Just One Big Lie’
Bernard Madoff was a Wall Street whiz with a golden reputation. Investors, including Jewish charities, entrusted him with billions. It’s gone.

It may be the largest fraud in the history of Wall Street, authorities said. Madoff is charged with stealing as much as $50 billion, in part to cover a pattern of massive losses, even as he cultivated a reputation as a financial mastermind and prominent philanthropist.

Madoff’s investors included a number of prominent hedge funds and the firm of Fred Wilpon, the owner of the New York Mets. Several may have sustained billions of dollars in losses.

But the damage appears to be deepest in the small world of Jewish philanthropy, where Madoff was a leading figure. The North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System said it lost $5 million. The Julian J. Levitt Foundation, based in Texas and focused on Jewish causes, lost about $6 million. Yeshiva University, a New York institution where Madoff served on the board, said it was examining how much money it invested with his firm.

Madoff’s own $19 million foundation, which gave to a range of New York and Jewish causes, also was wiped out.

Madoff’s alleged $50 billion fraud hits other investors

“Madoff’s investors included captains of industry, corporations — some of which are publicly traded — that used Madoff almost as a high-yielding cash management account, endowments, universities, foundations and, importantly, many high-profile funds of funds,” said Douglas Kass, who heads hedge fund Seabreeze Partners Management.

“It appears that at least $15 billion of wealth, much of which was concentrated in southern Florida and New York City, has gone to ‘money heaven,’” he said.

Federal agents arrested Madoff at his apartment on Thursday after prosecutors said he told senior employees that his money management operations were “all just one big lie” and “basically, a giant Ponzi scheme.”

One woman said that when she called the firm’s offices on Thursday she was told it was “business as usual.”

Another investor groused, “Business as usual? Of course it’s business as usual. We’re getting screwed left and right.”

“I expect to get back zero,” said Floridian Susan Leavitt, who invested through Madoff. “When he tells the feds he has $200 million to $300 million left out of billions, what can you expect?”

Madoff said “there is no innocent explanation” for his activities, and that he “paid investors with money that wasn’t there,” according to the federal complaint.

Prosecutors also accused Madoff of wanting to distribute as much as $300 million to employees, family members and friends before turning himself in.

Charged with one count of securities fraud, he faces up to 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed separate civil charges.

Madoff is a member of Nasdaq OMX Group Inc’s nominating committee. His firm has said it is a market-maker for about 350 Nasdaq stocks.

He is also chairman of London-based Madoff Securities International Ltd, whose chief executive, Stephen Raven, said the firm was “not in any way part of” the New York-based market-maker.

Fund Fraud Hits Big Names

Details emerged Friday of how Mr. Madoff ran the alleged scam, fostering a veneer of exclusivity and creating an A-list of investors that became his most powerful marketing tool. From New York and Florida to Minnesota and Texas, the money manager became an insider’s choice among well-heeled investors seeking steady returns. By hiring unofficial agents, tapping into elite country clubs and creating “invitation only” policies for investors, he recruited a steady stream of new clients.

During golf-course and cocktail-party banter, Mr. Madoff’s name frequently surfaced as a money manager who could consistently deliver high returns. Older, Jewish investors called Mr. Madoff ” ‘the Jewish bond,’ ” says Ken Phillips, head of a Boulder, Colo., investment firm. “It paid 8% to 12%, every year, no matter what.”

One of the largest clusters of Madoff investors was in Florida, where losses could be substantial. Mr. Madoff relied on a network of friends, family and business colleagues to attract investors. According to investors and agents, some of these agents were paid commissions for harvesting investors. Others had separate, lucrative business relationships with Mr. Madoff.

“If you were eating lunch at the club or golfing, everyone was always talking about how Madoff was making them all this money,” one investor says. “Everyone wanted to sign up.”

Jeff Fischer, a top divorce attorney in Palm Beach, says many of his clients were also Mr. Madoff’s clients. “Every big divorce that came through my office had portfolio positions with Madoff,” he says.

Two of his investors said that among his clients, Mr. Madoff was considered a money-management legend; they would joke that if Mr. Madoff was a fraud, he’d take down half the world with him.

