Tag Archives: plutocracy

Blog

Top International Banker Arrested

100 Comments

But not for fraud or corruption.

I.M.F. Head Is Arrested and Accused of Sexual Attack – NYTimes.com:

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was taken off an Air France plane at Kennedy International Airport minutes before it was to take off for Paris on Saturday and arrested in connection with the sexual attack of a maid at a Midtown Manhattan hotel, the authorities said.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 62, who was widely expected to become the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, was apprehended by detectives of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in the first-class section of the jetliner, and immediately turned over to detectives from the Midtown South Precinct, officials said.

The New York Police Department took Mr. Strauss-Kahn into custody, where he was “being questioned in connection with the sexual assault of a hotel chambermaid earlier this afternoon,” Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said Saturday night. “He is being arrested for a criminal sex act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment.”

The link in the text above is to an article from February 18 which provides some background on Strauss-Kahn, painting him as a victim of French nationalists. Strauss-Kahn Has France Talking About a Presidential Run – NYTimes.com:

He has been called a member of “the caviar left,” out of touch with his own more left-leaning party. Some wonder if he might lose in party primaries despite his high poll numbers, which they say are based partly on name recognition and unhappiness with the current choices.

But there have been other, uglier notes in the right’s reaction, circling around the fact that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is Jewish. Christian Jacob, a legislator and farmer, described him as an urban intellectual — a “bobo,” short for “bourgeois-bohemian.” Mr. Jacob said that Mr. Strauss-Kahn did not represent “the image of France, the image of rural France, the image of the France of terroirs and territories.” This notion of rootless cosmopolitanism, of being out of touch with the soil and the mystery of “la France profonde,” is an old trope for foreign and Jewish influence.

Even the president of France’s main Jewish organization, the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France, called Mr. Jacob’s comments “a very great clumsiness.” The group’s leader, Richard Prasquier, said that as a farmer, Mr. Jacob may have “a particular feeling for the soil,” but that it was not “an essential criterion for leading the nation.” He added that he hoped “the political debate will become more elevated.”

Pierre Moscovici, an ally of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, was blunter. “The attack resembles a little the rhetoric of the far right between the two world wars,” Mr. Moscovici said. “There is something unhealthy here,” he said, and while Mr. Jacob “is not a bad guy, I ask him to pull back his statement and change his song.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Jacob denied any anti-Semitic feeling, saying that “as a farmer, I can’t recognize myself or identify with him.”

“He doesn’t incarnate the rural world, that’s all,” he continued. “I reacted with my peasant core, as a farmer.”

Of course Mr. Sarkozy is also seen as an urban figure, a lawyer with no roots in rural France, and, although Roman Catholic, of Jewish ancestry on his mother’s side.

The right’s reaction was perceived as a shot across the bow of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who has also had a reputation for womanizing, and had to admit to an affair with an economist at the fund, who later left. He was cleared of harassment or abuse of power, but was criticized by the board in 2008 for “a serious error of judgment.”

More sordid details of Strauss-Kahn’s present predicament can be found in Top French politician, International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn held investigation of sodomy charge – NYPOST.com:

The married Strauss-Kahn was in his bathroom, said sources. He emerged naked, grabbed her and “he jumps her,” a source said.

Then, Strauss-Kahn allegedly threw the housekeeper on the room’s bed and forced her to perform oral sex on him, said the sources.

The maid managed to break free and ran to a hotel worker to tell what happened, said a source. Soon afterward, Strauss-Kahn got dressed and headed off to Kennedy Airport for his flight to Paris.

When he was approached on the plane by Port Authority cops, he said, “What is this about?” sources said. He was then taken off without handcuffs.

Two law enforcement sources said Strauss-Kahn was trying to flee the US. Police said he left his cellphone and other personal items in the room.

A high-profile jew accused of a sex crime tries to flee to France? I’ve seen this movie before.

Based on the outrageous defense of Roman Polanski we can expect to see some familiar patterns emerge as this controversy develops:

– The mainstream media and blogosphere will quickly offer a number of op-eds in defense of Strauss-Kahn.

– A few pundits, especially jews, will make the most outrageous arguments, twisting facts and logic to excuse Strauss-Kahn and blame others.

– Strauss-Kahn’s jewishness will be part of the defense, insinuations will be made that he is persecuted because he’s jewish.

– Few mainstream pundits will openly condemn Strauss-Kahn, but reader responses to the defenders will lean against him, based on the expectation that he be prosecuted like anyone else would.