Mr. Madoff’s main go-between in Palm Beach was Robert Jaffe, say several investors. Mr. Jaffe is the son-in-law of Carl Shapiro, the founder and former chairman of apparel company Kay Windsor Inc. and an early investor and close friend of Mr. Madoff’s. Mr. Jaffe, a philanthropist in Palm Beach, attracted many investors from the Palm Beach Country Club in Palm Beach, Fla.

“He was a low-key guy,” Ms. Manzke says. “He would say, ‘Look, I’m a market-maker, and I don’t want anyone to know I’m running money.’ It was always for select people. He was always closed, he wasn’t taking new money.”

The federal complaints against Mr. Madoff allege his fraudulent activities came through a secretive private wealth-management wing of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, the investment firm he founded in 1960. On Wall Street, his company was perhaps better known for its operations in market-making — the business of serving as a middleman between buyers and sellers — and proprietary trading.

Through those higher-profile parts of his operation, Mr. Madoff was a pioneer in trading New York Stock Exchange shares away from the exchange. He is a past chairman of the board of directors of the Nasdaq Stock Market as well as a member of the board of governors of the National Association of Securities Dealers and a member of numerous committees of the organization, according to his firm’s Web site.

Mr. Madoff owns a home in Roslyn, N.Y., records show, and an elaborate beachfront home and grounds in Montauk on Long Island.

Mr. Madoff and his wife live in an apartment building on Manhattan’s Upper East Side where property records list individual apartments valued at more than $5 million. One property database estimated the 2008 market value of Mr. Madoff’s two-floor unit to be roughly $9 million. For years he has served as president of the building’s co-op board, according to a tenant.

Madoff’s arrest in billion-dollar fraud case shocks Palm Beach investors

Bernard Madoff didn’t accept money from just anyone. Clients ideally had to have at least $10 million to open an account with his New York investment firm.

While such wealthy people don’t turn up just anywhere, the Palm Beach Country Club provided enough to make Madoff’s membership in the predominantly Jewish club worthwhile.

Investing with Madoff also was attractive because the returns were so high, Rampell said. Even in recent years, when other securities tanked, returns were as high as 11 percent to 15 percent, he said.

“There is no innocent explanation,” Madoff told FBI agents, according to court documents. He told the agents he “paid investors with money that wasn’t there,” that he was “broke” and that he expected to go to jail.

The only bright spot for investors is that they may be able to get tax refunds if the investment returns were bogus, Rampell said. But, he acknowledged, that would be little compensation, either financially or psychologically, for those who knew him at the country club.

The auto industry may have to grovel for government money, but “bright spots” magically appear for the members of Madoff’s network.

Madoff Investors May Be Protected By Government
Judge Says Those Duped Need Aid Under The Securites Investor Protection Act

Meanwhile, a federal judge on Monday threw a lifesaver to investors who may have been duped, saying they need the protection of a special government reserve fund set up to help investors at failed brokerage firms.

U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered that clients of Madoff’s private investment business seek relief under a federal statute created to rescue cheated investors. Stanton also ordered that business be liquidated under the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court and named attorney Irvin H. Picard as trustee to oversee that process.

Stanton signed the order after the Securities Investor Protection Corporation asked that steps be taken to protect investors in the scheme, which has ensnared several major banks and prominent figures as victims and could result in as much as $50 billion in losses.

Congress created the SIPC in 1970 to protect investors when a brokerage firm fails and cash and securities are missing from accounts. Funds can be used to satisfy the remaining claims of each customer up to a maximum of $500,000. The figure includes a maximum of up to $100,000 on claims for cash.

SIPC President Stephen Harbeck said in a statement that the fund’s task will be harder than in other bankruptcies because of the size of the misappropriation and the condition of the defunct firm’s records.

Harbeck said it would be unlikely that the trustee can transfer the firm’s customer accounts to a solvent brokerage firm. He added that it was impossible at this point to determine what share each investor might hold in any remaining assets.

From its inception through December 2007, the SIPC has advanced $507 million and made possible the recovery of $15.7 billion in assets for an estimated 626,000 investors, the fund said on its web site.

If the SIPC bails out the Madoff scheme “investors” it will amount to roughly the sum total the SIPC has paid out over its entire 38 year lifetime. Sure, that’s reasonable. Ben Bernanke will just have to print another $15B.

Sailer’s Bernie Madoff as an “affinity scam” is noteworthy mainly for its comments, including:

up yours new yawk said…

What’s interesting about this Madoff scandal is the growing list of liberals and neoconservatives who felt that involvement with charities that work to keep the Jewish bloodlines clean are respectable enterprises to be involved with.

How many Jews are castigating whites for the slightest hint of racial identity and then at the same time funding various “keep it Jewish” charities?

And links in the comments, including I Knew Bernie Madoff Was Cheating, That’s Why I Invested with Him:

So why did these smart and skeptical investors keep investing? They, like many Madoff investors, assumed Madoff was somehow illegally trading on information from his market-making business for their benefit.

Auster writes in Catalog of believers:

Here is a story from today’s New York Post that names many of Bernard Madoff’s clients along with how much they lost. It seems that virtually 100 percent of his believers/followers/marks were Jews and Jewish organizations, and many of them believed in him so much that they had given 100 percent of their investment capital to him.

And from Madoff discussion:

Mark P. writes:

I’m still amazed that a handful of Jews managed to amass $50 billion…

It’s like some kind of…overclass…

(wink) (wink)

He links a video of a round table discussion featuring Madoff discussing his business in October 2007, Bernie Madoff on the modern stock market. Watch this video and note the similarity to the financial bullshit shoveled on your TV every evening. The jargon. The confidence. “We make money by taking risks.” Risk? What risk? When these brainiacs get in trouble their cronies in government put taxpayers on the hook to bail them out.

One thing that could be revealed by this scandal, but probably won’t be, is just how much wealthy jewish “philanthropy” actually goes to exclusively jewish causes. Sailer commenter “up your new yawk” notes the double standard. For jews it is considered perfectly normal to support jewish causes, but the idea of Whites contributing to or participating in or even saying nice things about exclusively White causes is grounds for an accusation that you want to load all the non-Whites onto boxcars and gas them.

A theme that is coming through, loud and clear in what I’ve heard from the MSM, Auster, and Michael Savage, is sympathy for the “investors”. It’s disgusting. The people who participated in this scam, whining now that they’ve lost everything, don’t deserve any sympathy. They’re like the border-running aliens packed in a van that veers off a cliff trying to escape the police. They’re like the bank robbing accomplices who get cheated out of their share by their crooked ringleader.

For years these “investors” thought they were golden, wringing their soft greedy hands with glee over the returns from their invite-only too-good-to-be-legal “jewish bond”. It paid them far more than the lowly nobody putzes, ie. the rest of us, could make via honest means, and they knew it. We nobodies must accept a return that is stable but doesn’t even beat inflation, or we play 401K roulette and take on real risk. Hands up, how many of you lost big money in your 401K this year and can expect the government to bail you out? Hands up, how many don’t have any savings?

This Madoff scheme is being described as the “biggest fraud in history”. No, that would be the September bailout as a whole. Madoff is but a small window into finance capitalism’s corruption and insolvency. Even so, Madoff’s collapse exposes a few major lies upon which the thoroughly judaized progressivist-globalist regime is based: “we’re all equal, but some of us are more equal”, “we deserve these big profits because we take big risks”, and “trust us, we’re really smart and know what we’re doing”.

The white-collar criminals have been running amok for some time. The rest of us have only recently been informed that we and our children will be paying the bill, and though we don’t know what the total is we can be sure it’s enormous. The brainiacs told us we needed millions of aliens to build homes for millions of aliens. Now we have too many homes and the next thing they’ll be telling us we have to legalize all the aliens, right away, and import even more in order to save the Holy Economy – that mother of all pyramid schemes.

Now come these poor jewish millionaire “investors” – “getting screwed left and right”. It’s perfectly natural for us to wonder, how did a handful of jews manage to amass so many billions? And it’s perfectly natural to conclude that it involved screwing the rest of us left and right.