– As this public opinion becomes obvious and a direct defense of Strauss-Kahn becomes more obviously at odds with it narratives will be offerred which shift blame elsewhere – to the victim, “Puritans”, “Americans”, or some other scapegoat.

Like Polanski, Strauss-Kahn is rich and famous. Unlike Polanski, Strauss-Kahn wields substantial political power. His friends won’t need to petition the government for his release. His friends are the government. Thus he could very well be cleared and released more quickly and with less media fanfare than Polanski was. On the other hand Strauss-Kahn doesn’t need to be extradicted. The crime he’s accused of is fresh, not decades old. His accuser has not recanted. Yet.

Can he claim diplomatic immunity?

As a last resort, if the accuser can’t be discredited or bought off and the government won’t just spring him, Strauss-Kahn might indulge the public and the court, get convicted, and then escape justice by absconding to France.

Blog

Tag Teaming Media Ownership

1 Comment

Newsweek Losses Revealed – The Daily Beast, 3 Aug 2010:

Yesterday’s purchase of a 77-year-old magazine, Newsweek, by a 91-year-old audio magnate, Sidney Harman, had all the makings of a feel-good story, even as editor Jon Meacham announced his departure. A venerable media franchise rescued from an uncertain future by someone who loves the printed word—Harman is the author of two books and has said that writing “enables the process of self-discovery”—and considers Newsweek a “national treasure.”

But make no mistake, Harman’s pocket change purchase of Newsweek—he paid $1, plus the assumption of liabilities for the magazine—has to be a passion play, because it certainly isn’t a financial one. The Daily Beast has obtained a copy of the 66-page sales memorandum that the Newsweek seller, the Washington Post Co., gave to prospective buyers, and it paints a picture of a media property given to someone unequipped to fundamentally change the current trajectory.

As with many weeklies, Newsweek’s financial freefall is jarring. Revenue dropped 38 percent between 2007 and 2009, to $165 million. Newsweek’s negligible operating loss (not including certain pension and early retirement changes) of $3 million in 2007 turned into a bloodbath: the business lost $32 million in 2008 and $39.5 million in 2009. Even after reducing headcount by 33 percent, and slashing the number of issues printed and distributed to readers each week, from 2.6 million to 1.5 million, the 2010 operating loss is still forecast at $20 million.

In fairness to Harman, many moguls, from Si Newhouse (The New Yorker) to David Bradley (The Atlantic) have had the patience to see their money-losing gems all the way into the black. But the print media outlook has never been worse—and even billionaires tire of losing money. For every Newhouse and Bradley, there are currently two Sam Zells, who had employees of the Tribune Company rejoicing about their good fortune in finding a benefactor willing to sustain millions of dollars in losses to protect journalism’s standing as a public trust.

Not unlike Harman, Zell, too, promised minimal layoffs and a commitment to finding a business model that worked, Zell’s tune quickly changed after realizing the realities of today’s printed media world, however, and multiple rounds of layoffs and an eventual bankruptcy proceeding are the legacy his Tribune purchase left behind.

Those are the kind of realities that prompted Fred Drasner, the former CEO of Daily News and US News and World Report who also bid on Newsweek, to sum up Harman’s $1 acquisition this way: “I think he paid a very full price.”

Sidney Harman buys Newsweek – POLITICO.com, 2 Aug 2010:

Graham personally chose Harman from among several well-heeled bidders, in part because he would provide the most continuity for the magazine, according to the sources.

The other two finalists were New Yorkers: Marc Lasry, an influential Democratic donor who heads Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund where Chelsea Clinton worked; and Fred Drasner, former part owner of the Washington Redskins and former co-publisher of the New York Daily News.

Graham felt comfortable with Harman’s centrist politics, and was comforted by the idea of selling to a stalwart of the Washington establishment. Harman is expected to preserve the serious-minded, essentially New-Democratic tone Meacham set for the magazine.

From this friendly spin you’d think all these cold calculators want to own businesses that lose tens of millions annually because they’re soft-headed “philanthropists” who just love “journalism”, not because they’ve coldly calculated that media outlets provide them a political megaphone with which to tell the masses how and what to think.

Democracy is the theory that you have as much power and influence as plutocratic moguls like Harman, Newhouse, Bradley, Zell, Drasner, Lasry, …

The Washington Post Company Agrees to Sell NEWSWEEK to Sidney Harman – Newsweek, 2 Aug 2010:

Asked why he wanted to purchase NEWSWEEK, Harman, in a brief interview, said he saw it as an “opportunity to synthesize all of that experience [in industry, education, and government]. I couldn’t pass it up.”

He added, “I did not and do not think of this in traditional business terms. The purpose of the investment is to provide fuel for the transition of the magazine in its current position into a thriving operation in the print, mobile, and digital worlds … I’ll consider it a victory when it breaks even. Breaking even is a big deal.”

Harman’s wife, Jane Harman, is a member of Congress representing California’s 36th Congressional district in Los Angeles’s South Bay area, since 1993. She is chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk Assessment, and is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where she sits on the Health and Energy & Environment Subcommittees.

CQ Politics | Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Discussing Aid for AIPAC Defendants, 19 April 2009:

Rep. Jane Harman , a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“It’s the deepest kind of corruption,” said one of the sources, a recently retired law enforcement official who was involved in the AIPAC investigation. “It’s a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption.”

Spy Story: Harman, Saban, and AIPAC | The Nation, 20 April 2009:

Who was Harman talking to when she was caught on tape by the NSA? Stein says she was speaking to a suspected “Israeli agent.” The Jewish Telegraph Agency suggests — as did earlier reports, in 2006, when the story first broke — that the person lobbying Harman to intervene in the AIPAC case was Haim Saban, a top Democratic fundraiser:

Similar reports surfaced in October 2006, just prior to the midterm elections. Those reports named the Israeli “agent” as Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment magnate who is a major donor to the Democratic Party and to AIPAC.

Federal prosecutors eventually abandoned the espionage-law case against AIPACers Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. The non-jew involved, Lawrence Franklin, got 12 years.

Who Rules America?

Blog

Madoff and Friends

1 Comment

The Madoff Circle: Who Knew What?, by Jake Bernstein, ProPublica:

What these men undeniably shared were similar backgrounds and interests. Based largely in New York and South Florida, they moved through parallel milieus of affluent Jewish country clubs and synagogues. They were active in similar philanthropies and served on the boards of foundations, universities and yeshivas.

The cast of characters, spelled out mostly in complaints filed by the trustee and the SEC, includes: Carl Shapiro,, 97, a Boston-based philanthropist who made one fortune in ladies dresses and a larger one with Madoff; Robert Jaffe, 66, Shapiro’s son-in-law; Maurice “Sonny” Cohn, 79, a onetime Madoff neighbor turned business partner; Stanley Chais, 83, a close friend of Madoff’s for more than 50 years and one of his earliest investors; and Jeffry Picower, a lawyer and accountant, who recently died of a heart attack at 67.

None of these men has been charged criminally. Thus far, federal authorities have indicated in court filings that just one of them – Chais – is the subject of a criminal inquiry. A year ago, The Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan was investigating at least eight investors, including Picower, Chais and Shapiro.

All have denied being anything but victims of Madoff’s.

Chais, Cohn and Jaffe have drawn considerable ire from investors for running so-called feeder funds that channeled huge sums into Madoff’s investment business. Jaffe alone funneled more than $1 billion of investor money to Madoff, according to the SEC. He worked with Cohn in a business called Cohmad – a contraction of Cohn and Madoff – that operated out of Madoff’s offices. Contrary to what some investors in the funds believed, it appears the men did little to manage the money beyond simply collecting it for delivery to Madoff.

Members of this circle not only did far better than other investors, who averaged 10 percent to 12 percent returns annually, they also had a highly unusual level of input into the nature of their returns.

Bernie Madoff
His scheme is alleged to have been helped by wealthy investors who “knew or willfully ignored” signs that it was a fraud.
Jeffry Picower, 67
This lawyer, accountant, and noted philanthropist is alleged to have reaped the most from Madoff’s scheme – $7.2 billion. He died recently of a heart attack.
Carl Shapiro, 97
A Boston-based philanthropist who made a fortune in ladies fashion and allegedly as much as $1 billion from Madoff.
Stanley Chais, 83
A close Madoff friend for more than 50 years. He and his family are alleged to have withdrawn approximately $200 million more than they invested with Madoff.
Robert Jaffe, 66
Shapiro’s son-in-law is believed to have funneled more than $1 billion of investor money to Madoff.
Maurice Cohn, 79
Madoff’s former neighbor and business partner, he worked with Jaffe at a business called Cohmad, which allegedly did little else for investors beyond sending money to Madoff.

Blog

The Importance of Growth to an Increasingly Jewish Plutocracy

33 Comments

I ran into an interesting statement in the February issue of Wired that neatly captures the essence of the plutocracy’s current dilemma. The statement came from Peter Thiel – “billionaire”, “staunch libertarian”, and “VC philanthropist” – in Utopian Pessimist Calls on Radical Tech to Save Economy:

Wired: What happens if we don’t get the growth everyone expects?

Thiel: If it doesn’t happen, people will go bankrupt in retirement. There are systemic consequences, too. If we don’t have enough growth, we will see a powerful shift away from capitalism. There are good things and bad things about capitalism, but inequality becomes completely intolerable to society when everything’s static.

“The economy”, such as it is today, is essentially a pyramid scheme. Its “health” hinges entirely on growth. More people, more consumption, more loans, more interest, and more profits, especially for those on top. The plutocrats fear that if the growth ever stops, or even pauses for any length of time, the jig is up.

Is Thiel, like so many other “philanthropist” plutocrats, jewish?

He’s hated for supporting NumbersUSA and has written a book criticizing multiculturalism, two things rather untypical of jews.

With friends like these … Tom Hodgkinson on the politics of the people behind Facebook, 14 January 2008:

But Thiel is more than just a clever and avaricious capitalist. He is a futurist philosopher and neocon activist. A philosophy graduate from Stanford, in 1998 he co-wrote a book called The Diversity Myth, which is a detailed attack on liberalism and the multiculturalist ideology that dominated Stanford. He claimed that the “multiculture” led to a lessening of individual freedoms. While a student at Stanford, Thiel founded a rightwing journal, still up and running, called The Stanford Review – motto: Fiat Lux (“Let there be light”). Thiel is a member of TheVanguard.Org, an internet-based neoconservative pressure group that was set up to attack MoveOn.org, a liberal pressure group that works on the web. Thiel calls himself “way libertarian”.

Thiel says that PayPal was motivated by this belief: that you can find value not in real manufactured objects, but in the relations between human beings. PayPal was a way of moving money around the world with no restriction. Bloomberg Markets puts it like this: “For Thiel, PayPal was all about freedom: it would enable people to skirt currency controls and move money around the globe.”

Thiel is #377 on the 2009 Forbes 400, but he isn’t counted as jewish (“either personally or in their giving”) by Jacob Berkman in Jewish Philanthropy Navigates The Economy’s Rough Seas.

The authors of Jews On The Internet and The Jewish hand behind Internet come from polar opposite views on jewish influence, but they both agree Thiel is a jew.

George Soros, another plutocrat who definitely is a jew, was quoted in the news today offering his underling in the White House some public advice.

Davos Soros: Obama reform plan not tough enough – Times Online:

Mr Soros told delegates: “To tax the banks when they are doing everything they can to get out of a hole is the exact opposite of the policy you are trying to pursue…This development came too soon because the banks are not out of the woods.”

Mr Soros also said governments around the world needed to continue spending, even if they had sizeable budget deficits, to avoid the risk of a double dip recession.

What Soros is saying is: tax and indebt the masses, not the plutocrats.

Other bankers expressed concern over “stifling growth”.

As Hunter Wallace put it:

Democracy: the theory that you have as much power and influence as George Soros.

You could say the same about any plutocrat. But the power and influence of Thiel, Soros, David Gelbaum, and other jewish plutocrats is compounded by its tribally-networked nature. What comes through clearly in the Berkman article is the “supremacism” with which jews view their collective power, and the unapologetically “racist” way in which they direct so much of their “philanthropy” to fellow jews. What should make this situation troubling for any White, rich or poor, is that jews do it under the aegis of a regime which favors and defends jews and jewish interests even as it directs fear and hatred toward Whites.

Where are the mainstream media’s fierce critics, the speakers of truth to power? Like the figureheads in our illegitimate government they’ll bash powerless White “teabaggers” with glee, but they’re afraid to question their jewish overlords.

Blog

Why The Sierra Club Favors Genocidal Immigration

10 Comments

It honors the memory of a jewish mega-donor’s grandparents.

This is an old story that isn’t as widely known as it deserves to be. Brenda Walker touched on it recently in The Van Jones Fiasco—How Low Can Lefty Greens Go?

The Man Behind The Land:

David Gelbaum has shunned publicity while giving millions to preserve California wilderness and teach youths about nature.
By Kenneth R. Weiss
Times Staff Writer

October 27, 2004

He has given more money to conservation causes in California than anyone else. His gifts have helped protect 1,179 square miles of mountain and desert landscapes, an area the size of Yosemite National Park.

His donations to wilderness education programs have made it possible for 437,000 inner-city schoolchildren to visit the mountains, the desert or the beach often for the first time.

Over a decade of steadily growing contributions including more than $100 million to the Sierra Club this mathematician turned financial angel has taken great pains to remain anonymous.

I used to live in California. It was nice, until it started turning into Mexico.

“I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

Gelbaum said he was a substantial donor at the time but not yet the club’s largest benefactor. Immigration arose as an issue in 1994 because Proposition 187, which threatened to deny public education and health care to illegal immigrants, was on the state’s ballot.

He said he was so upset by the idea of “pulling kids out of school” that he donated more than $180,000 to the campaign to oppose Proposition 187. After the measure passed, he said, he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to civil rights lawyers who ultimately got the measure struck down in court.

Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

“I asked, ‘Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?’ ” Gelbaum said. “Abe didn’t speak English that well. He said, ‘I came here. How can I tell them not to come?’

“I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.”

My entire extended family and most everyone I knew voted for Prop 187. It was one of the few times in my life that the government showed any interest in the citizenry’s opinion about immigration. I didn’t realize until more than 10 years later that our democracy is actually a cryptic form of plutocracy, and the plutocrats want genocidal levels of immigration.

Prop 187 passed and the voters went about their business, thinking the matter resolved. Then a judge killed it, though most of us didn’t hear about that, because the media supports genocidal immigration too.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote about it in Throw out-of-control Judge Pfaelzer off the bench, Apr 24, 1998:

Judges are so out of control today that a single federal judge thinks nothing about casting aside popular referendums passed by the votes of millions of citizens and imposing outcomes that are the opposite of what was voted.

The latest example is U.S. district judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who declared on March 13 that California citizens must tax themselves to meet the needs of illegal aliens. Pfaelzer, it seems, is under the influence of University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum, who teaches that the concept of national citizenship is too exclusive and “morally dangerous.” Justice and equality, she claims, require “allegiance to the worldwide community of human beings.”

Californians think not, but who are they to matter? Pfaelzer has thrown out California’s Proposition 187, which restricted illegal aliens from living off taxpayers.

Fast forward a decade or so and California has been bankrupted by immigration, its White population deliberately displaced and dispossessed by “diversity”. So what’s on the Sierra Club’s agenda now?

Sierra Club Insider: Yep, We’re Too White, July 28, 2009:

“We are proud that Sierra Club has successful diversity programs already established,” said the Sierra Club President Allison Chin. “Now, with the leadership of a diversity council and my election as our first Asian-American president, the Sierra Club is committed to becoming an even more welcoming and inclusive organization.”

Judging by their reaction, White members did not feel either welcomed or included. Unfortunately for them, the Sierra Club has more than 100 million reasons not to care.

Two reactions where the sense of betrayal comes through crystal clear:

Immigrants typically come to the US with 3rd world birthrates and 1st world appetites — the WORST POSSIBLE COMBINATION from an ecological standpoint.

I’m white and I got a vasectomy and had no kids, because long ago I realized the Earth didn’t need more humans. This was a good-faith decision on my part.

How do open borders advocates respond when I tell them that? Almost inevitably I am mocked, often times with semi-literate obscenities and mindless machismo bluster. It doesn’t make me feel like grovelling for their approval, I’ll tell you that.

Posted by: Pat Kittle | August 21, 2009 at 06:23 PM

Yes, I remember during the 60s/70s, there was that jerk, Paul Ehrlich who talked about having “0 Population growth.” Our generation even had propaganda movies like: Soylent Green, Roller Ball, Logan’s Run and a couple of Star Trek episodes to drive the point home.

Since I was a kid at the time being indoctrinated with this BS, I didn’t realize that Kennedy passed the 1965 Immigration Bill NOR did I know about La Raza, MEChA and other groups that were teaching about AZTLAN/ANAHUAC and they planned to outbreed us to reclaim lost Mexican Territory the AZTLAN plan or in the ANAHUAC case to reclaim the entire Americas and boot everyone else out.

Now, our grand reward for watching our birth rates for Mother Earth because of Ehrlich’s (Population Bomb) is to be made fun of for “not making babies.”

And the Sierra Club, the Rockefellers (Club of Rome)and other bogus “green” groups continue to look completely the other way when we’re being flooded with immigration (both legal and illegal) to drive down wages, displace our own legal citizens’ jobs and Balkanize our nation.

By the way, immigrants (legal and illegal) also use water and other resources. We can cut back and conserve but that will be entirely negated with continued uncontrolled growth.

Thanks a lot.

Posted by: Roxan | August 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM

What’s happening to California, with the rest of the US not far behind, is not an accident. It’s the result of a deliberate drive to “diversify” White Americans into minority status. Then non-existence. It’s genocide.